English

Diversity in work groups Naomi Ellemers1 and Floor Rink2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

This contribution explains that minority and majority employees

have a different perspective on workplace diversity. Expecting

minority employees to fit in can undermine the added value of a

diverse workforce. Neglecting the needs of majority employees

causes resistance to change. Leaders who succeed in making

all workers feel included and valued, contribute to an

organizational climate that fosters the benefits of diversity.

Addresses 1 Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80125,

3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands 2 Faculty of Economics and Business, Groningen University, Nettelbosje

2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands

Corresponding author: Ellemers, Naomi ([email protected])

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53

This review comes from a themed issue on Intergroup relations

Edited by Jolanda Jetten and Nyla R Branscombe

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.001

2352-250/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In interpersonal social contexts, people may choose to

engage with others they like, for instance because they

resemble them and affirm the validity of their views.

However, in many work situations we are expected to

collaborate with individuals who are different from us, in

terms of their ethnicity, or life attitudes. Psychological

insights about the way we relate to members of different

social groups can help us understand why this is some-

times so difficult. This contribution reveals how we can

overcome such difficulties and may even benefit from

work group diversity.

Benefits of work group diversity Society benefits from a diverse work force. An equitable

representation of minorities and women in the workplace

indicates social justice and equal employment opportu-

nities [1]. In addition, work group diversity can also yield

economic benefits. For instance, a recent survey of over

20 000 firms in 91 countries observed that companies with

more women in leadership positions show a better finan-

cial performance than companies with fewer women in

the upper echelons [2]. Additionally, a 15 year panel data

study of the Standard and Poor 1500 firms revealed

that female representation in top management correlates

www.sciencedirect.com

positively with innovation [3]. A meta-analysis of 146 dif-

ferent studies examining 612 effect sizes, more generally

demonstrated that employee diversity is related to a more

innovative performance, particularly on complex tasks

[4]. For example, companies with functionally diverse

top management teams hold product portfolios that con-

tain more products that are new to market or employ

novel technologies than companies with homogeneous

top management teams, and this benefits firm capital

market performance (Tobin’s q) [5]. In science, research

teams in which more ethnicities are represented yield

findings that are published in higher-impact journals, and

are cited more frequently [6].

The benefits of diversity can also affect broader business

and community outcomes. When more different perspec-

tives and stakeholder groups are represented, a work team

is able to cater to a larger variety of clients, offer a broader

range of products, and has the potential to build more

community credibility [7]. An examination of different

groups of stock traders, for instance, revealed more pru-

dent financial decision making when the group of traders

was more diverse. This introduced more scrutiny of other

people’s decisions, and reduced price inflation [8]. A

study of residential and business mobile phone records

in the UK revealed that when there was more social and

spatial diversity in communication networks, communi-

ties showed a better record of economic development,

education, health, environmental quality and less crime

[9].

Given that diverse work teams have the potential to be

more creative and innovative, to make higher quality

decisions, and yield superior joint performance than

homogeneous teams, it seems advantageous to strive

for greater work group diversity. However, this is not

always easy to achieve. Even organizations that have an

explicit diversity policy may not be able to successfully

recruit or promote workers representing different back-

grounds [10 � ]. And if they do, it is still a major challenge to

deal with diversity in a constructive way [11 � ,12]. As a

result, beneficial as well as detrimental effects of work-

place diversity have been documented [13] and meta-

analyses show overall effects that are quite small [14].

Here we review recent evidence to show which aspects of

diversity benefit group productivity, which conditions

need to be met to produce these benefits, and which

diversity implications require further research.

Not all differences are equally helpful Differences among work group members can take many

shapes and forms. People can have a different outlook on

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53

50 Intergroup relations

life because of their age, gender, or race and the social

experiences this exposes them to [15 � ]. However, there is

no one-to-one relationship between these visible differ-

ences and the ideas, priorities, or expertise people bring

to the table (Figure 1). Yet, we often treat characteristics

that mark people as members of particular social groups as

proxies for what they have to offer in a work context. For

instance, we assume that female leaders have superior

people skills [16]. So we are disappointed when they

behave in a masculine and competitive way to succeed at

work in contrast to stereotypic expectations [17]. This is

why recruiting employees who represent a larger variety

of social groups is not enough in itself.

In fact, the common practice to select, socialize, and

promote individuals to all fit the same mold, makes it less

likely that those with a different background will actually

offer a unique perspective on the work that is done [18 � ].

The gain of work group diversity is located in the provision

of different perspectives, the combination of different

types of expertise, and the willingness to explore different

approaches, as a way to optimize the work that needs to be

done. Thus, we have to look beneath the surface of

demographic diversity features [19]. Apparent differences

between individuals should also be meaningful at a deeper

level, and represent different approaches to the task [20 � ].

People are generally well able to integrate and combine

different sources of expertise, different preferences, or

different interests to achieve optimal joint outcomes.

This only changes when different perspectives on what

to do stem from the endorsement of different values [21,22]. For instance, individuals who had to resolve a

Figure 1

Current Opinion in Psychology

Work Team Diversity Team Performance

Demographic Diversity Gender, Race, Age

Functional Differences Approach, Expertise, Priorities

How demographic diversity features relate to functional differences

and team performance.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53

disagreement about the choice of transportation dis-

played a cardiovascular response pattern indicating a

negative state of threat when their opponent endorsed

different values (i.e., attached different importance to

environmental concerns). Nevertheless, when the dis-

agreement referred to diverging interests (relating to

the cost of transportation), this elicited a positive state

of cardiovascular challenge [23]. Disagreement on how

best to perform a joint task is most likely to be productive

when those involved in this process have a common goal,

or agree about important values that help them integrate

their differences.

It is hard to get along When individuals with different backgrounds work to-

gether, group-based prejudice and negative expectations

can spoil the working relationship (see Figure 2). For

instance, a national survey conducted in the US revealed

that Black workers receive less favorable performance

appraisals and advancement opportunities when they are

late for work, while no such relation between tardiness

and rated performance was found for Whites [24]. Like-

wise, women and minorities receive lower evaluations if

they are pro-diversity, but men and whites who favor

diversity do not suffer this disadvantage [25]. Moreover,

even though attendance of social activities at work (such

as company parties) can improve relationships among co-

workers, this was not found to be the case for cross-race

relations [26]. A meta-analysis reviewing 79 observed

effects illustrates the costly outcomes of such differential

treatment. It revealed that workers who feel discriminat-

ed against because of their race not only have less positive

job attitudes and are less likely to help others at work,

they also have poorer psychological and physical health

outcomes [27].

This suggests it is not appropriate to consider the effects

of work group diversity at an aggregate level. Employees

of different gender, racial, or ethnic groups may have

completely diverging work experiences, even when

Figure 2

Differences Between team

members

Task disagreement

Relational difficulties

Joint performance

+

+ +

-

Current Opinion in Psychology

The countervailing effects of relational difficulties and task

disagreement.

www.sciencedirect.com

Diversity in work groups Ellemers and Rink 51

working together on joint tasks. When members of these

groups feel unfairly treated, this stands in the way of

developing fruitful work relations. Women and ethnic

minority members may be weary of being exposed to

gender stereotypes that reduce their chances of equal

treatment at work [28,29]. White men too can suffer

physiological threat due to their concerns about revealing

bias against others they try to treat equally [30], or when

they feel neglected because of organizational initiatives

aiming to increase diversity [31–33]. Only examining overall or averaged responses to work team diversity

easily masks such different subgroup perspectives, lead-

ing managers to ignore the unique concerns of each group

of workers. Even though it seems that more prolonged

interactions may reduce negative affective responses, for

instance in interracial interactions [34], these are impor-

tant sources of concern that merit serious consideration

when striving for increased work team diversity.

Fitting in or opting out Individuals entering an organization or work team as

minority representatives are faced with a dilemma. They

can either adapt to existing practices, or emphasize what

makes them different from other workers (see Figure 3).

Feeling different from others can undermine life satis-

faction and self-esteem [35], causing people to become ill

or making them decide to leave. Those who remain, tend

to cope with the situation by adopting traits that are

characteristic for the majority of workers in the organiza-

tion. For instance, senior women learn to act in a highly

masculine and career oriented way in order to be success-

ful at work [36]. Likewise, Hindustani workers who are

confronted with ethnic bias in the workplace, emphasize

their independence, punctuality and directness to dis-

tance themselves from the group stereotype [37]. How-

ever, such efforts to fit in make it less likely that a diverse

workforce will also introduce a diversity of perspectives

and approaches.

By contrast, when others in the work context acknowledge

and explicitly value the differences that characterize

different groups of workers, this is an important source

of work motivation and belongingness for minority group

members [38]. Thus, it is not the numerical representation

Figure 3

Socialization pressures

Awareness of differences

Adapt to majority

Leave organization

Loss of Diversity benefits

Current Opinion in Psychology

Fitting in or opting out: seeking unity undermines diversity benefits.

www.sciencedirect.com

of different groups of workers, but the social acceptance of

different people with different perspectives that is deci-

sive [39]. Only when stereotypical expectations are chal-

lenged, and people are tolerant about their differences,

will members of diverse work teams be psychologically

healthy and productive at work [40].

Bringing out the benefits of diversity Results from scientific studies offer insights that can help

reap the benefits of diversity [41]. For instance, African

American students who were made to feel welcome and

included as they entered college, had a higher GPA and

visited their physicians less frequently during their three-

year college period [42]. When supervisors succeed in

making minority employees psychologically safe and

included, these are more likely to work productively

[43]. The inclusion of minority group members as core

work team members is also important, because the impact

of suggestions to the group to deviate from existing ways

is more positive when made by someone who is seen to

hold a central position in the group [44]. Likewise,

companies that monitor whether equitable pay and pro-

motion opportunities are provided to all workers, and

offer diversity training have been found to be more

productive and innovative, and have lower voluntary

turnover [45].

It is not self-evident that equal treatment is provided,

though. For instance, a series of experiments — in which

team behavior was held constant — revealed that people

perceive racially diverse (vs. homogeneous) teams as

more conflictual, and they were less willing to allocate

resources to such teams [46]. To further complicate

matters, not all workers have the same needs. Minority

members feel more included and satisfied and show more

innovative performance in companies that explicitly en-

dorse a multicultural perspective. But majority members

feel more included when a ‘colorblind’ perspective is

adopted [47]. It is therefore important to explicitly com-

municate to majority members that they too will benefit

from diversity policies, as a way to gain their support for

attempts to increase employee diversity [48].

Despite the fact that empirical studies have conceptual-

ized and measured diversity in different ways [49], some

large-scale investigations yield consistent effects attest-

ing to the potential gains of exposing individuals to

different perspectives. This is evident in the quality of

work carried out by scientists after they migrate to a

different country [50], or the originality of names gener-

ated for a commercial product by individuals who have

multiple identities [51]. Experimental evidence more

specifically reveals that when taking the perspective of

others, people elaborate more on the information that is

available, and this fosters creativity [52]. Being aware of

the fact that others have diverging views also makes

people more articulate about the reasons underlying their

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53

52 Intergroup relations

own preferences, which improves the quality of joint

decision making [53].

Conclusions Due to changing social relations and global migration

there is increasing demographic diversity in work teams.

If managed properly, diversity can benefit employee

creativity, group productivity and firm performance. Feel-

ings of inclusion in multiple social networks, and the

ability to take the perspective of others, may also intro-

duce broader gains of diversity for the well-being of social

communities, and for prudent business decision making.

Conflict of interest statement Nothing declared.

References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

� of special interest

1. Eagly AH: When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance? J Soc Issues 2016, 72 199-122.

2. Noland M, Moran T, Kotschwar B: Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics; 2016:. Working Paper 16-3, Retrieved from: http:// www.piie.com/publications/wp/wp16-3.pdf.

3. Deszõ CL, Ross DG: Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Manage J 2012, 33:1072-1089.

4. Van Dijk H, van Engen ML, van Knippenberg D: Defying conventional wisdom: a meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organ Behav Hum Dec 2012, 119:58-73.

5. Talke K, Salomo S, Kock A: Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. J Prod Innovat Manag 2011, 28:819-832.

6. Freeman RB, Huang W: Strength in diversity. Nature 2014, 513:305.

7. Woolley AW, Aggarwal I, Malone TW: Collective intelligence and group performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2016, 24:420-424.

8. Levine SS, Apfelbaum EP, Bernard M, Bartelt VL, Zajac EJ, Stark D: Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014, 111:18524-18529.

9. Eagle N, Macy M, Claxton R: Network diversity and economic development. Science 2010, 328:1029-1031.

10. �

Kaiser CR, Major B, Jurcevic TL, Dover LM, Brady LM, Shapiro JR: Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J Pers Soc Psychol 2013, 104:504-519.

This paper reveals the paradoxical effects of organizational diversity policies in making people less attentive to diversity issues.

11. �

Jetten J, Hornsey MJ: Deviance and dissent in groups. Ann Rev Psychol 2014, 65:461-485.

This paper reviews evidence revealing when and why deviance and dissent benefit group functioning.

12. Ellemers N, Jetten J: The many ways to be marginal in a group. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2013, 17:3-21.

13. Guillaume YRF, Dawson JF, Woods SA, Sacramento CA, West MA: Getting diversity at work to work: what we know and what we still don’t know. J Occup Organ Psych 2013, 86:123- 141.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53

14. Post C, Byron K: Women on boards and firm financial performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manage J 2015, 58:1546- 1571.

15. �

Markus HR, Conner A: Clash! How to Thrive in a Multicultural World. Penguin; 2013.

This book explains that people with different backgrounds have different experiences in society and illustrates how this impacts on their ability to succeed at work.

16. Ellemers N, Rink F, Derks B, Ryan MK: Women in high places: when and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Res Organ Behav 2013, 32:163-187.

17. Derks B, Ellemers N, Van Laar C, De Groot K: Do sexist organizational cultures create the queen bee? Brit J Soc Psychol 2011, 50:519-535.

18. �

Rink F, Kane AA, Ellemers N, Van der Vegt G: Team receptivity to newcomers: five decades of evidence and future research themes. Acad Manage An 2013, 7:1-47.

This paper reviews research revealing what work teams can do to be more receptive to the benefits of diversity.

19. Guillaume YRF, Brodbeck FC, Riketta M: Surface- and deep- level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual effectiveness related outcomes in work groups: a meta- analytic integration. J Occup Organ Psychol 2012, 85:80-115.

20. �

Richeson JA, Sommers SR: Toward a social psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Ann Rev Psychol 2016, 67:439-463.

This chapter offers a model to understand the impact of racial diversity on interpersonal relations and group functioning.

21. Harinck F, Ellemers N: How values change a conflict. In Conflicts Within and Between Groups: Functions, Dynamics, and Interventions. Current Issues in Social Psychology. Edited by de Dreu CKW. Psychology Press; 2014:19-36.

22. Woehr DJ, Arciniega LM, Poling TL: Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. J Bus Psychol 2013, 28:107-121.

23. Kouzakova M, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Scheepers D: At the heart of a conflict: cardiovascular and self-regulation responses to value vs. resource conflicts. Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2014, 5:35- 42.

24. Luksyte A, Waite E, Avery DR, Roy R: Held to a different standard: racial differences in the impact of lateness on advancement opportunities. J Occup Organ Psychol 2013, 86:142-165.

25. Hekman D, Johnson SK, Foo M-D, Yang W: Does diversity- valuing behavior result in diminished performance ratings for nonwhite and female leaders? Acad Manage J. in press.

26. Dumas TL, Phillips KW, Rothbard NP: Getting closer at the company party: integration experiences, racial dissimilarity, and workplace relationships. Organ Sci 2013, 24:1377-1401.

27. Triana MC, Jayasinghe M, Pieper JR: Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: a meta-analysis. J Org Behav 2015, 36:491-513.

28. Eagly AH, Chin JL: Diversity and leadership in a changing world. Am Psychol 2010, 65:216-224.

29. Bruckmueller S, Ryan MK, Rink F, Haslam SA: Beyond the glass ceiling: the glass cliff and its lessons for organizational policy. Soc Issues Pol Rev 2014, 8:202-232.

30. Blascovich J, Mendes WB, Hunter SB, Lickel B, Kowai-Bell N: Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011, 80:253-267.

31. Dover TL, Major B, Kaiser CR: Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. J Exp Soc Psychol 2016, 62:58-67.

32. Norton MI, Sommers SR: Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Pers Psychol Sci 2011, 6:215- 218.

www.sciencedirect.com

Diversity in work groups Ellemers and Rink 53

33. Plaut VC, Garnett FG, Buffardi LE, Sanchez-Burks J: ‘‘What about me?’’ Perceptions of exclusion and whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011, 101:337-353.

34. Toosi NR, Babbitt LG, Ambady N, Sommers SR: Dyadic interracial interactions: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2012, 138:1-27.

35. Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Postmes T, Garcia A: The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2014, 140:921- 948.

36. Faniko K, Ellemers N, Derks B: Queen bees and alpha males: are successful women more competitive than successful men? Eur J Soc Psychol, in press.

37. Derks B, Van Laar C, Ellemers N, Raghoe G: Extending the queen bee effect: how Hindustani workers cope with disadvantage by distancing the self from the group. J Soc Issues 2015, 71:476-496.

38. Van Laar C, Derks B, Ellemers N: Motivation for education and work in young Muslim women: the importance of value for ingroup domains. Bas Appl Psychol 2013, 35:64-74.

39. Chen JM, Hamilton DL: Understanding diversity: the importance of social acceptance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2012, 41:586-598.

40. Crisp RJ, Turner RN: Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychol Bull 2011, 137:242-266.

41. Galinsky AD, Todd AD, Homan AD, Phillips KWP, Apfelbaum EP, Sasaki SJ, Richeson JA, Olayon JB, Maddux WW: Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: a policy perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015, 10:742-748.

42. Walton GM, Cohen GL: A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science 2011, 331:1447-1451.

43. Singh B, Winkel DE, Selvarajan TT: Managing diversity at work: does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? J Occup Organ Psychol 2013, 86:242- 263.

www.sciencedirect.com

44. Rijnbout JS, McKimmie B: Deviance in group decision making: group-member centrality alleviates negative consequences for the group. Eur J Soc Psychol 2012, 42:915-923.

45. Armstrong C, Flood PC, Guthrie JP, Liu W, MacCurtain S, Mkamwa T: The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high performance work systems. Hum Resource Manage 2010, 49:977-998.

46. Lount RBJ, Sheldon OJ, Rink F, Phillips KWP: Biased perceptions of racially diverse teams and their consequences for resource support. Organ Sci 2015, 26:1351-1364.

47. Jansen WS, Vos MW, Otten S, Podsiadlowski A, van der Zee KI: Colorblind or colorful? How diversity approaches affect cultural majority and minority employees. J Appl Soc Psychol 2015, 46:81-93.

48. Jansen WS, Otten S, van der Zee KI: Being part of diversity: the effects of an all-inclusive multicultural diversity approach on majority members’ perceived inclusion and support for organizational diversity efforts. Group Process Interg 2015, 18:817-832.

49. Mello AL, Rentsch JR: Cognitive diversity in teams: a multidisciplinary review. Small Gr Res 2015, 46:623-658.

50. Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P: The mover’s advantage: the superior performance of migrant scientists. Econ Lett 2014, 122:89-93.

51. Steffens NK, Gołowska MA, Cruwys T, Galinsky AD: How multiple social identities are related to creativity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2016, 42:188-203.

52. Hoever IJ, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Barkema HG: Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J. Appl Psychol 2012, 97:982- 996.

53. Loyd DL, Wang CS, Phillips KW, Lount RB Jr: Social category diversity promotes premeeting elaboration: the role of relationship focus. Organ Sci 2013, 24:757-772.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 11:49–53