LIT REVIEW

Exploring the Effects of Value Diversity on Team Effectiveness

David J. Woehr • Luis M. Arciniega •

Taylor L. Poling

Published online: 2 June 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract

Purpose The goal of the present study was to explore the

potential impact of within-team value diversity with

respect to both team processes and task performance.

Design/Methodology/Approach We explored value

diversity within a comprehensive framework such that all

components of basic human values were examined. A

sample of 306 participants randomly assigned to 60 teams,

performed a complex hands-on task, demanding high

interdependence among team members, and completed

different measures of values and team processes.

Findings Results indicated that value diversity among

team members had no significant impact on task perfor-

mance. However, diversity with respect to several value

dimensions had a significant unique effect on team process

criteria. Results were consistent with respect to the nature

of the impact of value diversity on team process outcomes.

Specifically, the impact of team value diversity was such

that less diversity was positively related to process out-

comes (i.e., more similarity resulted in more team cohesion

and efficacy and less conflict).

Implications The results indicated that disparity among

teammates in many of these values may have important

implications on subsequent team-level phenomena. We

suggest team leaders and facilitators of teambuilding

efforts could consider adding to their agendas a session

with team members to analyze and discuss the combined

value profiles of their team.

Originality/Value This is the first study to highlight the

unique impact of many unexamined, specific components

of team diversity with respect to values on team effec-

tiveness criteria.

Keywords Value diversity � Team diversity � Team processes � Team effectiveness � Team cohesion � Team conflict

Work force diversity has become an increasingly promi-

nent concern in recent years. Many organizations have

moved to incorporate diversity into their business structure

and strategy, hoping for both societal approval and positive

performance dividends (Horwitz 2005). The focus on

workforce diversity taken together with the increased

emphasis on team-based work groups (Applebaum and Batt

1994; Ilgen 1999) has resulted in a surge of interest in the

relationship between team member diversity and overall

team effectiveness (e.g., Bell 2007; Horwitz 2005; Klein

et al. 2011; Mannix and Neale 2005; Mohammed and

Angell 2004; Webber and Donahue 2001; Harrison et al.

1998; Jackson and Rudermann 1997; Milliken and Martins

1996). Although the majority of past research has focused

on demographic, surface-level diversity (e.g., age, race,

gender) (Harrison et al. 1998), the impact of diversity with

respect to deeper, psychological variables (e.g., values,

personality, attitudes, etc.) is likely of greater concern. As

stated by Hollenbeck et al. (2004), ‘‘demographic diversity

is actually less important to team performance than

D. J. Woehr

Management Department, University of North Carolina,

Charlotte, NC, USA

L. M. Arciniega (&) Management Department, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de

México (ITAM) School of Business, Rı́o Hondo 1, Mexico,

D.F. 01080, Mexico

e-mail: [email protected]

T. L. Poling

Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies (JAMRS),

Alexandria, VA, USA

123

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

DOI 10.1007/s10869-012-9267-4

psychological diversity, especially over time’’ (p. 357).

Thus, the goal of the present study is to explore the

potential impact of within team diversity with respect to a

specific set of psychological characteristics, namely values,

on both team processes and task outcomes. It is important

to highlight the lack of studies in this specific line of

research, and more over, the inexistence of a study utilizing

a comprehensive taxonomy of basic values to examine

these relations. This study focuses on filling this gap.

Defining Diversity

Mannix and Neale (2005) note that diversity is a complex

and multifaceted term. It encompasses a variety of differ-

ences among people (e.g., demographic variables, job-

related characteristics, attitudes, values, personality traits,

etc.), and the positive or negative effects of diversity may

be contingent on the variables under investigation as well

as the performance criteria. In a review of the team com-

position literature, Bell (2007) contends that discussing

‘‘diversity’’ without reference to a particular attribute or

variable is meaningless; thus, the specific variable or

family of variables on which team members differ must be

identified before the relationship with team effectiveness

can be examined. In order to provide some conceptual

organization to this multifaceted phenomenon, recent the-

oretical discussions have classified dimensions of diversity

into two general categories: attributes that are demographic

and non-psychological versus attributes that are non-visi-

ble, underlying, and psychological in nature.

Attributes that are non-psychological and easily detect-

able fall under Harrison et al.’s (1998) surface-level

categorization. Typical attributes associated with this cat-

egorization include age, gender, race, and physical dis-

abilities (Mannix and Neale 2005). In contrast, non-

apparent, psychological differences (e.g., cognitive ability,

personality traits, values, beliefs, and attitudes) fall under

the deep-level diversity category (Harrison et al. 1998).

Information on deep-level attributes is acquired via

observation of verbal and non-verbal behavioral patterns

(Harrison et al. 1998). The deep-level label is analogous to

similar descriptors such as ‘‘underlying’’ (Milliken and

Martins 1996), ‘‘less observable’’ (Jackson et al. 1995), and

‘‘psychological’’ (Jackson and Rudermann 1997) used by

other researchers. General values are prominent examples

of Harrison’s deep-level diversity category.

Team diversity in surface-level characteristics has been

the focus of ample research, which taken as a whole has

yielded equivocal results (e.g., Webber and Donahue

2001). However, deep-level diversity may operate dif-

ferently than surface-level diversity. In fact, research

has demonstrated that surface-level diversity does not

necessarily relate to deep-level diversity (Harrison et al.

2002; Horwitz and Horwitz 2007). These findings highlight

the need for the direct investigation of deep-level diversity.

Yet, the research on deep-level diversity to date is under-

developed. Specifically, Bell (2007) demonstrated that of

studies examining deep-level team composition, those

focusing on diversity are few, fragmented, and inconsis-

tent. Bell (2007) also highlighted the dearth of studies on

team member value composition despite the role of values

as behavioral and attitudinal determinants. Tentative find-

ings for only two specific value dimensions (i.e., collec-

tivism and preference for teamwork) were reported, which

were based on data from three and two studies, respec-

tively. Bell (2007) commented that further research is

necessary to assess the impact of other value dimensions on

team performance. We propose that these other dimensions

should include basic human values such as those related to

independent thought and action, stability of self and rela-

tionships, and the welfare of others with whom one is in

constant interaction. Basic values such as these have sig-

nificant implications for interpersonal behavior.

Theoretical Underpinnings of Potential Diversity

Effects

Research on deep-level team diversity in general and value

diversity in particular, has only recently begun to emerge

and is relatively limited (Harrison et al. 2002). However, the

theoretical foundations of this research are longstanding.

There are two primary classes of theories underpinning this

area of study. On the surface, these theories appear to be in

direct opposition, as one advocates a ‘‘pessimistic’’ view of

diversity and the other an ‘‘optimistic’’ view (Mannix and

Neale 2005). In general, the pessimistic view focuses on the

affective and interactional problems caused by diversity;

whereas, the optimistic view posits enhanced creativity,

quality, and innovative task performance that results from

increased access to a variety of perspectives and resources

(Kravitz 2005). Respectively, these views are grounded in

the similarity-attraction/social identity paradigms, and the

information processing/cognitive resource paradigms.

The Pessimistic Perspective

In general, negative expectations regarding the impact of

diversity in team composition stem from the similarity-

attraction paradigm (Byrne 1971; Tziner 1985) and social

identity theory (Tajfel 1978). Social attraction theory posits

that similarity in values, beliefs, and attitudes increases

interpersonal attraction, and when individuals like each

other, their values, beliefs, and attitudes become more

aligned. Together, attraction and similarity reciprocally

108 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

build on one another, facilitating a pull toward symmetry

and an avoidance of the strain produced by dissimilarity

(Rosenbaum 1986; Mannix and Neale 2005). Furthermore,

people tend to categorize themselves relative to similar

others and in an effort to maintain their social identities,

they will demonstrate a bias toward those whom they

believe share similar characteristics (Tajfel and Turner

1986; Turner and Haslam 2001). Byrne’s (1971) early

attraction-similarity research supports the perspective that

individuals are drawn toward others who they think share

similar attitudes to themselves and report that these indi-

viduals are smarter and more well-adjusted than others.

These propositions also underlie Schneider’s (1987) well-

known attraction, selection, attrition (ASA) theory, which

supports the notion that this similarity-attraction process

naturally produces increasingly homogenous work envi-

ronments (Giberson et al. 2005).

Overall, these theories posit that teams with members

who have homogeneous values will more readily identify

with each other. As a result, they will be more cohesive,

facilitating both interaction and subsequent performance.

Teams with heterogeneous values are predicted to be less

cohesive and thus less productive because of the conflicts

and stress that result from the differences in members’

beliefs.

The Optimistic Perspective

Alternately, cognitive resource theory posits the ‘‘value in

diversity’’ hypothesis, which advocates the benefits of the

unique resources that members with diverse attributes

bring to the team (Cox and Blake 1991; Easley 2001). The

underlying assumption here is that diversity in members’

attributes will result in more informed decisions by pro-

moting creativity, innovation, and alternative problem

solving. This information processing perspective suggests

that differences create an opportunity for team members to

share different perspectives and thus examine issues at a

deeper level of analysis (Mannix and Neale 2005). More-

over, different perspectives are predicted to interact syn-

ergistically to create a ‘‘process gain’’ for the group to the

extent that they are able to overcome potential social-

integration problems that may result from their differing

perspectives (Steiner 1972).

Overall, cognitive resource theory posits that diverse

values among teammates will contribute to better team

performance. Members will share information from a

greater variety of perspectives, a practice that leads to

higher quality analysis of tasks, which in turn fosters higher

quality results. Although these two perspectives are often

pitted against one another, they are not necessarily mutu-

ally exclusive. For example, a team with a diverse set of

perspectives may produce high quality task results (e.g.,

more creative solutions), but in the process experience

interpersonal conflict and low cohesion. Moreover, even

supporters of the ‘‘value in diversity’’ hypothesis have

noted that diversity may offer benefits for team outcomes

even as it creates barriers for team interaction processes

(Mannix and Neale 2005). In sum, while these theoretical

perspectives posit different expectations with respect to

value diversity, it is feasible for both perspectives to

operate simultaneously contingent on the value and type of

criterion in question. Even when this approach is theoret-

ically feasible, a recent meta-analysis highlights the lack of

studies combining both perspectives at the same time (Van

Knippenberg and Schippers 2007).

As noted above, the primary goal of the present study is

to explore team member value diversity with respect to an

encompassing taxonomy of basic human values. Our

objective is to dig into the impact of team value diversity

on task performance, and on the following aspects of team

effectiveness: relationship and task conflict, cohesion, and

team efficacy. Below, we begin by presenting a brief

review of previous findings pertaining to value diversity.

Next, we discuss the concept of basic values and present

Schwartz comprehensive model of values. We then briefly

highlight the key team process variables that reflect team

effectiveness and that are likely to be influenced by team

member value diversity. Finally, we consider several

research questions addressed in this study.

Previous Findings on Value Diversity

As noted by Harrison et al. (2002), and more recently by

Bell (2007), relatively little research has examined the

impact of diversity among team members in terms of basic

values on effectiveness (c.f., Fisher et al. 1996; Jehn et al.

1997; Jehn and Mannix 2001; Klein et al. 2011). Among

the few relevant existing studies, there is substantial vari-

ability with respect to both the conceptual and operational

definitions of values as well as the outcomes examined.

One approach has been to measure basic values at the

individual-level using the classic Rokeach Value Survey

(RVS; Rokeach 1979), and then either aggregate members

responses to represent the team level (Rodriguez 1998) or

compute their concordance (Fisher et al. 1996). Regarding

this measure, Rokeach never suggested any a priori struc-

ture for the RVS, and further studies suggest that it does not

cover the full domain of the values construct (e.g., Sch-

wartz 1992). Nonetheless, Fisher and collaborators indi-

cated that teams with more agreement in their ratings

across the set of nine personal value scales, demonstrated

better task performance than those with less concordance.

Though the study presented promising results, it had a

serious limitation: after collecting data from 22 teams of

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 109

123

undergraduate students, 12 teams were dropped due to

inadequate levels of concordance between the members’

values ratings. As a result, the analyses were based on only

ten teams. The other study employing this approach

(Rodriguez 1998), also used a very small sample - 11

teams.

Recently, Klein et al. (2011) demonstrated that team

leader style moderates the relationship between team val-

ues diversity and team conflict. They propose that leaders

who are task-focused, create a strong team setting, with

clear rules and roles, constraining the influence of team

members’ values. Even when the results are relevant, they

analyzed value diversity from a simple framework of two

values: Protestant work ethic (individual tendency to work

hard even in the absence of material rewards) and tradi-

tionalism (commitment and acceptance of the customs and

ideas of traditional cultures or religions). This framework

does not cover relevant aspects of the values domain such

as: power, achievement, altruism, etc.

Another approach used previously has been to measure

organizational values preferences at the individual-level,

and then compare the profiles of team members to assess

value congruence (Jehn 1994). Using this approximation,

Jehn and Mannix (2001) found that team member simi-

larity with respect to work-related values (i.e., similarity

across a set of 54 items related to innovativeness, stability,

detail orientation, outcome orientation, aggressiveness,

supportiveness, reward orientation, team orientation, and

decisiveness) was positively related to task performance.

However, Jehn and collaborators (1997) examined team

member value congruence (defined in terms of a median

split of team consistency scores derived from ratings of the

same work-related values discussed previously) and found

that value congruence was related to perceived perfor-

mance via a negative correlation with relationship conflict;

however, value congruence did not relate to subjective

expert ratings of task performance. Both studies employed

an adapted version of the Organizational Culture Profile

(OCP; O’Reilly et al. 1991). The OCP was developed to

obtain profiles of the cultures of organizations, and to

assess individual preferences for organizational cultures

(O’Reilly et al. 1991, p. 496), but not to measure individual

values.

Finally, there are various studies using cultural-level

values measured at the individual-level (e.g., Eby and

Dobbins 1997; Vodosek 2007). These studies rest on the

assumption that research on cultural diversity can be con-

ducted using individual-level representations of cultural-

level constructs (e.g., Maznevski et al. 2002), since some

aspects of culture are internalized by individuals. For

instance, Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) reported on the

impact of collectivism, power distance, doing orientation,

and determinism on the performance of self-managed work

teams, utilizing an instrument that operationalized two

different models of cultural values (i.e., Hofstede 1991;

Kluckhohn 1951). According to Smith and Schwartz

(1997), this approach is inappropriate. These cross-cultural

scholars argue that the relations between values at the

cultural level reflect the dynamic conflicts of the societies

that exist as a result of the way their institutions pursue

their goals, adding that these relations are not necessarily

the same at the individual-level.

Schwartz Model of Values

Values have generally been referred to as needs, beliefs, or

norms. Values can be best understood as cognitive repre-

sentations of universal needs (Rokeach 1979; Schwartz

1992). These needs are expressed through over-arching

goals that direct behavior across situations, and are ordered

by importance as guiding principles in life (Schwartz et al.

2001). Schwartz (1992) posits that the essence of a value is

the motivational goal it expresses. From this premise,

Schwartz derived ten value types that form a circumplex

structure (see Fig. 1) such that value types that share a

similar general motivational goal are arranged closer

together. Alternately, types representing divergent goals

are arranged more distantly around the circumference of

the model. For instance, power (PO) and achievement (AC)

are two compatible value types sharing the general

SD

UN

BE

CO

TR

SE

PO

AC

HE

ST

Fig. 1 Example value profiles of the members of a team. SD self- direction, UN universalism, BE benevolence, CO conformity, TR tradition, SE security, PO power, AC achievement, HE hedonism, ST stimulation

110 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

motivational goal of enhancing personal status, even at the

expenses of others. Conversely, power (PO) and univer-

salism (UN) are two conflicting values; the motivational

goal of power is enhancing personal interests, whereas the

motivational goal of universalism is promoting the welfare

of others. The pattern of compatibilities and incompati-

bilities between value types is based on the premise that

actions taken in the pursuit of each type have both psy-

chological and behavioral consequences, which may be

compatible or in conflict with the goals derived from other

values. The Appendix provides a brief description of the

ten value types (for a full description of these values see

Schwartz 1992). It is important to highlight that a recent

meta-analysis has validated this circumplex structure in

more than seventy countries (Steinmetz et al. 2012)

Team member diversity in values is represented by the

disparity in the importance assigned by each team member

to each value type. The more the variability in the impor-

tance assigned by the members of the team to each value

type, the greater the level of diversity across team mem-

bers. Figure 1 shows this idea schematically. Each radius

represents one of ten value types, and each irregular

decagon, the profile of a team member. The lower the

importance a team member assigns to a specific value, the

closer the point associated with that individual’s profile

will be to the center on the respective value radius. The

degree of spread among the points on a given value radius

represents the degree of team diversity on that value. For

instance, in the case of the radius of benevolence (BE), the

variance among the four value profiles is low compared to

the variance on the radius for achievement (AC). Given the

contradictory nature across the motivational goals under-

lying opposing values, it is inappropriate to compute an

overall ‘‘values’’ score. Moreover, the configuration

approach (Moynihan and Peterson 2001) argues that whe-

ther homogeneity or heterogeneity regarding deep-level

attributes is preferable depends on the specific value or trait

in question. Consistent with these propositions, diversity

should be examined separately with respect to each of the

ten values. Given the predominant role of values with

respect to attitudes and subsequent behavior, team member

value diversity is likely to be a key factor for both process

and outcome measures of team effectiveness.

Team Effectiveness

The evaluation of teams encompasses a variety of com-

ponents. Many theories have addressed the multifaceted

nature of team effectiveness (e.g., Shea and Guzzo 1987;

Gladstein 1984; Hackman 1987). According to Hackman

(1987), group effectiveness can be defined in terms of three

criteria. First, the final outputs produced by the team must

meet or exceed the standards set by key constituents within

the organization. Second, the internal social processes

operating as the team interacts should enhance, or at least

maintain, the group’s ability to work together in the future.

Finally, the experience of working in the team environment

should act to satisfy rather than aggravate the personal

needs of team members. In order to address these criteria,

team effectiveness evaluation should include both a mea-

sure of the teams’ final task performance as well as criteria

with which to assess intragroup process. The current paper

explores task performance and prominent team process

criteria. The three major intragroup process constructs

examined are: intra-group conflict, team cohesion, and

team-efficacy.

Intra-group conflict has emerged as an integral team

process variable. Previous research has differentiated two

components of intra-group conflict: relationship conflict and

task conflict. Jehn (1994) describes relationship conflict as

interpersonal incompatibilities between team members such

as annoyance and animosity. Task conflict occurs when

members convey divergent ideas and opinions about specific

aspects related to task accomplishment (Jehn 1994).

Research to date indicates that relationship conflict is largely

detrimental to team performance (e.g., Evan 1965; Baron

1991; van Woerkom and van Engen 2009; Vodosek 2007).

The impact of task conflict is less clear. While it has been

argued that task conflict facilitates enhanced performance

via thorough task analysis (e.g., Amason and Schweiger

1994), empirical evidence is equivocal. Some research has

found positive relationships between task conflict and novel

idea generation and strategic planning (Baron 1991; Amason

1996), but others have shown task conflict may hinder goal

accomplishment and implementation (Amason 1996;

Vodosek 2007). In a direct investigation of task conflict,

Jehn (1994) found only a small amount of task conflict was

beneficial, after which team performance began to deterio-

rate, and a meta-analysis demonstrated a negative relation-

ship between task conflict and team satisfaction and

performance (De Dreu and Weingart 2003). Nonetheless,

both types of conflict have proven to be significant correlates

of a variety of team effectiveness criteria.

Team cohesion is another important process variable

(Chiocchio and Essiembre 2009; Swezey and Salas 1992).

While a multitude of definitions and measures have been

offered (Mullen and Copper 1994), basically, cohesion is

viewed as ‘‘a general indicator of synergistic group

interaction—or process’’ (Barrick et al. 1998, p. 382).

Meta-analyses have revealed significant team cohesion-

performance effects (Beal et al. 2003; Mullen and Copper

1994). Furthermore, cohesion has been linked to greater

coordination during team-tasks (Morgan and Lassiter 1992)

as well as improved satisfaction, productivity, and group

interactions (Bettenhausen 1991).

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 111

123

Finally, team efficacy is another important team process

construct. Team efficacy refers to team members’ percep-

tions of task-specific team competence (Gibson 1999). This

construct is thought to create a sense of confidence within

the team that enables the group to persevere when faced

with hardship (Gully et al. 2002). Several researchers have

related team efficacy to aspects of team effectiveness (e.g.,

Campion et al. 1993; Gibson 1999; Gibson et al. 2000),

and a meta-analysis demonstrated that the relationship

between team efficacy and performance was greater than

that between cohesion and performance (Gully et al. 2002).

Present Study

Our review of both the extant research as well as the

theoretical underpinnings highlights several limitations in

the literature to date. Specifically, the few studies exam-

ining diversity with respect to team member values has

largely focused on congruence across a set of context

specific values as opposed to a comprehensive set of more

broadly defined values such as that posited by Schwartz.

To date, no study has examined team member diversity

with respect to the full domain of values on both process

and performance criteria. Moreover, the literature offers

little guidance as to whether value diversity will lead to

positive or negative effects with respect to team processes

and outcomes, or to what extent these effects will be

contingent on the specific value dimensions examined.

Finally, while the literature examining the impact of sur-

face-level diversity has capitalized on the fact that these

characteristics are readily observable and therefore likely

to have immediate effects on team outcomes. It has been

argued, however, that diversity with respect to deep-level

characteristics such as values may take longer to manifest

itself with respect to team outcomes (e.g., Harrison et al.

1998). Therefore, it is not at all clear as to whether there

will be effects of value diversity in short-term novel

teams.

Thus, our goal in the present study is to explore the

relationship between values diversity and team effective-

ness. We provide a preliminary investigation of the impact

of basic values, on both process and task performance

aspects of team effectiveness. Toward this end, we seek to

address two research questions. Specifically:

(1) To what extent does diversity across team members

with respect to basic values impact team process and

outcome variables in a short-term team task with

novel teams?

(2) Will the impact of team member value diversity be

consistent with the optimistic or pessimistic views of

team diversity?

Method

Participants

Three hundred and six undergraduate college students at a

large U.S. southeastern university participated in the

present study. Participants were randomly assigned to

mixed gender teams of 4–6 (M = 4.6; mode = 5) resulting

in 60 teams. Participants were 43 % (134) male, and 78 %

(237) white. The mean age of participants was 22 years,

and the ages ranged from 19 to 38 years (SD = 2.32).

Task

The task was a complex team-based exercise called the

Chinese Bridge (Arciniega and Castañón 2002). The task is

a relatively difficult one requiring both the design and

building of a complex structure. Specifically, the task

requires each team to design and build a replica of a real

bridge, using 33 plastic pipes of three different sizes and 20

rubber bands (with instructions that all of the materials

must be used in the bridge). The task is designed such that,

given the material available, there is one optimal solution.

In addition, the task is designed so that even if a team were

given specific plans for the bridge, multiple people working

together are required to actually build the structure (e.g.,

one must hold pieces while another connects them, etc.).

Thus, successful completion requires team members to

work interdependently. This type of simulation could be

categorized as a high interdependence task, since team

members collectively work together to complete the task

while sharing information and resources (Horwitz and

Horwitz 2007). Based on a recent review of the literature

(Joshi and Roh 2008), these contextual factors combining

task interdependence and complexity, promote a scenario

where deep-level team diversity variables really emerge.

The simulation consists of four phases: (a) a multimedia

presentation describing the task and presenting a picture of

the real bridge; (b) a 20-min period for team members to

familiarize themselves with the materials; (c) a 30-min

period to sketch a proposed design of the bridge; and

(d) the building phase lasting approximately 60 min.

Measures

Values

Values were assessed using the Portrait Values Question-

naire (PVQ; Schwartz et al. 2001). The 40-item PVQ

measures the ten value types proposed by Schwartz (1992).

These values as measured by the PVQ are defined in the

Appendix. The scale includes short verbal portraits of

hypothetical individuals (e.g., Thinking up new ideas and

112 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his

own original way). Respondents are asked to rate the extent

to which they agreed with each item on a scale from 1 (not

like me at all) to 6 (very much like me). The PVQ has been

used in several studies, in more than 60 countries, and has

been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of personal

values (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz et al. 2001). The average

alpha across these ten dimensions was .68 (SD = .08).

Here, it is important to note that previous studies utilizing

the PVQ during the last decade have tended to report rel-

atively low reliability estimates (particularly estimates of

internal consistency) for many of the value dimensions

(e.g., Aitken-Schermer et al. 2008; Fotopoulos et al. 2011;

Liem et al. 2011; Schwartz et al. 2001). Schwartz justifies

the low reliability of some of the value scales based on the

fact that many of these, have conceptually broad defini-

tions, assessing multiple components, rather than narrowly

defined constructs (Schwartz et al. 2001, pp. 531–532).

Consistent with this perspective, previous studies have

found clear effects between the value types and a plethora

of psychological variables under study despite relatively

low reliability estimates. Nonetheless, the tradition scale

demonstrated a particularly low alpha (.54) in the present

study; thus, it was not included in further analyses.

Task and Relationship Conflict

Conflict was measured using Jehn’s Intragroup Conflict

Scale (ICS; 1994). The scale contains four items related to

the task conflict dimension (e.g., There are differences of

opinion regarding the task in my work group), and four

items related to the relationship conflict dimension (e.g.,

There are personality clashes present in my work group).

Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they

agreed with each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree). Alphas for these scales were .85 (task

conflict) and .87 (relationship conflict).

Cohesion

Cohesion was measured using two items from Podsakoff and

MacKenzie’s (1994) Substitutes for Leadership Scale and

four items from Zaccaro (1991). Each of the 6 items consists

of a short statement regarding the cohesion of the individ-

ual’s team (e.g., I generally get along well with my fellow

group members). Respondents are asked to rate the extent to

which they agreed with each item on a scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Alpha for the scale was .75.

Team Efficacy

Team-efficacy was assessed with a 2-item scale con-

structed specifically for this study (e.g., My team works as

an effective unit and My team has an effective plan for

completing the bridge task). Respondents rated the extent

to which they agreed with each item using a 7-point scale

from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Alpha for

this scale was .73.

Team Task Performance

Task performance was measured as the extent to which a

team was able to complete the task and the quality of the

finished product (i.e., the bridge replica). Following com-

pletion of the task, a photograph was taken of each team’s

bridge. Next, each photograph was evaluated by a group of

5 raters familiar with the task. Ratings were made on a

5-point scale from 1 (non-standing structure) to 5 (arched

bridge with 5 cross pieces and perfect joints). After each

member of the research group provided their initial rating,

the entire group came to consensus on a single rating for

the bridge (mean level of agreement in the initial ratings

across raters was 88 %). The consensus rating was used as

the measure of team performance.

Procedure

All participants completed the values measures during the

week preceding their participation in the bridge task. On

the day of the simulation, all participants first viewed the

task overview presentation as a group and then were bro-

ken up into their teams and assigned to separate team

rooms to complete the task. Teams completed each phase

of the bridge task, and then each participant individually

completed the team process measures.

Results

All analyses were conducted at the team-level. To assess

diversity, the variance across team members for each of the

ten value scales was computed (e.g., Barrick et al. 1998;

Mohammed and Angell 2003; Neuman et al. 1999).

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the compo-

sition of team value types are shown in Table 1. Statistics

are presented for the team-level for mean composition of

values (control variables) and the average degree of within-

team variance in each value (diversity variables). Alpha

values for each value scale are also presented in Table 1.

Team process was assessed as the aggregate (mean) score

across team members on each of the process measures (task

and relationship conflict, cohesion, and team efficacy).

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the team

process criterion variables are presented in Table 2.

Here, it is important to note that the use of these

aggregated variables as indicators of team level processes

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 113

123

T a

b le

1 D

e sc

ri p

ti v

e st

a ti

st ic

s &

in te

rc o

rr e la

ti o

n s

fo r

te a m

le v

e l

m e a n

s &

te a m

le v

e l

v a ri

a n

c e s

in v

a lu

e v

a ri

a b

le s

M S

D 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

T e a

m m

e a

n

1 .

B e n

e v

o le

n c e

4 .6

7 .3

3 (.

6 6

)

2 .

U n

iv e rs

a li

sm 4

.1 6

.4 3

.5 0

(. 7

9 )

3 .

S e lf

-d ir

e c ti

o n

4 .5

3 .3

7 .2

6 .1

9 (.

6 4

)

4 .

S ti

m u

la ti

o n

4 .2

0 .4

8 .3

7 .3

3 .6

1 (.

6 9

)

5 .

H e d

o n

is m

4 .5

9 .4

8 .5

1 .1

6 .5

6 .6

5 (.

7 4

)

6 .

A c h

ie v

e m

e n

t 4

.6 1

.4 5

.2 8

.0 6

.5 5

.6 6

.6 5

(. 8

0 )

7 .

P o

w e r

3 .6

1 .5

1 .0

4 -

.1 1

.4 5

.4 0

.4 7

.5 9

(. 6

6 )

8 .

S e c u

ri ty

4 .3

5 .4

2 .3

9 .2

9 .4

3 .3

5 .4

7 .4

1 .2

1 (.

6 1

)

9 .

C o

n fo

rm it

y 4

.3 1

.4 1

.3 8

.3 0

.1 0

.2 0

.2 7

.3 0

.1 1

.4 8

(. 6

5 )

T e a

m v a

ri a

n c e

1 0

. B

e n

e v

o le

n c e

.5 0

.5 9

- .2

9 -

.2 6

- .2

0 -

.2 2

- .3

3 -

.0 6

- .0

3 -

.3 6

- .3

5

1 1

. U

n iv

e rs

a li

sm .6

5 .6

6 -

.0 4

- .0

9 .0

0 -

.0 3

- .0

4 .1

5 .1

0 -

.2 0

- .2

8 .6

2

1 2

. S

e lf

-d ir

e c ti

o n

.5 2

.5 7

- .2

6 -

.1 6

- .3

1 -

.2 4

- .3

8 -

.0 6

- .0

5 -

.3 1

- .1

5 .6

0 .6

1

1 3

. S

ti m

u la

ti o

n .8

7 .5

2 .1

0 -

.0 7

- .0

4 -

.1 4

.0 4

.0 3

- .1

2 .1

2 -

.2 1

.2 6

.3 4

.4 0

1 4

. H

e d

o n

is m

.6 9

.7 6

- .2

0 -

.0 8

- .0

1 -

.1 0

- .3

3 -

.0 5

- .0

1 -

.1 6

- .3

8 .7

2 .6

2 .5

9 .4

7

1 5

. A

c h

ie v

e m

e n

t .8

5 .9

3 -

.0 1

.0 7

- .3

0 -

.3 8

- .4

2 -

.4 1

- .2

4 -

.2 1

- .3

1 .5

0 .3

7 .4

1 .2

5 .6

3

1 6

. P

o w

e r

.9 6

.8 1

.0 0

.0 4

- .0

1 -

.1 3

- .0

2 .0

0 .1

3 .1

5 .0

4 .2

5 .2

1 .2

4 .1

4 .3

0 .4

1

1 7

. S

e c u

ri ty

.5 3

.5 3

- .2

7 -

.0 6

- .1

3 -

.1 0

- .2

9 -

.1 3

.0 4

- .5

1 -

.2 9

.4 8

.3 7

.4 0

.0 7

.4 6

.3 8

.2 0

1 8

. C

o n

fo rm

it y

.7 1

.8 4

- .1

0 .0

5 -

.1 5

- .1

8 -

.2 8

- .1

8 -

.2 9

- .3

3 -

.4 5

.5 9

.4 7

.5 2

.5 1

.5 9

.5 3

.1 7

.4 8

N o

te .

‘T e a m

M e a n

’ st

a ti

st ic

s re

p re

se n

ts th

e a v

e ra

g e

v a ri

a b

le sc

o re

a m

o n

g te

a m

m e m

b e rs

a c ro

ss te

a m

s fo

r e a c h

v a lu

e .

‘T e a m

V a ri

a n

c e ’

st a ti

st ic

s re

p re

se n

t th

e a v

e ra

g e

a m

o u

n t

o f

v a ri

a n

c e

in

e a c h

v a ri

a b

le a m

o n

g te

a m

m e m

b e rs

a c ro

ss a ll

te a m

s. N

= 6

0 .

S c a le

le v

e l

a lp

h a s

a re

li st

e d

in th

e p

a re

n th

e se

s

114 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

requires sufficient agreement across team members to

warrant aggregation (James 1982; James et al. 1984). Thus,

before aggregating, we examined the level of agreement

across team members. To assess interrater reliability, we

calculated intraclass correlations coefficients (ICCs) where

ICC = (MSbetween - MSwithin)/MSbetween (Shrout and Fle-

iss 1979). The ICC estimates across all teammates were .62

for team efficacy, .77 for team cohesion, .78 for role con-

flict, and .85 for task conflict. Landis and Koch (1977)

suggest that interrater reliabilities above .61 should be

considered substantial level of agreement. Nonetheless,

recent research indicates that ICC’s tend to underestimate

levels of agreement (LeBretton et al. 2003). Thus, we also

calculated rwg(j) for each of these variables for each team 1 .

Results (included in Table 2) indicate adequate agreement

to justify aggregation, (i.e., overall mean rwg(j) was

approximately .85).

Next, we examined the zero-order correlations between

diversity in each of the value types and the five criterion

variables. These correlations (presented in Table 3) indi-

cate that team diversity with respect to seven of the values

is significantly related to one of the outcome variables, and

six of these are related to at least two of the four team

process variables. Task performance was not related to

diversity in any of the values. Previous research has indi-

cated that the team’s mean (across team members) level of

deep-level attributes is often a significant predictor of team

performance criteria (e.g., Barrick et al. 1998), and thus the

mean level may confound the amount of variance in these

attributes (Bedeian and Mossholder 2000). Consequently, it

is important to control for teams’ mean level (i.e., ‘‘team-

level’’) before interpreting the impact of variability. As

stated by Steiner (1972, p. 667), ‘‘a completely satisfactory

description of the composition of groups must deal with

members’ average scores on attributes as well as with their

dispersion around those averages.’’ Thus, we next exam-

ined the independent influence of diversity on the team

effectiveness criteria (e.g., Mohammed and Angell 2004).

Specifically, for each significant zero-order correlation

between a component of effectiveness and a value diversity

variable, we conducted a hierarchical regression such that

the effectiveness variable was regressed first on the team-

level (i.e., mean) and then on team diversity (i.e., variance).

A significant beta weight and semi-partial correlation

provided indication of the unique relationship between

diversity variables and effectiveness. As noted previously,

diversity with respect to the nine values investigated had no

effect on team performance. For the team process

variables, however, of the 18 significant zero-order corre-

lations, 14 were still significant after controlling for team-

level (see Table 3, coefficients in bold). Of note, team

diversity on two of the values (security and self-direction)

was significantly related to all of the team process out-

comes, and diversity with respect to achievement was

Table 2 Descriptive statistics & intercorrelations for team effectiveness and team level variances in value variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Team Effectiveness

1. Task Performance 2.42 1.33 1.0

2. Task Conflict 2.45 .72 .00 (.92) 3. Relationship Conflict 1.80 .56 .15 .68** (.96)

4. Cohesion 5.55 .51 .06 -.53** -.58** (.94) 5. Team Efficacy 5.60 .62 .00 -.59 -.63** .62** (.94)

Team Variance

6. benevolence .50 .59 .06 .16 .35* -.08 -.21* 1.0

7. universalism .65 .66 -.05 .17 .17 -.06 -.09 .62 1.0

8. self-direction .52 .57 .12 .31** .49** -.25* -.36** .60 .61 1.0

9. stimulation .87 .52 -.15 -.03 .10 -.02 -.10 .26 .34 .40 1.0

10. hedonism .69 .76 .07 .22* .23* .06 -.20 .72 .62 .59 .47 1.0

11. achievement .85 .93 .05 .35** .27* .02 -.28* .50 .37 .41 .25 .63 1.0

12. power .96 .81 -.08 .23* .21* .01 -.20 .25 .21 .24 .14 .30 .41 1.0

13. security .53 .53 .12 .30** .41** -.23* -.25* .48 .37 .40 .07 .46 .38 .20 1.0 14. conformity .71 .84 .08 .10 .25* -.04 -.16 .59 .47 .52 .51 .59 .53 .17 .48 1.0

Note. ‘Team variance’ statistics represent the average amount of variance in each variable among team members across all teams. Numbers inside parentheses represent the average agreement level (rwg(j)) across teams. N = 60

** p \ .01

1 We calculated rwg(j) using the uniform expected null distribution.

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 115

123

significantly related to all but cohesion. In addition,

diversity on three other values (benevolence, hedonism,

and power) was significantly related to two of the four

process variables. In all cases, results indicate the impact of

team diversity was such that higher levels of similarity

(i.e., less diversity) across team members was positively

related to process outcomes (i.e., more similarity resulted

in more team cohesion and efficacy and less conflict).

The analyses presented above provide an indication of the

extent to team member diversity on each of the value

dimensions individually relates to the team process out-

comes. Also of interest is the extent to which all of the sig-

nificant value dimensions together account for variance in the

team effectiveness measures as well as the relative impor-

tance of each dimension. To assess the overall impact of the

value dimensions, we conducted a hierarchical regression in

which each of the four team process outcomes was first

regressed on the value dimension team means and second on

the value dimension team diversity (variability). The change

in R2 from step 1 to step 2 provides an indication of the total

proportion of variance in the team process variable accounted

for by team member diversity on the set of significant value

dimensions. These values (reported in Table 3) ranged from

10 % for cohesion to 24 % for relationship conflict.

In order to assess the relative impact of each of the

significant value dimensions we conducted a dominance

Table 3 Independent effects of value diversity after controlling for value mean level on team effectiveness criteria

Deep-level diversity variables Unstandardized Standardized Correlations Relative importance b

B SE b t Zero-order Semi-partial

Dependent variable: task conflict mean

Self-direction .387 .166 .308 2.33 .311 .294* 28.56

Hedonism .156 .128 .165 1.22 .223 .160 –

Achievement .282 .106 .365 2.67 .352 .333** 25.88

Power .211 .114 .238 1.84 .234 .237* 9.82

Security .530 .194 .393 2.73 .302 .340** 35.74

Multiple R 2 a

.26 .19*

Dependent variable: relationship conflict mean

Benevolence .309 .121 .326 2.55 .354 .320** 14.65

Self-direction .451 .118 .464 3.8 .485 .451** 35.06

Hedonism .084 .095 .116 .89 .228 .117 –

Achievement .159 .084 .265 1.89 .273 .242* 11.97

Power .146 .089 .213 1.64 .207 .213 –

Security .444 .146 .426 3.05 .408 .374** 28.73

Conformity .210 .096 .317 2.18 .245 .277* 9.58

Multiple R2 a .38 .24**

Dependent variable: cohesion mean

Self-direction -.241 .121 -.269 -1.99 -.246 -.255* 50.00

Security -.288 .142 -.299 -2.02 -.232 -.259* 50.00

Multiple R 2 a

.10 .10*

Dependent variable: team-efficacy mean

Benevolence -.199 .141 -.190 -1.42 -.210 -.184 –

Self-direction -.366 .139 -.341 -2.63 -.364 -.329** 42.94

Achievement -.215 .092 -.324 -2.32 -.279 -.294* 31.36

Security -.309 .171 -.268 -1.81 -.250 -.233* 25.71

Multiple R2 a .19 .14*

Note. N = 60 teams. The results displayed are associated with a model in which the variance of the deep-level attribute was entered in the second step following the mean level of the deep-level attribute

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01. All zero-order correlations were significant at p \ .05 a

Multiple R 2

values represent the squared correlation between the criterion measure and all of the diversity variables listed (zero-order) and the

correlation between the criterion measure and all of the diversity variables listed after controlling for the corresponding team level variables

(semi-partial) b

Relative importance values are based on dominance analysis (Budescu 1993) and represent the average percentage of the variance accounted

for across all possible subsets of predictors attributable to the specific value dimension

116 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

analysis (Azen and Budescu 2003; Budescu 1993). Domi-

nance analysis is a procedure that is based on an exami-

nation of the R2 values for all possible subsets of models

derived from a set of predictors. It provides for an indi-

cation of the relative importance of each predictor as the

ratio of the average (across all possible subsets of predic-

tors) squared semi-partial correlation to the total R2. For

the present study, we conducted dominance analyses to

examine the relative impact of team member diversity on

each of the significant value dimensions over and above

team means on all of the value dimensions (i.e., we con-

trolled for team mean on each of the value dimensions). In

essence this provides an indication the unique variance

accounted for by each value dimension relative to the

others. Results of the dominance analyses are also pre-

sented in Table 3. Examination of these results indicates

that the relative importance of team member diversity on

the value dimensions differed for each of the team process

variables. For example, diversity with respect to self-

direction and security was equally important with respect

to cohesion. However, security was the most influential

predictor for task conflict; self-direction the most influen-

tial for both relationship conflict and team efficacy.

Discussion

Our goal in the present study was to explore the impact of

team member diversity with respect to general values on

both team process and task performance. In addition, we

chose to study values within a comprehensive framework

(Schwartz’s ten value types) such that all components

values were examined. Results indicate that task perfor-

mance was neither positively nor negatively affected by a

lack of congruence across team members with respect to

any of the value types examined. This finding is in line

with the meta-analysis of Bell (2007) suggesting that in lab

settings, only negligible effects are observed in the rela-

tionships between value diversity and team performance. A

very different picture emerged, however, with respect to

team process criteria. Diversity on values had a significant

unique effect on all of the team process variables (i.e., task

and relationship conflict, cohesion, and efficacy). In addi-

tion, results are consistent across values and team pro-

cesses. Specifically, the impact of team diversity was such

that greater diversity was negatively related with process

outcomes. That is, diversity resulted in lower team cohe-

sion, lower team efficacy, and more conflict.

Not surprisingly, relationship conflict appears to be the

team process variable most strongly related to value

diversity, both in terms of the number of diversity variables

and the overall magnitude of effect (i.e., seven of the

values were significantly related to relationship conflict and

accounted for approximately one-third of the total vari-

ance). In contrast, team cohesion was least affected; it was

related to diversity on only two values, accounting for

approximately ten percent of the total variance.

Diversity with respect to two values (self-direction and

security) emerged as important for all of the team process

measures. Upon reflection this finding is not surprising that

these two values emerged in tandem in that self-direction

and security represent polar opposites in the Schwartz

circumplex model of values (see Fig. 1) and thus should

negatively covary. More importantly, they reflect the gen-

eral motivational goals of novelty and mastery versus order

and harmony, which has clear implications for team

functioning. The impact of differences across team mem-

bers with respect to these values is thus conceptually, as

well as empirically, significant with respect to team inter-

action processes. Results of the dominance analyses indi-

cate that self-direction had the highest relative impact of all

of the values for three of the four processes outcomes. This

suggests that much more attention should be focused on the

role of this value dimension for team interactions.

Achievement and benevolence also emerged as impor-

tant for all of the process variables except cohesion. Again

it is important to note that these values are polar opposites

in the circumplex model and thus should negatively covary.

More importantly, they reflect the general motivational

goals of personal versus collective advancement. Similarly,

both power and hedonism values reflect a highly individ-

ualistic orientation (and are proximal to achievement in the

circumplex model) and team member differences on these

values were significantly related to both task and rela-

tionship conflict. So as might be expected the general value

dimensions of mastery versus harmony and individual

versus collective orientation appear to readily manifest in

team member interactions.

Our results highlight several potential areas for future

research. For example, our results do not speak of the

potential interactive effects of diversity in two or more

value types and team processes and performance. For

instance, it may be very likely that the impact of diversity

with respect to a specific value dimension may depend on

the both the mean (e.g., team) level and variability of one

or more other dimensions. From a causality approach, it

could be examined if team processes, such as relationship

conflict or team effectiveness, act as mediators between

team diversity and performance.

It is also important to note that the effects of value

diversity on team process outcomes emerged in a relatively

short-term team task. Team members in the present study

did not know each other before their participation in the

study and worked together for approximately 75 min. This

indicates that values can play a significant role in team

processes very early in team development and is an

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 117

123

important finding. This finding is consistent with a recent

study, that utilizing data from studies conducted in the last

25 years, indicates that even in newly created teams and

conducting tasks of short duration, team processes such as

conflict, cohesion or potency, tend to emerge at very early

stages of the life of a team (Allen and O’Neill 2010). How-

ever, the role of time with respect to the impact of values

should be addressed in future research. A number of ques-

tions emerge with respect to the role of time. For example,

will diversity continue to have an impact as teams develop-

ment and form a common history and/or identity. In addition,

it is possible that diversity pertaining to different specific

values may be more or less impactful at different stages of a

team history. Finally, what contextual factors or interven-

tions might moderate the impact of value diversity? These

are all important avenues for future research.

Finally, it is important to consider that while value

diversity impacted team process outcomes, there was no

effect on task performance. While this might be a function of

the task, here again the role of time should be considered.

Specifically, it is possible that the negative effects of value

diversity on team processes might result in task performance

decrements over the long term functioning of the team. Thus,

while these effects did not emerge in our study, the might

with teams that interact over longer time frames. Again this is

an important avenue for future research.

Implications for Managing Team Diversity

The results of the present study point to several implica-

tions for managing team diversity in practice. First and

foremost, it is important to recognize that not all aspects of

diversity are directly visible. Deep-level diversity with

respect to psychological variables such as values play as, if

not more, important a role in determining team effective-

ness than do surface-level characteristics. Moreover, our

results suggest that diversity with respect to basic values

may impact team process outcomes very quickly. Specifi-

cally, despite the fact that values are not directly obser-

vable, we found significant effects of value diversity in

novel teams that interacted for a relatively short period of

time. Thus, these effects are very likely to compound over

time. Finally, when value diversity does impact team pro-

cess variables, these effects are uniformly consistent with

the pessimistic view of diversity—value diversity leads to

more conflict, less team efficacy, and lower team cohesion.

The results of the present study suggest that it may be

important to actively manage team development even in

cases where team member diversity is not readily apparent.

From a practical perspective, we suggest facilitators of

teambuilding efforts could consider adding to their agendas

a session with team members to analyze and discuss the

combined value profiles of their team. Utilizing a graphical

representation like the one presented in Fig. 1 could

facilitate this type of exercise. This kind of exercise could

help team members to assess their potential for conflict,

cohesion, and team efficacy based on their value diversity.

Another important practical consideration for managing

diversity is that the impact of team member value diversity

may manifest very quickly in the team development pro-

cess. This finding suggests that those seeking to manage the

impact of deep-level diversity need to take action sooner

rather than later as teams form and develop.

Limitations

As with any laboratory-based study, the results of the

present study must be considered in light of some limita-

tions. First, the teams used in the present study were

composed of undergraduate students, which may not be

directly representative of non-student, organizational

teams. The characteristics, skill sets, lifestyles, and priori-

ties of undergraduate students may be different than those

of most organizational team members. For example, com-

pared to the variability indices reported by Neuman et al.

(1999) from an organizational sample, this student popu-

lation is less diverse with respect to values than the typical

working organizational population. Also, the importance of

this laboratory exercise to these students’ lives was likely

substantially less than the importance that organizational

team members attach to the team-tasks in which they are

involved. Nonetheless, these limitations likely serve to

attenuate the impact of team diversity rather than enhance

it. That is, our results may actually underestimate the

effects in more variable and more personally relevant

organizational contexts. In addition, we used an ad-hoc

team task lasting under 2 h. As noted by Hackman and

Morris (1975), the problem with such an environment is

that each team, ‘‘does not have a chance to develop its own

history or its unique normative structure’’ (p. 59). In

addition, participants completed only one problem solving/

production task. This task was highly interdependent and

had one unique, ideal outcome. The findings of the present

study may be quite different among teams of longer life

spans, pursuing different or multiple tasks, and operating in

a much less controlled environment.

Furthermore, this study did not include any contextual

variables that may moderate the influence of deep-level

diversity attributes on team outcomes. Gladstein (1984)

noted that contextual variables such as reward structure or

resource availability influence components of team effec-

tiveness. Other factors such as socialization processes,

organizational climate, and culture are important elements

of a typical organizational context that were not accounted

for here. Additional research is certainly warranted along

these lines.

118 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

Despite these limitations, this is one of the first studies

to highlight the unique impact of many unexamined, spe-

cific components of team diversity with respect to values

on team effectiveness criteria. These results indicate that

there is worth in proposing that disparity among teammates

in many of these values may have important implications

on subsequent team-level phenomena.

Overall, the present findings add to the emerging

research suggesting that diversity among team members

with respect to deep-level characteristics is related to

effectiveness criteria, especially with respect to individual

values. The popular view that increased diversity will lead

to a direct improvement in the quality of team performance

may need to be carefully considered. Diverse team mem-

bers may perceive and interpret the environment and

interactions they engage in differently. Managers need to

be prepared to take steps to mitigate these negative con-

sequences. Finally, researchers and practitioners alike must

realize that the effects of diversity will be moderated by a

number of variables including the type of diversity attri-

bute, the type of task, and the context within which the

team operates.

Acknowledgments The participation of the second author in this project was supported by the Asociación Mexicana de Cultura A.C.

Appendix

See Table 4.

References

Aitken-Schermer, J., Feather, N. T., Zhu, G., & Martin, N. G. (2008).

Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental properties of Portraits

Values Questionnaire. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 531–537.

Allen, N. J., & O’Neill, T. A. (2010, July). The trajectory of emergence: Mining the literature for clues. Extended abstract presented at the annual meeting of the Interdisciplinary Network

for Group Research, Washington, DC.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and

dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a

paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of

conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational perfor-

mance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253.

Applebaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Arciniega, L. M., & Castañón, M. A. (2002). El puente chino: un reto de equipo. [The Chinese bridge: A team challenge]. Department of Management, ITAM. Mexico.

Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach

for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.

Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive

perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25–36.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, K. (1998).

Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes

and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003).

Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarifica-

tion of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.

Table 4 Brief definitions of the 10 value constructs and examples of the PVQ items

Value definitions

POWER: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over

people and resources (e.g., He likes to be in charge and tell others what to do. He wants people to do what he says)

ACHIEVEMENT: Personal success through demonstrating

competence according to social standards (e.g., Being very successful is important to him. He likes to stand out and to impress other people)

HEDONISM: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself (e.g.,

He really wants to enjoy life. Having a good time is very important to him)

STIMULATION: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life (e.g.,

He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have an exciting life)

SELF-DIRECTION: Independent thought and action-choosing,

creating, exploring (e.g., He thinks it’s important to be interested in things. He is curious and tries to understand everything)

UNIVERSALISM: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and

protection for the welfare of all people and for nature (e.g., He thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. He wants justice for everybody, even for people he doesn’t know)

Table 4 continued

Value definitions

BENEVOLENCE: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare

of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (e.g.,

He always wants to help the people who are close to him. It’s very important to him to care for the people he knows and likes)

TRADITION: Respect, commitment and acceptance of the

customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the

self (e. g., He thinks it is important to do things the way he learned from his family. He wants to follow their customs and traditions)

CONFORMITY: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (e.g., He believes that people should do what they’re told. He thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no

one is watching)

SECURITY: Safety, harmony and stability of society, of

relationships, and of self (e.g., The safety of his country is very important to him. He wants his country to be safe from its enemies)

Note. The content of this table was adapted from the definitions provided in Schwartz et al. (2001)

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 119

123

Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the

coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 285–297.

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of

team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 92, 595–615.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of group research: What have

we learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381.

Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the

problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple

regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic

Press.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations

between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implica-

tions for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 46, 823–850.

Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A

meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams,

production teams and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382–420.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity:

Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45–56.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus

relationship conflict, team performance, and team member

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

Easley, C. A. (2001). Developing, valuing, and managing diversity in

the new millennium. Organizational Development Journal, 19(4), 38–50.

Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivism orientation in

teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295.

Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations.

Industrial Management Review, 7, 37–48. Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D. K., & Yusuff, M. R. (1996). Team

performance and human values. Psychological Reports, 79, 1019–1024.

Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., & Pagiaslis, A. (2011). Portrait value

questionnaire’s (PVQ) usefulness in explaining quality food-

related consumer behavior. British Food Journal, 113, 248– 279.

Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding

leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of

personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002–1010.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they believe they can? Group-efficacy and

group performance across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138–152.

Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding

group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment

methods. Group and Organization Management, 25, 67–97. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002).

A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance:

Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed

relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group

interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A

review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational

demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level

diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002).

Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-

and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.

Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging the

gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team

composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 353–366.

Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on

performance: Theoretical considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219–245.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity

on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography.

Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some

implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the

dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo

& E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S. E., & Rudermann, M. (1997). Diversity in workteams. Washington, DC: APA Books.

James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual

agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-

group interrater reliability with and without response bias.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of

advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238. Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or

not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual

demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict:

A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group perfor-

mance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2008). A contextual reexamination of work

team diversity research: Review and future agenda. In E. Mannix

& M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 11, pp. 25–53). Emerald Publishing, Bradford.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of team

members’ cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and

empowerment in self-managing work teams. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 32, 597–617.

Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L.

(2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating role

of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 25–36.

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of

action. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kravitz, D. A. (2005). Diversity in teams: A two-edged sword

requires careful handling. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), i–ii.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer

agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

120 J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121

123

LeBretton, J. M., Burgess, J. R., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E., & James,

L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater

reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources

really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128. Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Nair, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Prasetya,

P. H. (2011). Content and structure of values in middle

adolescence: Evidence from Singapore, the Philippines, Indone-

sia, and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 146–154.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a

difference?: The promise and reality of diverse teams in

organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C. B., Noorderhaven, N.

G., & Wu, P. C. (2002). Cultural dimensions at the individual

level of analysis: The cultural orientations frame work. Interna- tional Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 275–295.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common

threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in

organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in

teams: Which differences make a difference for team perfor-

mance? Small Group Research, 34(6), 651–677. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level

diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of

team orientation and team process on relationship conflict.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039. Morgan, B. B., & Lassiter, D. L. (1992). Team composition and

staffing. In R. W. Sweezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 75–100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Moynihan, L., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration

approach to understanding the role of personality in organiza-

tional groups. In B. M. Straw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 327–378). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group

cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The

relationship between work-team personality composition and job

performance of teams. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 28–45.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and

organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to

assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Substitutes for

leadership and the management of professionals. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 1–44.

Rodriguez, R. A. (1998). Challenging demographic reductionism: A

pilot study investigating diversity in group composition. Small Group Research, 29, 744–759.

Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: individual and societal. New York: Free Press.

Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the non-

development of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–454.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of

values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.

In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol- ogy (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., &

Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the

theory of basic human values with a different method of

measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.

Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really

matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in

assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 420–428. Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. B. Berry, M.

H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology: Social behaviors and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 77–118). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Baeuerle, N. (2012). Testing the circular

structure of human values: A meta-analytical structural equation

modelling approach. Survey Research Methods, 6, 61–75. Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Guidelines for use in team-

training development. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.),

Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 219–245). Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of

intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations

and leadership. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25–65). London: Erlbaum.

Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance:

Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57, 1111– 1119.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group

diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. van Woerkom, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from

conflicts? The relations between task relationship conflicts, team

learning and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 381–404.

Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between

cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 345–375.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less

job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162. Zaccaro, (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of

cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multi-

dimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3), 387–399.

J Bus Psychol (2013) 28:107–121 121

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.