Group Behavior in Organizations

a23ars

Chapter4_GroupBehaviorInOrganizations.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Group Behavior in Organizations

125

4Diversity

Plume Creative/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe changes in past and present concepts of workplace diversity.

• State the case for workplace diversity.

• Identify barriers to constructive diversity and the ways in which these are interrelated.

• Assess various forms of diversity within workplace groups.

• Outline strategies for positively managing diversity in the workplace.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 125 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Diversity in today’s workplace is a response to the need to equalize job opportunities for minorities. T/F

2. Diversity adds little to organizational performance; it is simply a fact of life in the contemporary workplace. T/F

3. Stereotypes are negative preconceptions we hold about other team members. T/F 4. Diversity characteristics are readily observable. T/F 5. Assumed differences that are false are just as impactful as actual diversity between

members. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Marni is a team leader at a large, international software company. Her team is composed of five other individuals who were each brought in from different international offices. In addition to their diverse personal backgrounds—in terms of race, culture, and education level—each member of the team was specifically recruited for their particular KSAs.

Before they started working as a group, Marni took the time to meet individually with team members to gain insight into their background as well as their skills and abilities. She also gauged their work preferences—for example, what types of projects they enjoy and how they like to accomplish their work. When they were ready to begin working together, Marni introduced team members to each other, highlighting their personal experiences and skills. This helped clarify everyone’s value to the group and made all members feel equally important, despite the diversity of their individual experiences and KSAs.

Marni observed her team closely during their initial months working together. She soon became concerned over the number of interpersonal conflicts occurring between team members. While Marni attempted to diffuse these conflicts and foster a more collabora- tive environment, her efforts to set a positive example and demonstrate effective conflict resolution were not working. The team members continued to struggle because of their vast differences, both personal and KSA related.

Marni’s observations led her to believe that her teammates lacked cross-cultural self- efficacy, meaning they did not believe in their own ability to interact with people from other cultures. This perceived lack of ability was contributing to the frequency of inter- personal conflicts. Having identified what she thought was the root cause of the problem, Marni asked herself how she could make the team members more confident in their own cross-cultural abilities, as well as more comfortable with each other.

After asking this question, it became obvious to Marni that her team only interacted formally, during meetings and project discussions. She decided that the team members needed to really get to know one another—not just be aware of each other’s personal accomplishments and work-related skills sets, but become well versed in each other’s interests. She was hoping team members could find common ground amid their diver- sity. This could foster a feeling of belonging and allow the team to move past its ongoing destructive conflicts.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 126 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint

Marni decided that an informal setting could promote such interactions, so she set up an on-site team lunch where members were discouraged from talking about their work project. Marni hoped that limiting talk about work would allow the team members to open up and discover their similarities—and indeed, this is what happened. The interac- tions during the informal lunch were more relaxed than those during team meetings, and team members asked each other personal questions and shared stories. The relaxed atmosphere allowed for a sense of belonging and interconnectedness to develop.

Marni made these informal lunch gatherings a regular occurrence. Over the months that followed, she also developed opportunities for the team to work off-site together. Slowly, the interpersonal conflicts dissipated. Disagreements became more constructive in nature as the team members became more open to each other’s diverse viewpoints.

Diversity plays a major role in today’s workplace. As of 2010 there were more than 39 million immigrants living in the United States, and 68% of these actively participate in the workforce (Grieco et al., 2012). Overseas, the highly diverse population of South Africa—increasingly popular as a business process outsourcing location—has earned it the epitaph of “Rainbow Nation” (Reichard, Dollwet, & Louw-Potgieter, 2014). But what does an increasingly diverse workforce mean for small groups, teams, and organiza- tions? It all depends on the type of diversity involved, and how it is managed.

The effects of diversity are notoriously double-sided when it comes to group and team performance. Diversity of expertise and perspective enhance the prime benefit of working together—which is to combine material and human resources. Yet diversity of background and worldview also make it harder for group members to understand each other, which can potentially threaten their ability to work together. In Chapter 4 we explore workplace diversity from a contemporary viewpoint and examine the different effects of cultural and skill-based diversity. We also highlight diversity challenges and outline strategies for managing group diversity to achieve positive outcomes.

4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint As we learned in Chapter 1, perceived similarities between individuals are a major factor in the group identification process. Still, no two group members are truly identical. Diversity is the degree of variation in group members’ qualities, interests, and needs. Diversity can range from very high—as in cross-functional, virtual, special project teams brought together from across a multinational organization—to very low—as in a group gathered based on similari- ties to test market reactions from a very specific client base. Although groups with extremely low diversity are labeled homogenous, all groups possess at least some level of diversity.

With the ease of travel, the global reach of marketing and sales, the omnipresence of online communication and virtual groups, and an increasingly global mindset among both individu- als and organizations, diversity is a very real and influential factor in our personal and profes- sional lives. Diversity is more than a simple side effect of the technological and social changes associated with modernity, however. The United States has a long (albeit complicated) history as a diverse nation. Since the early 20th century, the term melting pot has been used to

Section 4.1

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 127 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint

describe the ideal in which people of different nationalities, cultures, social backgrounds, and ethnicities come together to forge a common (uniform) American identity (Pluralism Project, n.d.). More recently, terms like mosaic or kaleidoscope have been used to highlight a more contemporary ideal in which diverse peoples mix within American culture but are free to retain some distinctions.

The perception of diversity within the U.S. workplace has also experienced a shift. Contemporary diversity is not viewed the way it once was, nor does the term impart the same meaning it did in the past. Begin- ning in the late 1960s, as a result of civil rights legislation, U.S. employers began adopting equal opportunity measures to address inequality and discrimination against individuals based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, and minority status. The most notable of these measures was affirmative action (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). In response to the legislation, employers began to fill racial and minority quotas in the workplace. The sudden rise in employee diversity injected instant complexity and increased potential for misunderstand- ing and conflict in the workplace. This spurred a movement of political correct- ness in the 1980s and 1990s. Diversity within organizations during these years was predominantly focused on increasing the numbers of individuals with specific demographic characteristics and then training people to skirt politely around individual differences and their newly diverse working conditions.

Today workplace diversity no longer centers on antidiscrimination compliance. The new focus for diversity in groups and teams revolves around the variation in specific traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications that can increase the performance of a group in general or on a specific project. This new focus came as a result of contemporary organizations operat- ing in a global work environment fueled by multinational corporations. Following the eco- nomic downturns at the start of the millennium and the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble in 2007, organizations began positively transforming the need to cut costs and downsize their workforce. They employed the concept of rightsizing, or functioning effectively with a smaller employee base (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992; Manz & Sims, 1987). Employee diversity in traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications became critical to enacting this concept. The rise of groups and teams in organizations, and of teamwork-centered practices, has given diversity a new set of characteristics. While superficial differences (such as age, gender, or

University of Iowa Libraries. Special Collections Department

The term melting pot was used to describe how people of various nationalities and cultures came together to forge a common American identity.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 128 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Diversity

Developing Mutual

Understanding

Cultivating Adaptability &

Innovation

Maximizing Human

Resources

Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity

ethnicity) are not entirely discounted, they take a backseat to task- and performance-related diversity in group member selection, team building, and organizational hiring.

In the next section, we examine the case for diversity in the workplace.

4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity Diversity is a key element in maintaining organizational effectiveness. It engages new per- spectives, enhances product and service development, and positively or negatively impacts employee interactions, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover, as well as the ongoing devel- opment of organizational learning and culture (Rašticová & Senichev, 2011; Senichev, 2013a, 2013b). But how exactly does workplace diversity achieve all of this? It does so by addressing three core needs in contemporary organizations: developing mutual understanding, maxi- mizing human resources, and cultivating ability and innovation (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Diversity and core organizational needs

Contemporary organizations look to diversity to address three core needs.

Diversity

Developing Mutual

Understanding

Cultivating Adaptability &

Innovation

Maximizing Human

Resources

Let’s look more closely at the three core organizational needs that diversity addresses.

Developing Mutual Understanding Diversity is an increasingly inevitable factor in today’s interactive and operational settings. As such, it cannot be ignored. Organizations need to understand, attract, expand on, and success- fully interact with an increasingly diverse customer and client base. Diverse group and team memberships are key to developing mutual understanding between an organization and its

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 129 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity

clients, whether these represent specific individuals or entire markets. Developing mutual understanding allows companies to:

• achieve effective coordination and collaboration between individual employees and between and within various groups, teams, organizational departments, and levels of hierarchy;

• identify and attract new markets and expand their customer or client base; • effectively serve, communicate, and interact with new and existing customers and

clients; and • engender fellowship among employees and clients alike and build trust and loyalty

toward the organization; this can be achieved by internally generating organiza- tional cohesiveness via a corporate identity infused with team spirit and externally fostering customer loyalty and goodwill.

Maximizing Human Resources In Chapter 1, we outlined the benefits of and tendency toward efficiency or effectiveness in work groups and teams. Of course, the best performance outcomes occur when we break with “either/or” thinking and find a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. It is by realizing their potential for achieving this balance that diverse groups outperform homogenous ones. One of the key advantages of working in groups is the potential to access a broad scope of col- lective KSAs and experience; indeed, this is the fundamental concept behind the now popular use of cross-functional teams. Today’s organizational strategies call for making the most out of a minimal workforce by capitalizing on a diverse range of employee capabilities.

In cases that involve complex problem solving and decision making, two heads really are bet- ter than one. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and higher quality decisions and solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant knowledge, viewpoints, experi- ence, and skills (Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). This also mitigates group tendency toward dysfunctional process behavior such as groupthink, which we address in Chapter 5.

Cultivating Adaptability and Innovation In nature, genetic diversity within a group—such as a herd of elephants—is beneficial because, in crisis, diverse groups are far more adaptable and resilient than homogenous ones (Senichev, 2013b; Kreitz, 2008). For example, a herd with a diverse gene pool would have a better chance of surviving a deadly hereditary disease than a herd that lacked genetic diver- sity. This adaptability and resilience gives the diverse group stability. In this case stability refers to more than the ability to maintain a status quo; rather, it is the capacity to survive and thrive amid changing conditions. The ability to adapt and change is just as critical for contemporary organizations. Diverse groups and teams have an inherently broader range of KSAs and experience to draw from in response to changing circumstances.

As Indra Nooyi noted upon becoming chief executive officer (CEO) of PepsiCo, people are an organizations’ biggest asset (Aspen Institute, 2014). Great ideas come from people. Diversifi- cation in employee background, perspective, experience, and knowledge promotes creativity and innovation because it fosters more diverse ideas. Diverse teams are more likely to chal- lenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple perspectives to identify potential prob- lems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified strategies and solutions through

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 130 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

debate (Agrawal, 2012). Meanwhile, groups with low diversity tend to more easily find and hold common perceptions and viewpoints regarding the competitive environment, come up with fewer strategic options, and are more prone to solutions that essentially regenerate existing strategies.

While diversity within groups has tremendous benefits, there are also challenges associated with diversity among group members. We discuss these challenges and barriers to construc- tive diversity in the next section.

4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity The downside to engaging diverse ideas and viewpoints is that team members are more likely to differ in their preferences for solutions and strategies. The inability to agree and collectively commit to a specific course of action can delay the group’s progress and lower individual motivation and effort (Mello & Ruckes, 2006). The very differences that broaden the group’s capacity for adaptability, innovation, and effective performance can act as a divisive force and foster separation, miscommunication, and conflict between team members (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Polzer, 2008).

Group diversity is often portrayed as a double-edged sword because it heightens the poten- tial for significant gains and losses in the performance process (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Pieterse et al., 2013). On the one hand, diverse perspectives enhance an organization’s abil- ity to identify opportunities; rethink and redefine business strategies, practices, tasks, pro- cesses, products, and services; and interact with both new and existing markets (Agrawal, 2012). On the other hand, poorly managed diversity can stunt developmental processes such as identification and cohesion. This can lower employee commitment and satisfaction and decrease task-related process speeds, which impede the group’s capacity for effective action and response (Agrawal, 2012).

While diversity broadens the range of perspectives and expertise, it also increases the poten- tial for miscommunication and conflict between group members (Agrawal, 2012). Dysfunc- tional dynamics are often attributed to internal cognitive barriers—or limiting preconcep- tions such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination—that are activated by the differences we perceive between ourselves and others (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). These can, and do, occur in any setting in which we interact with others and are made aware of differences of any type. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers affect interactions between individu- als, group members, and different groups or subgroups.

In-Groups and Out-Groups Internal cognitive barriers are associated with the concept of in-group-out-group bias. The terms in-group and out-group may conjure up high school–style images of popular versus unpopular groups. There is a reason for that. Although in the social sciences in-group and out-group refer to those groups we do and do not belong to, we have a natural preference and positive bias toward our own groups over others. This is caused by two basic factors:

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 131 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension of self and a legitimate influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).

• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that provides the underlying motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon, Greenberg, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004).

Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness” that then dictates the bound- ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of an “us” and “them” mentality invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our need for positive self-esteem demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The tendency to perceive the mem- bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to the members, products, and efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The desire to champion our own group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we associate them with negative stereotypes.

Stereotyping Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about the attributes of whole social categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har- ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we categorize. We take the people or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin with information about other people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as educational level, occupation, or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of cognitive economy; for example, we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty much the same as another. Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more significant in that they can profoundly impact our interactions.

While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype that all Asians are good at math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group members as more alike than they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing on obvious similarities or by attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific group or team, for example, members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture, or ethnicity may be per- ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality traits are quite different. When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman- ize, the people around us.

When presented with information that runs contrary to existing biases and stereotypes, peo- ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree. However, we are likely to defend our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the exception to the rule (Jussim et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often more selective than accurate. Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of other group members and how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002). Studies on how teachers’ expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct variation in how a student was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she came from a lower or middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim, 1989; Williams, 1976). When we hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group members, we often see what we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make note of evidence that confirms our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al., 2005).

Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the head of a major American automaker?

Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson on the right. If you recognized Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you. But look again, and be honest: If you did not know who they were, what career choices would you expect them to make—or not make—based on the way they look?

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for LinkedIn

Paul Warner/Getty Images

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 132 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension of self and a legitimate influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).

• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that provides the underlying motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon, Greenberg, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004).

Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the head of a major American automaker?

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for LinkedIn

Paul Warner/Getty Images

While stereotypes tend to flatten distinctions between members of out-groups, they exagger- ate differences between in-groups and out-groups. For instance, members of a rival company may be portrayed as particularly lazy or unethical, while members of one’s own company are automatically characterized as hard-working and ethical. Denigrating those in the out-group by emphasizing their differences and ignoring their similarities with in-group members rein- forces the idea that the out-group is inferior and bolsters the solidarity and unity of those in the in-group. When diverse members must work together, however, this negative in-group- out-group dynamic can seriously demoralize an entire group or team. When negative stereo- types move from expectation to prejudgment, prejudice and discrimination occur.

Prejudice Prejudice represents unjustified negative attitudes toward others based solely on their mem- bership in a particular group or subgroup. Prejudice sustains a superior us versus inferior them belief system that becomes ingrained in how we feel about other people. When we dis- like, take offense with, or exclude someone based on attributes such as ethnicity, national- ity, sexual orientation, or gender, we are engaging in prejudice. Although in popular usage ethnicity refers to differences in genetic background, the term ethnic refers to any distinc- tive characteristic held in common by a group of people, including language, culture, religion, race, customs, orientations, and physical characteristics. Related to in-group-out-group bias, ethnocentrism refers to our tendency to regard ethnic characteristics associated with our own groups as superior, or more “natural” and “correct” than those associated with others. Ethnocentrism is a major cause of prejudice.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 133 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

Ethnocentrism skews our judgment when dealing with others because, in effect, we use our own norms, standards, and values to measure the worth of others’ norms, standards, and val- ues, rather than judging them from an objective standpoint (Reichard et al., 2014). This can be especially problematic when it occurs within groups. If we do not know or understand the context in which unfamiliar norms were developed, we may simply disregard them as use- less or unimportant, potentially offending fellow group members. Group members who feel rejected are typically less motivated to understand and adapt to the group’s shared context (Earley & Ang, 2003). This becomes true on both sides of the equation if the offended group members respond with aggression or rejection of their own.

Prejudice caused by ethnocentrism can take on many forms. Some of the most common include:

• racism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular race or ethnicity; • sexism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular gender; and • ageism, or prejudice directed toward members of a certain age range, usually

older adults, but sometimes directed in the reverse, from older to younger group members.

Ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, and ageism are often instilled and perpetuated by cultural conditioning. As children, and throughout our lifetime, we are conditioned to conform and respond positively to the culture in which we are raised. This includes our national culture as well as our own family’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms. As we grow older, we are also influenced by the cultural norms attached to the major secondary groups in our lives. Because of this conditioning, we tend to respond negatively to, be confused by, or question the “correctness” of attitudes, thoughts, or behaviors that fall outside our cultural norms.

In his classic treatise, The Nature of Prejudice, psychologist Gordon Allport (1954/1979) presents a vivid example of the effects of cultural conditioning on our perception. Recount- ing an experiment conducted with colleague Leo Postman (Allport & Postman, 1947), All- port describes seating Caucasian study participants in a circle and then presenting just one individual with a drawing to briefly study before beginning the round. The drawing depicted White people of varying genders and attitudes riding in a subway car, watching an angry White man with a switchblade threatening a conciliatory Black man. Without showing the drawing to anyone else, the first participant had to briefly describe the drawing to the next person, who then described what he or she heard to the next person, and so on, until it reached the end of the line. In the actual drawing, a White man held a razor. Long before the information had completed traveling the circle, the razor had somehow jumped to the hand of the Black man.

Everyone experiences or is subject to prejudice at some time. Unless we experience preju- diced thoughts or feelings all the time, having a few here and there does not automatically mean we are racist, sexist, or ageist. Even if we consciously reject these negative attitudes, cultural conditioning leaves its traces, like a lingering memory or bad habit. As with all con- ditioned responses, it takes time, commitment, and conscious effort to overrule culturally ingrained prejudice. Of course, some people choose to go the other way; instead of conquer- ing their prejudice, they act on it. When we act on prejudice, we exhibit discrimination.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 134 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

Discrimination Discrimination refers to negative, unfavorable, or harmful treatment of others based on ste- reotypical thinking and prejudice (Pagura, 2012). Examples of discrimination in the work- place may include when someone is:

• denied equal opportunities or benefits; • overlooked or refused promotion or reward; • unfairly chastised, demoted, fired, or excluded from groups; and • declined for hire based on stereotyping and prejudice.

Consider, for example, two individuals, one man and one woman, who are applying for the same job. Aside from gender, they are equal in all respects (that is, in terms of age, educa- tional background, qualifications, quality of references, and the degree to which they are well spoken, look presentable, and have a personable nature). The exception is that the man has 3 years more experience than the woman in handling projects similar to those the employee will be asked to take on.

If the man is selected based on his additional experience, this is a fair and logical choice. However, if the man is selected because the interviewing manager believes that women in general are less dedicated and more prone to familial distractions than men, discrimination has influenced the choice. Discrimination would also be a factor if the woman is hired because the manager thinks that men are too chauvinistic and overbearing to be good team players. Instead of observing and responding to an actual interaction, (such as, “She clearly stated that she has just married, desires children, and would want to be a stay-at-home mom for her child’s first four years,” or “He made several chauvinistic remarks that I found very offen- sive”), the interviewing manager made the decision based on blindly applied stereotypes and prejudice.

Within specific groups and teams, discrimination can be expressed as:

• discounting or refusing praise for particular members’ contributions or work, • refusing to collaborate or respect assigned roles, and • two negative phenomena: scapegoating and blaming the victim.

Scapegoating occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is unfairly singled out and blamed or aggressed against for something, in order to release the group’s pent-up anger and frustration. For example, if a new product or marketing design fails in testing, a constructive reaction would be to come together as a team to evaluate the failure and potential solutions. However, disappointment combined with underlying stereotypes or prejudice can lead some group members to unfairly lash out and blame another member, saying, for example, “It’s Geri’s fault. He probably isn’t even qualified for this. Everyone knows people from India fake their diplomas. He’s probably here under a visa scam!”

Geri, who has done none of those things and does not deserve to be singled out for the entire team’s failure, will be understandably offended. It is also likely that other members of the team will be offended on his behalf. Not only is Geri aggressed against, but the whole team can become involved in responding to the negative interaction and possibly even break into subgroups that defend different sides. Needless to say, this does nothing to address the actual problem—fixing the team’s error and finding a workable solution. Furthermore, it can

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 135 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

fundamentally damage group cohesion and interrelations. The term scapegoat is rooted in a biblical guilt-transference ritual in which members of a community transfer their sins to a goat and then send it, along with their load of sins, out into the wilderness to disappear (Zatelli, 1998). When we turn our team members into scapegoats, however, neither they, nor our sins, disappear. If not carefully handled and resolved, scapegoating can tear a team apart.

Blaming the victim occurs when we ascribe a negative outcome, such as prejudice or dis- crimination, to the victim’s personal characteristics and actions (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Why would we blame the victim? Most of us would feel considerable shame admitting that we engaged in aggression—such as lying, stealing, or even psychological or physical abuse— toward members of another group because we were jealous, coveted their resources, or sim- ply lashed out. To make ourselves feel better about negative feelings and actions, we might convince ourselves that members of the other group deserve such treatment. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is often applied to victims of violence, with aggressors and even other parties blaming the victim. You may have heard victim-blaming statements such as, “Anyone walking alone in a bad neighborhood at night deserves to be mugged.”

It is natural for us to try to assign blame or find a cause for negative experiences (Hersh, 2013). As harmful as it might be, blaming the victim reinforces the belief that bad things hap- pen for a reason and are therefore preventable. This gives us a sense of control and restores our confidence in our ability to predict and avoid negative experiences. Causal attribution, wherein we analyze events and interactions and infer causes, is a natural part of our learning process. If we cannot find a cause for a negative experience, we have no way of protecting our- selves from it. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no logical or discernable reason for a nega- tive outcome. For example, perhaps there was nothing wrong with the product or marketing design handed in by Geri’s team; perhaps the deciding project manager simply felt it was not right for the market or that another ideation round might produce an even better solution. In that case there was no overt error or tangible reason for the rejection—the team itself did nothing wrong.

Reality Check: Examining In-Group-Out-Group Hostilities Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have played a part in the most profoundly disturb- ing group clashes in history. Social exclusion, enslavement, forced encampment, denial of basic human and civil rights, psychological and physical abuse, and horrendous acts of extermina- tion all seem to have these infernal cognitive barriers at their root. But are they really the cause of such behavior?

In the 1970s psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted a study now generally known as the Stanford prison experiment, which sought to determine the psychological effects of becoming either a prisoner or a guard. After carefully eliminating candidates with medical or psychological issues, criminal history, or drug abuse problems, Zimbardo (1999) and his team selected 24 college students from the United States and Canada and arbitrarily divided them into two groups. Half were assigned to be guards, and the others were designated as prisoners.

The experiment was meant to be as realistic as possible (Zimbardo, 1999). Consultants helped construct a realistic ‘prison’ and ‘yard’ (including an area for solitary confinement) in the

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 136 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity

basement of the Stanford psychology building. ‘Prisoners’ were publically arrested on charges of armed robbery and burglary. They were searched, handcuffed, and taken to the Palo Alto Police Department, where they were booked, blindfolded, and placed in cells. They were then transported to the constructed prison area. There, the students acting as guards—dressed in uniform and wearing dark sunglasses—systematically stripped and searched the prisoners. They also doused the prisoners with spray—an act meant to convey the idea that they may be riddled with vermin. Prisoners were issued a humiliating smock and stocking cap and given a number that became the only name by which they were known. A chain was also wrapped around each prisoner’s ankle to increase the sense of captivity.

The guards were told to do whatever they felt necessary, within reason, to maintain law and order and to command the prisoners’ respect (Zimbardo, 1999). Researchers were somewhat shocked by what took place. The guards became abusive, and as many as one third engaged in behavior described as sadistic. Some prisoners had severe psychological reactions, others rebelled against the guards, and some abandoned the experiment entirely. Interestingly, none of the guards quit, left early, called in sick, came late for their shift, or demanded pay for over- time work. Though the experiment was set to last 2 weeks, it had to be halted after only 6 days.

So what happened during the Stanford prison experiment? Psychologists tend to treat ste- reotypes and other ideological factors held by individuals as causes for hostility toward out- groups. However, social psychology has shown that if people change their behavior (perhaps due to outside forces, like conditions in an experiment) and feel committed to that change, attitudes often follow suit. This suggests that, while some conflict involving out-groups stems from preexisting negative attitudes toward a particular group, it is also possible that because we treat members of a group poorly, we develop hostile attitudes toward them (Jussim et al., 2005). This shift results in new sets of norms consistent with the altered behavior. Zimbardo’s (1999) test subjects were randomly divided into prisoners and guards. There were no preex- isting negative attitudes between the two groups, but the guards became increasingly hostile as they treated their fellow test subjects like prisoners. These attitudes and behaviors gener- ated a new set of norms through which they perceived their poor treatment of the prisoners as expected, acceptable, and even deserved.

The full story of the Stanford prison experiment, including multimedia and the prisoners’ plot to escape, can be found at http://www.prisonexp.org.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Zimbardo concluded that the treatment in prisons dehumanizes people. Do you think he

was talking about the prisoners or the guards? Explain your answer. 2. Zimbardo noted that his decision to stop the experiment was made during a wake-

up-call moment in which Christina Maslach, newly graduated from the Stanford PhD program, came in from outside the experiment to conduct unbiased interviews with the guards and prisoners. Upon observing the participants, she confronted Zimbardo, exclaiming, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Do you think the scientists also experienced a shift in norms while observing the participants’ altered behavior? Explain your answer.

3. What if group norms in the workplace called for you to treat someone else poorly? Would you do so, and what do think would happen over time if you continued to do so on a regular basis?

Reality Check: Examining In-Group-Out-Group Hostilities (continued)

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 137 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://www.prisonexp.org

ExpertiseWorldview

Individual Interests & Needs

Personality

Nationality Gender

Age

Culture

Language

Social Class

Social Position

Sexual Orientation

Ethnicity

Religion

Education Level

Handicapping Conditions

Surface Level

Deep-Level

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups In the overview on member diversity in Chapter 1, we separated member qualities into two basic categories: demographic characteristics and individual attributes. Demographic charac- teristics represent a surface-level diversity that is fairly overt and readily observable, either as physical and behavioral characteristics (that is, gender, language, ethnicity, or handicap- ping conditions) or as socially acknowledged identifiers (that is, social position, education level, nationality, and religion) (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006). Social networking platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn have normalized online profiles that announce surface-level diversity, making even less obvious characteristics (such as sexual orientation or educational background) easier to perceive. In contrast, individual attributes, interests, and needs represent deep-level diversity, or characteristics that can only be perceived over time by engaging in verbal and nonverbal interactions (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Phillips et al., 2006). Figure 4.2 provides a graphic representa- tion of surface-level and deep-level diversity.

Figure 4.2: Levels of member diversity

There are two levels of member diversity: surface-level diversity, which consists of observable characteristics, and deep-level diversity, which consists of less readily perceived characteristics.

ExpertiseWorldview

Individual Interests & Needs

Personality

Nationality Gender

Age

Culture

Language

Social Class

Social Position

Sexual Orientation

Ethnicity

Religion

Education Level

Handicapping Conditions

Surface Level

Deep-Level

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 138 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Research on group dynamics in organizational settings takes the existence of both sur- face- and deep-level diversity as a given, focusing instead on the relevance of each of these dimensions for group performance and their influence on positive and negative outcomes (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). So far, this perspective suggests that while surface-level diver- sity immediately impacts group cohesion and conflict, long-term effects and performance outcomes were mainly dependent on the existing deep-level diversity between group mem- bers (Harrison et al., 2002; Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998), for example, observed that gender differences initially divided their study groups. Over time, however, group members developed positive interrelations based on the successful mesh- ing of individual attributes. This led to increased cohesion, a sense of mutual respect among group members, and overall satisfaction with the groups.

In essence, surface-level diversity promotes division and conflict that can be either strength- ened or resolved, depending on group members’ ability to find common ground within deep- level diversity characteristics. Table 4.1 outlines this concept.

Table 4.1: Effects of surface-level and deep-level diversity

Diversity level Basic dynamics Long-term effects

Surface level • This level activates stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination between members.

• This level fosters factions and in-group and out-group subdivisions.

Negative interactions caused by surface-level diversity can be miti- gated and resolved over the long term if members connect over similar or complementary deep-level diversity characteristics.

Deep level • This level is less overtly noticeable, and therefore less likely to generate conflict at the beginning of group work.

• Differences tend to be more profound and personal in nature, resulting in conflict that is more emotional and less easily resolved.

• Diversity in expertise almost always has a positive effect on group work.

Deep-level diversity may go unnoticed for the duration of the group perfor- mance. If and when it does become tangible, differences can seem irrec- oncilable because elements such as worldview and personality are deeply ingrained in members’ sense of self. High diversity in these areas can break up the team.

Member diversity can take on many forms. The forms of diversity that are particularly sig- nificant for today’s workplace groups and teams include cultural and skill-based diversity, personality differences, and the dynamics of members’ individual interests and needs. We discuss these various forms of diversity throughout this section.

Cultural Diversity Cultural diversity is often construed as referring only to differences in nationality. How- ever, culture is more loosely defined as the shared attitudes, values, customs, practices, and behavioral norms that are characteristic of a particular society, social category, organiza- tion, or group. From this viewpoint, cultural diversity in the workplace can reflect diver- sity across members’ previous or existing national, organizational, and/or group cultures.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 139 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

An organization itself can encompass one or many cultural identities, each representing the total construct of an entity’s culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences (Chao, 2000).

So how does cultural diversity play out in groups and teams? First, let’s consider cross- cultural teams. These have members who are culturally diverse and may cut across organi- zational and/or national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013). Members may have different back- grounds and affiliations, whether they are individual cultural identities and nationalities or distinct organizational cultures (Earley & Erez, 1997; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Cross-cultural team members face broad diversity issues, since each person can bring an entirely differ- ent set of cultural identities to the group. Interactions within cross-cultural teams typically involve conflict, since members exchange diverse information and viewpoints (Paul & Ray, 2013). However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, inviting that wealth of exchange to encourage constructive controversy, a concept we will cover further in Chapter 6, is often the point of building a cross-cultural team.

Imagine the cultural clash that occurred when Microsoft and Apple collaborated to include Microsoft’s Bing- as the default search engine in Apple’s iOS7 (McLaughlin, 2013). Each of these organizations possess a strong and dynamically opposing cultural identity. Their cul- tures are so distinctive that they have even spawned cultural followings among their clients, as Apple’s 2006 “get a Mac” campaign (http://youtu.be/p5Yt30wrbl4) humorously capital- ized on. Still, any cultural conflict they may have experienced during their collaboration was put to good use in their efforts to take market share away from their mutual rival, Google.

Of the various forms of cultural diversity, national diversity among team members is per- haps the most potentially negative. National diversity is more complex than other forms of cultural diversity because, along with differences in culture, team members must deal with differences in language proficiency. This is of particular concern for today’s multinational organizations. Multinational teams tend to be temporary in nature and feature members who have neither worked together before nor expect to work together in the same context again (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). Team members may rarely engage in face- to-face in-person interactions and are typically drawn from across organizational, functional, and national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013). Although members of multinational teams typi- cally speak a common language, they frequently encounter language barriers, conceptual dif- ferences based on cultural background and norms, and cultural conditioning specific to their country of origin. Add the fact that multinational teams are predominantly virtual, and mem- bers face contextual diversity as well.

So how does cultural diversity affect group performance? Cultural diversity can bring an increasingly necessary range of cultural backgrounds and knowledge to a group or team, but positive performance outcomes depend mainly on members’ ability to generate mutual understanding and shared vision. Effective communication and conflict resolution are critical tools for making these positive connections between members and gaining value from cul- tural diversity in a group or team.

Next, let’s take a look at skill diversity.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 140 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Skill Diversity Member differences related to functional or departmental background fall under the heading of skill-based diversity. Though it names only one of its elements, the term skill diversity typically encompasses individual attributes related to expertise, including KSAs and relevant experience. KSAs represent a common competency model for evaluating an employee’s abil- ity to perform a job. Let’s take a closer look at the elements that constitute KSAs:

• Knowledge refers to any information or subject matter familiarity possessed by the employee at the outset of the performance that can be directly applied to undertak- ing tasks and activities.

• Skills represent learned and observable competencies in the manual, verbal, or mental manipulation of people, ideas, or things. Skills fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical-thinking, and problem-solving skills (for more on these, see Chap- ter 2).

• Abilities represent the power and capacity to perform tasks or functions and to carry out activities while applying or utilizing relevant skills and knowledge. Abili- ties can be physical—for example, an employee who is hired to lift heavy stock must be physically able to do so. They can also be mental. An employee may be a very fast typist, for example, but the ability to clearly and concisely outline points, organize information, and put together a project proposal is far more valuable than the speed at which it is typed up.

As we know from Chapter 1, skill-diverse memberships drawn from different functional or departmental backgrounds are referred to as cross-functional. Cross-functional teams have become popular across all team variations and settings as a viable way to enhance creativity, flexibility, and functionality of collaborative work processes and products. Diversity based on differences in members’ KSAs tends to improve the group’s performance outcomes, particu- larly when they involve complex group processes or tasks (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000). Members who vary in type or level of KSAs will naturally complement each other during properly managed group work and teamwork, enhancing performance levels for the entire team. Homogenous groups, which are based on similarities between members, tend to miss out on this important advantage. In such cases the primary benefit of group work devolves from the ability to collaborate and pool useful knowledge, skills, and abilities toward effective performance to a simple efficiency boost based on strength in numbers.

So how does skill diversity affect group performance? Unlike cultural diversity, there is no evidence that skill diversity is ever a drawback. However, its positive value depends mainly on two factors:

1. Effective team building for relevant and complementary expertise. 2. Members’ ability to work past other diversity characteristics to effectively collaborate.

This includes surface-level diversity as well as deep-level diversities such as personal- ity differences and individual interests and needs.

We will examine the dynamics attached to these diversity characteristics next.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 141 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Personality Differences Personality represents another type of diversity. Personality refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving based on individual cognitive and behavioral styles (McCreary, 1960; George & Jones, 2002). These differences tend to be rela- tively stable across time and situation. This definition makes intuitive sense; when we label an individual as a “grump,” we insinuate that he or she is habitually in a bad mood, pessimis- tic, and unhappy, regardless of the situation.

Like skill-based diversity, personality differences represent a deep-level diversity. Although some aspects of personality can be more obvious than others (like extreme confidence or shyness), member personality as a whole is complex and not readily observable. Rather, one’s personality may only surface after substantial interaction and discussion among team mem- bers. In fact, some aspects of personality can be so deeply hidden or subtle that they can go completely unnoticed, despite significantly influencing our interactions.

Like other forms of diversity, personality can be either an asset or a drawback to both group work and teamwork. Because personality is complex and its expression can highly depend on the situation, individual personality differences can be hard to define. We may not even be aware that we possess a particular set of personality traits. For this reason, personality differences can lead to serious miscommunication and dysfunctional conflict in teams (Utley, Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). It is therefore good practice for groups and teams to become aware of individual personality differences by taking personality tests and understanding that these differences can impact interaction.

Cognitive style reflects our habitual preferences for perceiving and processing information; our approach to knowledge retrieval and use; and our preferred ways of thinking, solving problems, and dealing with change (Chilton & Bloodgood, 2010). As a dimension of personal- ity, cognitive style affects our tendency to be more or less independent, attentive, impulsive, reflective, adaptive, and innovative. It also affects our ability to learn and recall information, and it influences our attitudes, values, and behavior in social interactions. Likewise, behav- ioral style reflects habitual patterns of behavior developed over time and influences our ten- dency to be task or relationship oriented; prefer fast or slow pacing; and be more or less dominant, expressive, supportive, or calculating in social interactions (McKenna, Shelton, & Darling, 2002). Together, cognitive and behavioral styles make up the dimensions of our per- sonality (Robbins, 2001).

The Big Five and Myers–Briggs Psychologists organize personality into specific dimensions, referred to as traits (McCrae & Costa, 1997). While hundreds of traits have been identified and observed since personality theory was introduced, five traits have emerged as cardinal in their ability to influence behav- ior and social patterns. These five traits form the five-factor (or Big Five) model of personal- ity (Goldberg, 1990). They include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 4.2).

Another tool for examining personality is the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs- Myers & Myers, 1980), which identifies four dual-poled dimensions of personality. The four dimensions include: extroversion -introversion, sensing -intuition, thinking -feeling, and judging -perceiving. The MBTI personality dimensions are outlined in Table 4.3.

Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits

Trait Description Example

Openness to experience

A person’s degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and preference for novelty; includes how imaginative or independent a person is and the degree to which one prefers to engage in a variety of activities over a strict routine

Members with a high level of openness to experience are less likely to perceive diversity as negative, more likely to voluntarily engage in cross-cultural interactions, and view differences as interesting rather than threatening.

Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level of discipline, and how prone he or she is to taking risks

Highly conscientious group members will likely respond to all messages by the end of each day, maintain impecca- ble work areas, and make comprehen- sive and detailed reports. They might also avoid taking risks, challenging boundaries, or breaking with norms.

Extroversion The degree to which a person dem- onstrates energy, positive emotions, positive engagement, assertiveness, sociability, and talkativeness and seeks stimulation in the company of others

Highly extroverted group members are more likely to volunteer and discuss ideas, seek out other members for col- laboration, and prefer to socialize with coworkers outside of work, as opposed to staying in and watching a movie.

Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind, dependable, and cooperative

Highly agreeable group members are typically more interested in doing things for the common good, as opposed to fulfilling their own self-interests.

Neuroticism A person’s tendency toward unpleas- ant emotions, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability; also refers to a person’s tendency to be nervous, anxious, and suffer from low self-confidence and self-contentment

Members with a high degree of neu- roticism tend to view interaction in a negative light and to perceive and/or start conflict, but they may be just as quick to shy away from difficult con- versations needed to resolve it. Anxiety or lack of self-confidence can also lead to poor participation in group efforts.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 142 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits

Trait Description Example

Openness to experience

Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level of discipline, and how prone he or she is to taking risks

Extroversion The degree to which a person dem- onstrates energy, positive emotions, positive engagement, assertiveness, sociability, and talkativeness and seeks stimulation in the company of others

Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind, dependable, and cooperative

Highly agreeable group members are typically more interested in doing things for the common good, as opposed to fulfilling their own self-interests.

The Big Five traits and the MBTI are often used to evaluate employees’ potential personality dynamics as new hires or for group work and teamwork. Though the results are not defini- tive, they can help raise our awareness of our personality traits and dimensions and the way these may affect our interactions. Ideally, this can help individuals better understand team- mates who differ from them, and adjust their expectations and behavior to accommodate these differences.

For instance, extroverts and introverts have different preferences when it comes to answer- ing questions. Extroverts like to think out loud, while introverts tend to prefer quiet time to gather their thoughts. In groups, extroverts can crowd out introverts by occupying a domi- nant position in the conversation, disrupting introverts’ thought processes, and not allowing them enough time to answer questions. Groups that are aware of these tendencies can work to address them by:

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 143 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Extroversion Introversion

Sensing Intuition

Thinking Feeling

Judging Perceiving

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Table 4.3: Four dimensions of the MBTI

Dimension Description Associated personality types

Extroversion– introversion

Deals with how people direct their attention and gain energy

Extrovert: directs attention outward, toward people and objects

Introvert: directs attention inward, toward concepts and ideas

Sensing–intuition Deals with how people gather information

Sensing: prefers information that can be understood by the five senses and that is in the present, tangible, and concrete

Intuitive: prefers information that comes from hunches; tends to instinc- tively build patterns that provide a big- picture view of a situation or problem out of isolated facts

Thinking–feeling Deals with how people tend to make decisions

Thinking: tends to make decisions from a detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and to match a given set of rules

Feeling: tends to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation and weighing it to achieve the greatest harmony, considering the needs of those involved

Judging–perceiving Deals with preferences for using either the judging function (thinking or feel- ing) or perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world

Judging: tends to have her life orga- nized and under control; likes to meet deadlines and be on time

Perceiving: tends to be spontaneous in attitude and action; may often be late and seem disorganized to judg- ing types because he likes to keep his options open until the last minute

Extroversion Introversion

Sensing Intuition

Thinking Feeling

Judging Perceiving

• making conversational space for introverts and inviting them to share ideas; • structuring group process to include time for both active discussion and quiet reflec-

tion; and • employing techniques like the round robin, where everybody takes turns speaking.

A good group facilitator can also help manage such a process.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 144 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Personality and Effectiveness Beyond developing sensitivity to avoid miscommunication and conflict, teams can benefit from diverse personalities in the same way they can benefit from diverse skills. For instance, in a project team composed of both intuitive and sensing types, the intuitive types will tend to focus on the big-picture aspects of the project, whereas the sensing types will pay attention to and manage its details. Both of these aspects are important to the project’s successful comple- tion. Furthermore, they are complementary.

Similarly, both thinking and feeling types can be useful and complement each other when teams make decisions. Imagine, for instance, that one member of a team experiences an adverse allergic reaction during a lunch meeting. Thinking types are likely to focus on logic to deal with the situation (for example, throw the food away, call 911, and search for medication in their colleague’s belongings). Feeling types are more likely to offer physical and psycho- logical comfort (for example, holding the team member’s hand, telling her it will be alright, distracting her with a witty story). Both types react usefully to the situation.

While it is generally desirable to have diverse personality types within a group or team, research has shown that certain personality traits are more beneficial than others. Agree- ableness can significantly enhance group cohesiveness and cooperation levels and can facilitate attachment between members and conflict resolution (Greene, 1989; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Klein et al., 2006). Conscientiousness has been found to be a fairly potent posi- tive predictor of team effectiveness (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999). However, it is more strongly related to effectiveness for performance and planning tasks than for creativity and decision-making tasks (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neu- man & Wright, 1999). Furthermore, when decisions require adaptability, the rule following and risk avoidance associated with conscientiousness becomes a negative, and openness to experience is the more relevant positive predictor of effectiveness. Therefore, the type of per- formance required by the group or team determines whether conscientiousness will be a desirable personality trait in its members. Finally, extroversion can have a positive impact on group performance, since the tendency to “think out loud” is conducive to communica- tion and knowledge sharing between members. However, its impact on team effectiveness is greater for decision-making tasks than for performance or planning tasks, possibly because the former involve a greater degree of persuasion and personal influence (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999).

Overall, personality is an important facet of diversity that influences the effectiveness of groups and teams. While certain traits (such as agreeableness) are desirable in all team mem- bers, it is also important to have a mix of different personality traits that complement each other and maximize group effectiveness. It is also advantageous for team members to become aware of their own personality traits and those of their teammates—this helps avoid destruc- tive miscommunication and conflict. They can do so by taking personality tests such as the MBTI or the Big Five personality test. Next, we look at individual interests and needs, another sometimes invisible diversity characteristic that can have a very visible impact on group and team performance.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 145 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Concepts in Action: Are You an Introvert or Extrovert? Take the Lemon-Drop Test!

Can a drop of lemon juice tell you if you are introvert or extrovert? In 1967 Dr. Hans Eysenck pioneered a series of experiments examining introversion and extroversion in relation to exci- tation of the nervous system. Have you ever noticed that your mouth begins to water at your first bite of dinner after a long day? This has to do with a part of our brain that responds to stimuli like food, noise, and social contact. Working from the idea that introverts are more sensitive to sensory stimulus, Eysenck devised the lemon-drop test to quickly and easily test those sensitivity levels (Little, 2014):

Here’s what you do: Get an eyedropper, a piece of thread, a double-tipped cotton swab, and concentrated lemon juice. Attach the thread to the middle of the cotton swab so that when you hold it by the end of the thread it balances horizontally. Swallow about four times, then hold one end of the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds. Take it out and place five drops of the lemon juice concentrate on your tongue. Swallow the juice then place the remaining dry end of the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds, take it out, and let it dangle. What do you see? Some people will end up with a horizontal swab. Others will watch one end (the after-juice side) dip down. What does it mean?

When Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck 1967a, 1967b) placed four drops of lemon juice on a test subject’s tongue for 20 seconds, extreme extroverts salivated a little or not at all. Extreme introverts had a massive response. These and other subsequent recreations of the lemon-drop test (Corcoran & Hajduk, 1980) found that generally:

• introverts salivated more than extroverts, and • most people salivated more heavily in response to noise during the test and in the

morning, as opposed to afternoon.

Although later studies found this method to be inconclusive (Ramsay, 1969), the lemon-drop test is still a fun and easy experiment you can perform at home by yourself or with family and friends. Try the test at different times of the day and in both a quiet and a noisy environment. If your swab remains level, you might be biogenically predisposed to extroversion. If your swab dips, you have a stronger response to sensory stimulation, making you more biogenically pre- disposed to introversion (Little, 2014).

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. How did the results of your test correlate to your own expectations about your

personality? 2. Discuss the results and expectations you had for the test with family members or

friends. How do their assessments of your personality compare to your own? 3. Although the lemon-drop test is not a formal evaluation of your personality traits, it does

represent a step toward self-awareness. Based on the Big Five and Myers–Briggs person- ality traits and dimensions described in this section, what other observations can you make about your own personality and how it might impact group work and teamwork?

Individual Interests and Needs Though they unite around some common interest or purpose, group members do have indi- vidual interests and needs. Some of these they hope to fulfill via the group experience, and others will inevitably affect the group’s dynamics. In 1954 Dr. Abraham Maslow published a

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 146 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Physiological Survival Needs: shelter, nourishment, warmth, sex, sleep

Safety Needs: security, protection, stability, order, limits

Belongingness Needs: relationships, affection, family, groups, inclusion, acceptance

Esteem Needs: achievement, status, responsibility, recognition

Cognitive Needs

Aesthetic Needs

Self-Actuation Needs

Transcendence

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

game-changing book titled Motivation and Personality. This seminal work introduced a foun- dational model of human needs, organized in a pyramid. The needs at the base of the pyramid represent the most critical and undeniable, such as basic physiological survival needs. Each subsequent level represents higher aims that we are motivated to satisfy only after fulfilling the ones below. While later versions of the hierarchy (Maslow, 1969a, 1969b) added layers to the top, the first four levels remain the same. As shown in Figure 4.3, these include, in ascend- ing order, our basic survival needs, our safety needs, our desire to belong, and our desire to enhance our self-esteem through acceptance, as well as through personal achievement and respect from others.

Figure 4.3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: The four foundational needs

In Maslow’s final hierarchy of human needs, belongingness and esteem rank just after basic survival and safety needs, taking precedence over our desire to know and understand and the drive to find personal fulfillment.

Source: Based on Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. Boston: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.

Physiological Survival Needs: shelter, nourishment, warmth, sex, sleep

Safety Needs: security, protection, stability, order, limits

Belongingness Needs: relationships, affection, family, groups, inclusion, acceptance

Esteem Needs: achievement, status, responsibility, recognition

Cognitive Needs

Aesthetic Needs

Self-Actuation Needs

Transcendence

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 147 8/19/16 12:56 PM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Contrary to the dimensions of diversity that impact group and team performance, it is not the differences in our individual interests and needs that are most significant. It is expected that members—especially when they come from different organizations or departments— will hold vested interests, and for the most part these are dealt with by following organiza- tional procedure regarding hierarchy, processes, and cooperative practices. It is generally the human needs we hold in common, such as the desire for belongingness and esteem, that are unplanned for and impact us most, as we find our own individual way of expressing and real- izing them within the group (Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer, 2012).

Belongingness Belongingness refers to our psychological and emotional need to feel—and sense of being— accepted, valued, sheltered, and cared for by a specific group and to reciprocate acceptance, value, protection, and caring in turn (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). More than simple compan- ionship, most people want to feel a sense of belongingness within a specific group or com- munity of others. The desire to identify with and belong to a cohesive group is arguably an evolved species survival trait (DeWall, Deckman, Pond, & Bonser, 2011). The comparative luxury of even the most modest modern lifestyles makes it easy to forget that in early civi- lizations and primitive cultures, exile from the group was equated with both physical and spiritual death.

Physically, an individual is severely disadvantaged when competing against a group; resource procurement, allocation, protection, and sharing are all more easily accomplished within a cooperative group. Failure to belong is known to be psychologically and emotionally dam- aging as well. Many of our positive emotions (triumph, elation, contentment, serenity) are linked to our perceived acceptance, inclusion, and welcome by others. Rejection, exclusion, and being ignored foster anxiety, depression, anger, and despair. Acceptance and value within a group are often denoted by a group member’s status within the group, which is associated with esteem needs within Maslow’s hierarchy.

Status Status is an informally or formally conferred social ranking or position in relation to oth- ers. Status can be awarded in two ways: from outside the group and carried into it (for example, designated leadership), or granted by other members of the group (for example, emergent leadership). Formal status involves specific titles and responsibilities or rewards (for example, project manager or Miss America). Informal status grants no special titles or overt responsibilities and rewards, but it may come with more subtle versions of these (for example, influence among peers or respect and deferment). When status is granted, it can be based on an individual’s actual KSAs or on his or her perceived or assumed KSAs. Experts tend to be given more status and be deferred to when their area of expertise comes into play. Members with greater experience in a particular area enjoy similar effects. If group members have not worked together before and do not take the time to get to know one another’s KSAs, they might incorrectly assume that skills are present (or are lacking). We often assume, for example, that older group members have more job-specific experience and knowledge, but this is not always the case. People enter the job market at various times and stages in their lives. Assuming an older group member has significantly more knowledge and experience than he or she does can lead a group to follow unrealistic suggestions or may create personal conflict and bad feelings on both sides should the group member be unable to fulfill others’ expectations.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 148 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups

Status differences can affect the emergence of leadership and responsibility roles and influ- ence how team members interact (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977). For example, higher status members tend to interrupt more often, sometimes using this as a tool to control a conversation—and thereby hold greater influence in the interaction (Farley, 2008). We tend to believe that higher status individuals are more trustworthy and competent than members with lower status. If group members act on these beliefs, such assumptions can become self- fulfilling and potentially impede group achievement. In today’s workplace, formally trained expertise is not a given—nor does it always lead to greater skill. Elon Musk, for example, typically hires the best students from the top schools—but he makes a point of disregarding the educational level or background of new hires when they can prove unique KSAs in rel- evant areas (Vance, 2015). Not everybody is so practical, however. Group members can dis- count informally trained colleagues, rallying around those with official titles and degrees. The expectation of skill can be so strong that even when formally educated members prove to be less knowledgeable or skilled than others, this tends to be overlooked as members with rel- evant skills pick up the slack. However, unless the members in power admit their lack of rel- evant input or contributions—or other group members break their cycle of expectation and recognize who is making the most effective contributions—those doing the actual work will not be credited. Letting members who are doing real and valuable work go unacknowledged invites resentment, sets up false expectations about the value of each group member, and cre- ates a situation in which some members are working for others, rather than with the group.

The tendency to assign status based on false assumptions can involve stereotyping. Group or team members may use surface-level characteristics to infer what someone’s skills, expe- rience, or attitudes may be in group roles or tasks, thereby affecting the individual’s abil- ity to achieve status within the group or team. For instance, stereotypes related to certain characteristics—such as gender, ethnicity, or age—can factor into role assignments within groups. Women—who are often viewed as more intuitive and conciliatory then men (Carli, 1989)—may be expected to take on mediation or facilitation duties for the group. Likewise, nonnative-language speakers may be disregarded or not given equal attention during discus- sion because members assume they will not be very good at expressing themselves. Mem- bers may also hold expectations about the way interactions will play out, expecting higher status members to speak more and set agendas. If such expectations are based on assumed rather than actual KSAs, members with worthy ideas or implementation experience may feel squelched or unappreciated.

All of these problems are associated with assigning status based on unfounded assumptions and can result in damaging the sense of belongingness and esteem of some—if not all—of a group’s members. Acknowledging and rewarding real contributions and KSAs is critical to effective performance. Discovering who our group mates really are and what they know is a key step in:

• avoiding errors and negative dynamics caused by false assumptions, • strategically planning for and making good use of members’ actual KSAs, • helping the group move through the status-balancing process, • overthrowing stereotypes and their associated negative effects, • flattening status hierarchies as members develop positive relations, and • maintaining members’ sense of belongingness and esteem.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 149 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

Individual needs for belongingness and esteem can affect group interaction in other ways. A desire for acceptance, for example, can cause some group members to avoid disagreeing with others or identifying problems, even when knowledge or experience suggests that they should. This is a common pitfall in groups and teams in which members lack the confidence to engage in open knowledge sharing and conflict, and many team failures are attributed to this (Jelphs, 2006; Salas et al., 2000). The desire for personal achievement or recognition can likewise lead some members to view those who do bring up potential problems as imped- ing group progress, rather than raising important concerns. If they can activate other group members’ desire for achievement by rapidly accomplishing the group’s objectives, the team may fall into groupthink, a process dysfunction that can have disastrous results. We will exam- ine groupthink and other decision-making downfalls in Chapter 6. For now, we will focus on strategies for managing diversity to achieve positive outcomes.

4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes In the workplace, group diversity primarily impacts performance via the functional dimen- sions of member interrelations, namely interdependence, communication, and group pro- cesses. Fundamentally, this is because diverse groups tend to be less cohesive and more prone to conflict (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Depending on how these conditions play out, they can have either positive or negative results. The tendency toward greater conflict, for exam- ple, is generally regarded as conducive to creativity, innovation, and increased quality in solu- tion finding and decision making (Agrawal, 2012). However, poorly managed conflict tends to lead to more process loss than gain (Kolb, 2013).

To successfully coordinate and collaborate within group endeavors, both socioemotional and task interdependence demand a certain level of cohesiveness and the ability to air and resolve conflicts between team members. Effective communication is the primary means by which members can achieve these ends, yet diversity can damage the development of shared per- ception and understanding required for effective communication. This in turn has a profound effect on group processes and generates negative diversity effects. Conversely, positive diver- sity effects (such as increased ideas and viewpoints) can enhance group discussion, which increases the quality of group problem-solving and decision-making outcomes. This in turn enhances the group’s motivation and satisfaction across both dimensions of interdependence. The effects of group diversity, acting in concert with the functional dimensions of member interrelations, create a self-sustaining cycle that continuously generates and reinforces posi- tive or negative effects and outcomes (see Figure 4.4). It is therefore of utmost importance to conscientiously manage member diversity and its associated dynamics.

Perception and Diversity Management Perception is critical to managing diversity for positive outcomes. The perception of diver- sity—that is, whether it is viewed as positive or negative—dramatically affects how we engage it and its overall impact (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In the workplace, diversity perceptions begin with the organization.

Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity from one of four perspectives (Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):

Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity

and interrelations

The effects of diversity and the functional dimensions of member interrelations can generate a self- enhancing cycle of either positive or negative effects and outcomes.

Diversity Effects

Communication

Group Processes Interdependence

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 150 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Diversity Effects

Communication

Group Processes Interdependence

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

1. Reinforcing homogeneity: The organization tends to avoid, reject, and even drive out diversity within its workforce. This can be explicit and overtly designed, as in the case of a casting call looking for a par- ticular type of actor. Or it can be implicit, wherein managers use highly specific criteria to select and promote employees. For example, hiring criteria that require applicants to know the local social and business scene, have long-term residency, and be able to access certain net- works would implicitly rein- force homogeneity by screening out recent immigrants (Flam, 2008; Podsiadlowski & Ward, 2010).

2. Discrimination and fairness: The organization advocates treating people equally no matter what. However, it does so from a point of intentional blindness that neither acknowledges differences nor the need for supportive measures to address them (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013).

3. Access: The organization views diversity as a business access strategy, in which orga- nizational employees reflect the diversity of the client and market base.

4. Integration and learning: The organization believes that both it and its employees benefit from a diverse workforce. Diversity is viewed as fostering a learning environ- ment in which all parties mutually adapt.

An organization’s perspectives on diversity inform the attitudes and behaviors of its manag- ers and employees. Organizational perspectives also inform the diversity strategies (ranging from nonexistent to comprehensive) that communicate the perceived significance of diversity within the organization (Bhawuk, Podsiadlowski, Graf, & Triandis, 2002). If the organization does not view diversity as a relevant factor, managers and employees will be less likely to do so as well. Even those who want to address employee diversity will find it difficult to do so if strategic organizational support is insufficient or absent.

Whatever perspective an organization adopts will be reflected in its employees’ perception and reaction to diversity within workplace groups and teams. Of the four perspectives out- lined previously, the access and integration and learning perspectives are the most proactive and useful for promoting positive diversity outcomes, since they acknowledge the strategic benefits and advantages of diversity that competitive organizations call for today (Podsiad- lowski et al., 2013).

Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity from one of four perspectives (Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):

Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity

and interrelations

The effects of diversity and the functional dimensions of member interrelations can generate a self- enhancing cycle of either positive or negative effects and outcomes.

Diversity Effects

Communication

Group Processes Interdependence

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 151 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

We have discussed how our perception, or viewpoint, on diversity affects our response, but perceiving diversity comes into play in another way as well. Perceiving other members as similar or different depends on our ability to notice similarities and differences and accu- rately screen out those that are imagined or assumed. Differences that are not perceived may not overtly affect the group. On the other hand, they can affect our motivations and responses during group interactions; if group members are not aware that these differences exist, mis- understandings can occur. This may seem to suggest that we attempt to hide our differences. However, differences that are not readily perceived cannot be planned for or used as a basis for members to understand and accept each other. Furthermore, differences can be perceived whether they are actually there or not (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Because perception is largely subjective, group members may selectively interpret what they see, feel, or experi- ence. In doing so, they can easily assume or imagine differences that do not really exist. None- theless, because they are treated as being present, assumed or imagined differences can have the same effect on group dynamics as real diversity (Harrison et al., 2002; Riordan, 2000). Likewise, members may have hidden areas of similarity that could help them find common ground; however, they will not able to use them to this end if these similarities go unnoticed.

The fundamental challenge underlying interactions between highly diverse group members is unfamiliarity. When conducting business across cultures, for example, we are faced with ideas, materials, knowledge, language, and behavioral norms that may seem confusing and strange when compared to our own. Keep in mind that the novelty and confusion goes both ways. Each culturally distinct team member feels comfortable within his own culture and finds others different and strange. Being mindful of this can help mitigate culture shock, or the disorientation, confusion, and fear we sometimes feel when dealing with ideas, circum- stances, people, or things that are unfamiliar and/or outside of our own cultural conditioning and experience. Reminding ourselves that others find our own culture just as strange is a good way to change perspective.

Next, we discuss strategies for identifying and developing similarities within diverse groups.

Finding and Building on Similarities No matter how homogeneous a group appears, no two members will be exactly alike. The reverse is true as well. Regardless of how different group members may seem, we can all find some basis for similarities—and use this to build more. Similarity refers to the shared char- acteristics, situation, attitudes, outlook, or state engendering feelings of relative closeness, comfort, and familiarity.

So why is similarity important? To begin with, similarity is comfortable. We find it easier to start a conversation with people who seem to be like us, because we believe we will have interests and conversational topics in common. We are more likely to understand and be able to predict the behavior of others who are similar, which tends to relax us (Leonard et al., 2004). Members of highly diverse groups may initially feel uncomfortable (Hansen, Owan, & Pan, 2006), in part because they do not quite know what to expect from members who appear different.

But why do we find comfort in similarity? Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1954) and his mid-20th-century contemporaries took a highly cognitive approach to group processes, sug- gesting that we find similar others more comfortable and attractive because we use them as a

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 152 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

touch point to process our own experience with the world. Similar others tell us what is rea- sonable to expect, show us how well we are performing compared with our peers, and help us feel less embarrassed about anxiety-provoking situations. This facilitates the formation and acceptance of both social and task-related group norms. Consider that in a given workplace, employees who are of similar ages, attended the same university, or grew up in the same area may feel more confident discussing work-related issues with each other than with less similar others—even if they were all hired at the same time. Because of the bonds formed by similarity, employees are more likely to regard information gleaned from similar cohorts as trustworthy. They are also likely to cultivate an environment in which this kind of communi- cation becomes more frequent (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001).

There are several benefits that come with finding and developing similarities in workplace groups and teams. Although formal groups form around a specific task or agenda, perceived similarities between members impact the speed and level at which interrelations develop (Phillips et al., 2006). Finding similarity within diverse memberships can foster solidarity and understanding within a group or team (Curry & Dunbar, 2013). Additionally, building bonds of similarity across diverse members can help ease tension when perspectives come into conflict and can encourage team members to see those different perspectives as relevant and useful to the group (Leung et al., 2003).

So how do we find and build on similarities between team members from highly diverse back- grounds? The primary point of similarity for members in a workplace group or team is mem- bership in the group or team itself. Team leaders and managers can reinforce this point of similarity from the outset of group work by:

• effectively communicating performance needs; • demonstrating the call for the team; and • introducing members as valuable components, highlighting how special back-

grounds or KSAs will be useful to the collaboration—being sure to neither miss nor overemphasize any one member (Agrawal, 2012).

To ease tension and help team members view their differences as useful, team leaders and managers should also set positive examples and norms for constructive controversy through- out the duration of the group. They might achieve this by:

• showing openness and regard for others’ viewpoints; • viewing debate as a constructive tool for ideation, knowledge sharing, and identify-

ing problems; • maintaining focus on task- and process-orientated paths; • defusing the tendency toward personal conflict in debate; and • working collaboratively to solve interpersonal conflicts that do arise.

By enacting these dynamics within the group or team, leaders and managers actively dem- onstrate the idea that team members are all in this together. Similarity is activated around identification with the group, members’ mutual ability to respect each other’s ideas and con- tributions, and the shared motivation and efforts to collaborate. Differences become easier to accept when viewed as assets to the team’s collective performance.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 153 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

As diverse members get to know one another, they will discover other, more personal points of similarity. Managers and team leaders can help this along by initiating informal interac- tions such as eating together; going on impromptu work-related field trips; using project- based, in-team humor and concepts; and so on. However, developing cross-cultural psycho- logical capital can also enhance the spirit of cooperation between team members and bolster positive relations. We discuss this topic next.

Cross-Cultural Psychological Capital Psychological capital (PsyCap) refers to our positive state of psychological development. It consists of four psychological resources: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). These resources act synergistically to enhance human functioning across a variety of settings and domains (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013). In the workplace, PsyCap has been a demonstrably important element in enhancing job perfor- mance, employee satisfaction and engagement, organizational commitment, and organiza- tional citizenship behaviors such as altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness (Reichard et al., 2014; Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Besides the obvious relevance of such behaviors to group work and teamwork, PsyCap has been recognized as a necessary element for being able to effectively deal with workplace diversity and culturally diverse group mem- berships (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011; Clapp-Smith, Luthans, & Avolio, 2007). Cross-cultural PsyCap, a relatively new term referencing PsyCap within the domain of cross-cultural interac- tions (Dollwet & Reichard, 2014), is composed of four major components: cross-cultural self- efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

Cross-Cultural Self-Efficacy Cross-cultural self-efficacy represents group members’ belief in their own ability to suc- cessfully navigate cross-cultural interactions (Reichard et al., 2014). This has been found to be a particularly powerful resource for working across cultures and in diverse groups (Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio, 2006). High levels of cross-cultural efficacy, for example, have been correlated to willingness to learn new ways of thinking and acting when living in a foreign country (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Research suggests that high levels of cross-cultural effi- cacy have similar effects on employees’ motivation to understand and adapt to new environ- ments (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Hope Hope represents a motivational cognitive state that enables group members to set goals that are realistically achievable through self-directed behavior. It also increases their will and capacity to generate alternate strategies for obstacles they encounter (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991). Studies on authentic leadership have correlated hope to self-awareness and self-knowledge (Avolio & Luthens, 2006), suggesting that those of us with high hope may be more aware of our culturally conditioned assumptions, which allows us to see more clearly where we can move beyond these assumptions to learn from other cultures.

Hope increases resourcefulness, autonomy, and independent thinking, all qualities positively associated with successful work performance in a culturally diverse setting (Luthans et al., 2007). Resourcefulness and increased will and capacity for finding alternate strategies are of particular importance in culturally diverse groups and interactions, since members typically

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 154 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes

deal with language barriers and normative differences that may obstruct communication and knowledge sharing. Hope increases the likelihood that group members will both pursue and achieve objectives that involve working with people from diverse cultures (Reichard et al., 2014).

Optimism Optimism represents our expectation for positive outcomes. Expecting the best, optimistic group members strive continuously toward their goals, even when they encounter difficulties typical of cross-cultural interactions such as language barriers, confusing attitudes, behav- ioral differences, misunderstandings, and lack of shared context (Peterson, 2000). Leaders and managers who adopt an optimistic explanatory style when discussing cross-cultural interactions, or the challenges associated with such interactions, inspire group members to maintain positive expectations for cross-cultural interactions—even when faced with set- backs or failure (Luthans et al., 2007). Of special importance to cross-cultural interactions, optimism is associated with the ability to handle ambiguity and uncertainty, take risks during interactions, and learn from mistakes (Rhinesmith, 1996). When optimism is strong in cross- cultural interactions, group members are less likely to blame setbacks and failures on others (scapegoating). They are more likely to attribute these to external causes and ideate new strategies for success in subsequent interactions (Reichard et al., 2014).

Resilience Resilience represents the adaptive capacity to bounce back from the impact of negative—or even positive—events (Masten, 2001). Resilience is a major psychological resource for over- coming stressful events and interactions in any setting. When working in a cross-cultural set- ting, high resilience can help group members continue to perform well even when dealing with culture shock, differences in custom and norms, language barriers, or diversity-based conflict (Bird, 2013; Bird & Stevens, 2013). Resilience promotes proactive learning—even when working under adverse conditions. It also supports coping and adaptive abilities, including broadened thinking, which helps people flourish outside their habitual comfort zones (Luthans et al., 2007; Clapp-Smith et al., 2007).

The four components of cross-cultural PsyCap work together to create the basic psychological resources needed to successfully navigate, collaborate within, and even enjoy cross-cultural interactions. Taken together, they represent a powerful tool for diversity management. But how do we build cross-cultural PsyCap? Can we train hope and optimism? Next, we briefly look at diversity training and training for cross-cultural PsyCap.

Diversity Training Today’s multinational business environment needs not only individuals and team members who can effectively work across cultures, but methods that can foster more generalizable diversity skills in all employees. Most diversity training courses focus on increasing employ- ees’ knowledge about differences. For example, they might encourage employees to learn about other cultures (such as defining moments in history, cultural movements, or politi- cal and economic systems) and to work on language proficiency. This method can be use- ful if employees consistently deal with only a few cultural groups (for example, a sales rep based in Hong Kong or a member of a long-term cross-cultural work team with membership

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 155 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

originating from only two or three distinct cultures). However, this method is not an effec- tively scalable strategy for fostering more general diversity awareness and proficiency in an employee base as a whole (Reichard et al., 2014). So, what is an alternative?

Positive results have been garnered by adding developmental interventions that target cross- cultural PsyCap to existing diversity and global leader development training courses (Oddou & Mendenhall, 2013). Featured training has been grounded in PsyCap (Luthans, 2012; Luthans et al., 2007) and focused on the development of cross-cultural PsyCap by strengthening its component psychological resources. This was achieved through carefully targeted exercises focused on relevant processes such as generating self-awareness, reframing past events, prac- ticing interpersonal relations skills (such as mindfulness, effective listening, and communica- tion), and identifying multiple strategies for success within cross-cultural interactions and role play (Reichard et al., 2014).

While psychological resources like cross-cultural efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience can- not exactly be trained, they can be instilled via training experiences. By navigating a variety of role-playing interactions in culturally diverse groups, for example, we can experience suc- cessful cross-cultural encounters, represented by working through both positive and negative exchanges together. These experiences can increase the psychological resources that are held by individuals and the group as a whole. At the same time, the positive dynamic of collabora- tive learning will strengthen these resources as well. Members of these training groups will find common ground in the need to learn how to deal with their differences.

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

Leveraging workplace diversity is now viewed as a critical factor in achieving both imme- diate and long-term organizational objectives. Increasingly, organizations are looking to management to effect positive diversity outcomes. Treated positively, diversity enriches an entire organization. The training and experience that allows us to let go of cultural condi- tioning and be more open to other perspectives enhances all our interpersonal interactions. These same capacities have a beneficial effect on the quality of our problem-solving and decision-making skills. Chapter 5 delves into the group problem solving process, exploring the elements and steps involved, and its application in contemporary organizations.

Chapter Summary

• Diversity is increasingly unavoidable in today’s world, and inviting and managing positive diversity is a key factor in addressing contemporary organizational needs.

• Whether diversity leads to positive or negative outcomes in group interaction or performance largely depends on the type of differences between members, our perception of them, and our ability to recognize and moderate the internal cognitive barriers (such as egocentrism, prejudice, and stereotyping) that get in the way of building communication and positive relations between diverse members.

• Surface-level diversity characteristics (such as demographic differences) tend to have a more immediate divisive effect on the group, but this may be mitigated by dis- covering similarities or by complementing one another in deep-level characteristics, such as expertise, worldview, personality, and so on.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 156 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

• Deep-level diversity characteristics are not as easily perceived as surface-level characteristics, so they may cause less conflict at the outset of group performance. Because deep-level characteristics tend to be personal in nature, however, when conflict does arise based on these, it can be more difficult to navigate and resolve.

• Cultural and skill diversity, personality differences, and individual interests and needs are major diversity elements that commonly affect integration and perfor- mance in workplace groups.

• Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are interrelated cognitive barriers that can have a profoundly negative effect on group interactions, member relations, and performance.

• In managing diversity for positive outcomes, perception is key. • Positive or negative perceptions of diversity and its potential effect on performance

begin with the organization’s view of these. • Finding and building similarities that mitigate or transcend our differences, and

developing cross-cultural PsyCap that allows us to better handle these differences, are key strategies for building positive diversity perceptions in individual employees and group members.

Posttest

1. Which of the following is FALSE about personality traits and dimension? a. They represent a deep-level diversity characteristic. b. They can be unknown even to ourselves. c. They are relatively easy to discern from the outset of group work or teamwork. d. They can be good and bad for team performance.

2. Which of the following is FALSE about stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination? a. They represent limiting preconceptions activated by our perception of diversity. b. They can be consciously or unconsciously erected. c. They are associated with the concept of in-group-out-group bias. d. They are only a factor in highly dysfunctional settings.

3. Which of the following is FALSE about low diversity groups? a. They tend to engage in lower levels of conflict. b. They tend to generate higher quality decisions. c. They tend to regenerate existing strategies. d. They tend to come up with fewer strategic options.

4. Properly managed diversity is a critical organizational asset, enabling an organiza- tion to __________. a. resist organizational change b. specialize in a target clientele c. maximize human resources d. meet legislated guidelines

5. Which of the following is FALSE about similar others? a. They are more likely to be unpredictable. b. They are perceived as being more trustworthy. c. They help us process our own experiences. d. They make us feel more comfortable.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 157 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

6. In-group-out-group bias refers to our __________. a. desire for belongingness within a group b. need to attain status within a group c. tendency to champion our own groups d. tendency to use stereotypes to categorize others

7. Cultural identity refers to the total construct of our __________. a. sense of what is “natural” and “right” b. shared attitudes, values, customs, and behavioral norms c. previous or existing national, organizational, and/or group culture d. culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences

8. In managing diversity for positive outcomes, __________ is key. a. diversity training b. perception c. similarity d. cultural conditioning

9. The primary focus of diversity in the modern workplace is to __________. a. counteract discrimination against minorities b. promote political correctness c. improve performance d. create an organizational melting pot

10. Scapegoating involves __________. a. taking credit for someone else’s contributions b. discriminating against a group member based on differences c. unfairly singling out a group member for blame d. treating a group member poorly due to lower status

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. One does not have to be part of an ethnic minority to be discriminated against; con- sider the case of obesity. Since the 1980s worldwide prevalence of obesity has more than doubled. Obesity discrimination is prevalent in the workplace—obese people of all genders and ethnicities are perceived as less qualified, are less likely to be inter- viewed, receive lower starting salaries, work longer hours, and are labeled as less able to lead and succeed than slimmer employees). Using the concepts discussed in this chapter, explain how stereotyping, prejudice, and cultural conditioning are contributing to this growing discrimination issue.

2. Similarity is an important factor in bringing people together. Although it is some- times hard to see, even the most different or diverse people can find similarities among one another. Describe three people you think are very different from yourself, being sure to outline those differences. Now, find and outline 5 ways in which each is similar to the others and 10 ways in which they are similar to you.

3. Working in an online classroom, surface-level diversity can sometimes be difficult to identify. Which diversity characteristics have you noticed in your classmates? Which have they voluntarily shared—and which have you voluntarily shared with the class?

Answers: c, d, b, c, a, c, d, b, c, c.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 158 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

Additional Resources Links

• How to Signal That Your Company Cares About Diversity: https://hbr.org/2015/12/make-your-company-more-appealing-to-more-employees

• Measure Your Team’s Intellectual Diversity: https://hbr.org/2015/05/measure-your-teams-intellectual-diversity

• Diversity Is Useless Without Inclusivity: https://hbr.org/2014/06/diversity-is-useless-without-inclusivity

• How Diversity and Inclusion Are Driving the Bottom Line at American Express: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2015/04/23/how-diversity-and-inclu- sion-are-driving-the-bottom-line-at-american-express/#575cd7bb724c

• When Ethnic Diversity Hinders Team Productivity: http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2016/01/14/ when-ethnic-diversity-hinders-team-productivity/#31d8ff385e5e

• Diversity: Burden or Boon? http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2015/07/01/ diversity-burden-or-boon/#25ca788b4b6d

Videos

• How Diversity Fuels Group Emotional Intelligence: https://hbr.org/video/2851426213001/ how-diversity-fuels-group-emotional-intelligence

• How Asian Americans Break the Bamboo Ceiling: http://www.forbes.com/video/4712257907001

• Felicia Day on Why Diversity in Gaming Matters: http://www.forbes.com/video/4474029531001

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. Although equalizing job opportunities has been a major focus of diversity in the past and remains relevant, contemporary diversity emphasizes the busi- ness advantages of accessing multiple perspectives and skills.

2. False. Diversity is actually a key element in maintaining organizational effective- ness, as it addresses three core needs within contemporary organizations: developing mutual understanding, maximizing human resources, and culti- vating ability and innovation.

3. False. Not all stereotypes are negative. Some—such as all Asians are high achiev- ers—may be positive preconceptions. However, all stereotypes are limiting in that they tend to block our perception of who our teammates really are, as well as what KSAs they actually have.

4. False. While some diversity characteristics, such as demographic differences, may be readily observable, others—including individual KSAs, worldview, and individual interests and needs—are not as easily recognized. These are revealed over time via interaction between group members.

5. True. Differences do not have to be real to influence group interactions and perfor- mance. Any differences that members believe exist—real or imagined—will have an impact.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 159 8/19/16 9:35 AM

https://hbr.org/2015/12/make-your-company-more-appealing-to-more-employees

https://hbr.org/2015/05/measure-your-teams-intellectual-diversity

https://hbr.org/2014/06/diversity-is-useless-without-inclusivity

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2015/04/23/how-diversity-and-inclusion-are-driving-the-bottom-line-at-american-express/#575cd7bb724c

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2016/01/14/when-ethnic-diversity-hinders-team-productivity/#31d8ff385e5e

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2015/07/01/diversity-burden-or-boon/#25ca788b4b6d

https://hbr.org/video/2851426213001/how-diversity-fuels-group-emotional-intelligence

http://www.forbes.com/video/4712257907001

http://www.forbes.com/video/4474029531001

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Personality traits and dimensions represent differences in team member personal- ity, a deep-level diversity characteristic that can be unknown even to ourselves. Like most diversity characteristics, they can have both good and bad effects on group performance.

2. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination represent internal cognitive barriers or limiting preconceptions activated by our perception of differences between our- selves and others. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers can occur any- where and affect our interactions. They are associated with the concept of in-group- out-group bias, wherein we tend to view our own groups as superior to others.

3. Low diversity groups tend to more easily find and hold similar perceptions and viewpoints regarding the competitive environment, come up with fewer strategic options, and are more prone to solutions that essentially regenerate existing strate- gies. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and higher quality decisions and solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant knowledge, viewpoints, experience, and skills.

4. Diverse groups and teams have an inherently broader range of knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience to draw from in response to changing circumstances. This allows organizations to maximize their human resources by capitalizing on a diverse range of employee capabilities.

5. We find similar others more comfortable and attractive because we use them as a touch point to process our own experience of the world. We are more likely to understand and predict the behavior of others who are similar, which tends to relax us. Because of the bonds formed by similarity, we tend to consider the information gleaned from similar others to be more trustworthy than that obtained from those who are dissimilar.

6. In-group-out-group bias refers to our tendency to champion our own groups and to perceive the members, efforts, and products of in-groups as relatively superior to the members, efforts, and products of out-groups.

7. Cultural identities represent culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences.

8. The way in which diversity is perceived by the organization and individuals is key to managing diversity for positive outcomes.

9. The goal of diversity in modern organizations is to bring together the right mix of traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications—regardless of one’s superficial diver- sity characteristics—to improve performance.

10. Scapegoating occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is unfairly singled out and blamed, in order to release the group’s pent-up anger and frustration.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 160 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

Key Terms

abilities The power and capacity to per- form tasks or functions and to carry out activities while using relevant skills and knowledge.

belongingness The human psychologi- cal and emotional need to feel—and sense of being—accepted, valued, sheltered, and cared for by a specific group and to recip- rocate acceptance, value, protection, and caring in turn.

blaming the victim A phenomenon that occurs when we ascribe a negative outcome, such as prejudice or discrimination, to the personal characteristics and actions of the victim.

causal attribution A natural part of our learning process wherein we analyze events and interactions and infer causes.

cross-cultural self-efficacy Group mem- bers’ belief in their own ability to success- fully navigate cross-cultural interactions.

cultural conditioning The conditioned belief that our own cultural beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms are natural or correct and that dissimilar cultures are unnatural or wrong.

cultural diversity Diversity across mem- bers’ previous or existing national, organiza- tional, and/or group culture.

cultural identity The total construct of our culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences.

culture The shared attitudes, values, customs, practices, and behavioral norms characteristic of a particular society, social category, organization, or group.

culture shock The disorientation, confu- sion, and fear we sometimes feel when dealing with ideas, circumstances, people, or things that are unfamiliar and/or out- side of our own cultural conditioning and experience.

deep-level diversity Characteristics that can only be perceived over time by engaging in verbal and nonverbal interactions—for example, personality, worldview, specific KSAs, and individual interests and needs.

discrimination Negative, unfavorable, or harmful treatment of others based on ste- reotypical thinking and prejudice.

ethnocentrism The tendency to regard ethnic characteristics associated with our own groups as superior or more natural and correct than others.

hope A motivational cognitive state that enables group members to set goals that are realistically achievable through self-directed behavior and increases their will and capac- ity for generating alternate strategies for obstacles that are encountered.

in-group-out-group bias The tendency to perceive the members, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to the members, products, and efforts of out-groups.

internal cognitive barriers Negative pre- conceptions, such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, activated by our percep- tion of differences between ourselves and others.

knowledge Any information or familiarity with the subject matter possessed by the employee at the outset of the performance that can be directly applied to the perfor- mance of tasks and activities.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 161 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 4 Summary and Resources

optimism Our expectation for positive outcomes.

personality Individual differences in char- acteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

prejudice Unjustified negative attitudes toward others based solely on their mem- bership in a particular group or subgroup.

psychological capital (PsyCap) A positive state of psychological development that con- sists of four psychological resources: self- efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience.

resilience The adaptive capacity to bounce back from negative—or even positive— events that impact us.

scapegoating A phenomenon that occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is unfairly singled out and blamed or aggressed against for something, in order to release the group’s pent-up anger and frustration.

similarity The shared characteristics, situa- tion, attitudes, outlook, or state engendering feelings of relative closeness, comfort, and familiarity.

skill diversity Individual attributes that fall under the heading of expertise, including KSAs and relevant experience.

skills Learned and observable competen- cies in the manual, verbal, or mental manip- ulation of people, ideas, or things.

status An informally or formally conferred social ranking or position in relation to others.

stereotypes Conscious and unconscious beliefs about the attributes of whole social categories or groups and their individual members.

surface-level diversity Differences that are fairly overt and readily observable, either as physical and behavioral characteristics (such as gender, language, ethnicity, or handicap- ping conditions) or as socially acknowledged identifiers (such as social position, educa- tion level, nationality, and religion).

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 162 8/19/16 9:35 AM