Introduction
Diversity and learning
in groups
Michaela Driver
The author
Michaela Driver is Assistant Professor of Management,
in the Department of Management and Marketing,
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City,
Tennessee, USA.
Keywords
Group working, Diversity, Cognitive mapping,
Frames of reference, Organizational learning,
Creative thinking
Abstract
This paper examines how groups respond to diversity.
Specifically, a framework is developed that integrates
prior research on diversity in groups within a learning
perspective. The value of the framework is that it seeks to
integrate various dimensions of group diversity with the
intent of highlighting critical characteristics of groups that
effectively manage diverse member contributions. Within
this framework, the focus is on cognitive rather than
demographic diversity and on how groups use diverse
ideas and approaches to learn collectively. Based on this
framework, it is suggested that groups manage cognitive
diversity in three distinct ways, through accommodation,
elaboration and transformation. These responses to
diversity may represent different levels of group learning
along a continuum ranging from routine, exploitative to
non-routine, exploratory learning. An exploratory study is
presented in which this framework is used to understand
how groups manage cognitive diversity. Preliminary study
results suggest that most groups seem to respond to
diversity by accommodating or elaborating while very few
groups seem to engage in transformation. Specifically,
few groups seem to invest the necessary resources to
capitalize on diversity and create opportunities for nonroutine learning. Implications for practice and research are
discussed.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . pp. 149-166
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696470310472471
The purpose of this paper is to examine how
groups respond to diversity. More specifically,
a framework is developed that integrates prior
research on diversity in groups within a
learning perspective. The value of the
framework is that it seeks to integrate various
dimensions of group diversity with the intent
of highlighting critical characteristics of
groups that effectively manage diverse
member contributions. Within this
framework the focus is on cognitive rather
than demographic diversity and on how
groups use diverse ideas and approaches to
learn collectively.
At the organizational level of analysis, the
management of workforce diversity has
already been linked to learning (Lee et al.,
2000) and identified as a critical issue for
organizational performance (Milliken and
Martins, 1996; Robinson and Dechant, 1997;
Thomas and Ely, 1996). Specifically, it has
been suggested that how organizations
respond to diverse workforce needs provides
important insight about how they learn and
balance the tradeoffs between more routine
versus more innovative forms of learning (Lee
et al., 2000). While group learning has been
shown to affect outcomes at the
organizational level as, for example, a critical
component of organizational learning
(Crossan et al., 1999), diversity at the group
level as a critical component for
organizational learning has only recently
received attention, see for example, Herriot
and Pemberton (1996).
This paper extends prior research and
develops a framework by which different
group responses to cognitive diversity can be
understood as different forms of group
learning. Based on this framework, it is
suggested that groups manage cognitive
diversity much like organizations in three
distinct ways, through accommodation,
elaboration and transformation (Lee et al.,
2000). These responses to diversity may
represent different levels of group learning
along a continuum ranging from routine,
exploitative to non-routine, exploratory
learning.
In the following sections, the literature on
diversity in groups is reviewed. Then the
results of an empirical study following seven
groups over the course of one semester are
presented. The paper concludes with a
149
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
discussion of theoretical and practical
implications.
Diversity in groups
Diversity in groups is a complex topic. On the
one hand, it has long been claimed that
having more diversity or heterogeneous group
membership leads to more creative decision
making and more innovative and higher
quality solutions (Guzzo, 1986; Hoffman,
1979; Hoffman and Maier, 1961; Janis,
1982). On the other hand, it has been found
that diversity in groups can reduce
performance by negatively affecting cohesion
(Zenger and Lawrence, 1989) and member
commitment to the group (O’Reilly et al.,
1989). In addition to making communication
more difficult (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989),
diversity can also reduce the ability of group
members to predict each other’s behavior and
thereby increase group conflict (Lincoln and
Miller, 1979). Consequently, diversity in
groups may be an advantage as much as an
obstacle for effective group performance.
But whatever the downsides of diversity,
diversity in organizations does not seem to be
a matter of choice any longer. Workforces
today are becoming more diverse and the
management of diversity is becoming a critical
concern for nearly all organizations (Harrison
et al., 1998). Moreover, diversity seems to be
more universal and no longer confined to
minority groups. As everyone experiences
themselves in more diverse surroundings,
dealing with the difficulties and opportunities
of diversity seems to be an ever more
important aspect of everyone’s personal and
professional life (Ely, 1996). Consequently,
diversity may no longer be defined exclusively
as referring to differences with regard to
traditional surface-level characteristics such as
demographics (race, ethnicity, age, gender,
etc.). Instead, diversity may need to be
defined and studied with regard to less visible,
deep-level characteristics such as attitudes,
beliefs and values rather than using traditional
surface level characteristics as proxies for
them (Harrison et al., 1998; Milliken and
Martins, 1996).
As researchers explore how to manage
diversity in groups to minimize process losses
and increase process gains, a complex
relationship between diversity and group
effectiveness has come to light (McGrath et
al., 1996). It has been suggested that, from a
cognitive perspective, diversity may have an
inverse U-shaped relationship to group
creativity and performance (Austin, 1997).
Too little and too much diversity is
detrimental for effective group performance.
The former does not build on or integrate the
various member perspectives sufficiently to
stimulate non-routine learning in the group
for enhanced overall problem solving. The
latter overloads group members’ abilities to
cope with new information and surprising
viewpoints from diverse others and also leads
to non-routine learning and less effective
group performance. Only an optimum level of
diversity in which members encounter just the
right amount of cognitive novelty due to the
diverse perspectives existing in the group, can
group performance be enhanced and nonroutine learning take place. In other words,
only if there are not too few and not too many
diverging views in the group, will each group
member be open to new ideas and enter into a
cognitive mode that allows for the questioning
of assumptions and the generation of new
insights. Just how much diversity is the right
amount in that sense depends on the
tolerance for cognitive novelty of each group
member and how safe each member feels
within the group environment to experience
such novelty. This may imply that for the
management of diversity to facilitate process
gains, managers should provide training that
enhances group members’ abilities to cope
with cognitive novelty and seek to provide an
environment that supports the group learning
process (Austin, 1997).
However, it may not just be cognitive
dimensions that have to be managed carefully
when it comes to diversity in groups. It has
been suggested that diversity may affect group
performance by reducing a group’s ability to
cooperate cohesively and by increasing
dysfunctional conflict (Lichtenstein et al.,
1997; Northcraft et al., 1996). Especially, if
not managed properly, diversity can
negatively affect how much group members
are able to identify with one another (Brewer,
1996; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1979)
and therefore, reduce cohesion and how
much each group members feels part of and
committed to a group or not (Cady and
Valentine, 1999). Additionally, too much
diversity in members’ underlying values may
negatively affect group performance (Jehn et
al., 1999). That is, while informational
150
Diversity and learning in groups
Michaela Driver
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
diversity or various perspectives that are
relevant for group task accomplishment may
help the group perform better, differences in
values or emotional differences that create
interpersonal and non-task related conflict
reduce group members’ satisfaction and
cooperation (Barsade et al., 2000) and can
have a negative effect on task performance
(Jehn et al., 1999). To the extent that
interpersonal conflict impedes team members
from being equally involved in group decision
making, emotional and value differences
within groups not only reduce the level of
enjoyment that members get from being in
the group but also potentially negate the
cognitive gains that accrue to bringing diverse
perspectives to bear on the group task
(Coopman, 2001). Therefore, for groups to
become high-performing, group members
must work through and minimize relationship
and emotional conflict and focus instead on
task-related conflicts that allow the group to
capitalize on diverse member contributions
(Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Pelled et al.,
1999). Consequently, groups face the
challenge of striving for some interpersonal
harmony but not allowing the group’s focus to
shift entirely toward social cohesion as this
would negatively affect their ability to solve
problems in a creative way (Sethi et al., 2001)
and increase the risk of group think (Janis,
1982).
In general, it appears as if groups and
perhaps organizations must find some balance
between too much and too little diversity particularly with regard to cognitive vs more
affective or value-driven differences (Harung
and Martens, 1995). Furthermore, it seems as
if diversity in groups must be carefully
managed to ensure that training is provided to
groups as to how to communicate across
differences and resolve conflict effectively
(Dreachslin et al., 1999). Additionally, group
processes must be supported and structured
in such a way that high participation and high
quality decision making can occur (Simons et
al., 1999). Finally, group tasks and goals must
require enough member interdependence and
creativity for group members to bring their
various perspectives and skills to bear (Porter
and Lilly, 1996; Timmerman, 2000; Van Der
Vegt et al., 2001).
In addition to the various task
characteristics, member training and group
processes that must be managed, there also
exists a psychodynamic dimension in groups
(Gabriel, 1999). That is, there are also
irrational and subconscious forces that may
prevent groups from learning and performing
effectively. It has been suggested, for
example, that members of groups suffer
anxieties of being rejected by the group,
which they may seek to protect against by
withdrawing into an illusive inner world,
(Diamond, 1991). Within this inner world
member differences are repressed completely
in a homogenized group in which no
differences are acknowledged or differences
are substantially minimized through various
mechanisms such as institutional or autocratic
controls (Diamond, 1991). It is only if the
group learns to work through their anxieties
and repressive tendencies that they can strive
on diversity in what has been called the
intentional group (Gabriel, 1999).
From the psychodynamic perspective it
seems little surprising that, when given a
choice, people prefer to work in less diverse
groups (Baugher et al., 2000) and that groups,
in general, seem to have the tendency to
minimize their members’ differences rather
than make use of them (Iles, 1995).
It seems that how groups deal with diversity
can be viewed as a series of tradeoffs in which
potential process losses must be balanced
with potential process gains (Hackman and
Morris, 1975) and that groups have a
tendency to focus on minimizing losses rather
than to maximize the gains. In particular, it
appears as if groups have trouble balancing
the cognitive benefits with the affective costs
of diversity (Milliken and Martins, 1996).
That is, they seem to have difficulties getting
more diverse ideas and creative inputs from
all group members while working through the
interpersonal disagreement and conflict that
may arise from those very differences (Jehn
and Mannix, 2001). Furthermore, groups
seem to have trouble with finding the right
degree of integration or cohesion. On the one
hand, they have to build a collective identity
(Brickson, 2000; Lembke and Wilson, 1998)
in which members give up some of their selfprotectiveness and self-interest allowing the
group to learn from diverse ideas. On the
other hand, they have to focus intentionally
on differences and work through the anxiety
potentially created by this collective group
identity (Gabriel, 1999).
In summary, there seem to be several
dimensions of diversity in groups that need to
be managed carefully in order to enhance
151
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
group performance. Effective groups seem to
be characterized by an ability to find an
optimum level of diversity that maximizes the
opportunity for members to engage in
innovative and non-routine learning.
Furthermore, groups must be able to find an
optimum level of value congruence and
cohesion in which group identity exists but
differences are not denied but utilized for task
related but not interpersonal conflict. Finally,
effective groups must develop processes and
structures that allow for high levels of
participation without becoming
overwhelming or threatening to members’
identities so that each member continues to
feel safe enough to contribute and stay in the
mind set that allows for innovative and nonroutine learning.
A learning framework for exploring
diversity in groups
Lee et al. (2000) have suggested that at the
organizational level responses to diversity may
be framed in terms of a learning paradigm.
Specifically, these authors examined how
organizations deal with employees’ requests
for flexible work arrangements. They
proposed that the kinds of informal and
formal arrangements made by an organization
for employees who wish to reduce their
working hours may be a critical illustration of
how the organization approaches learning in
general (Lee et al., 2000). They identified
three paradigms of organizational responses:
accommodation, elaboration and
transformation, each linked to a different level
of organizational learning (Lee et al., 2000).
Organizations that accommodate
employees’ needs but do not change their
policies overall tend to stay close to
institutionalized routines and typically learn
through exploitation (Lee et al., 2000).
Organizations that elaborate on employees’
various needs do change their policies in
response to diverse employee requests but
once they have made new policies tend not to
be open for further change (Lee et al., 2000).
Such organizations engage in some
exploration and some exploitation as a way of
learning to respond to change (Lee et al.,
2000). Finally, organizations that transform
themselves in response to diverse employee
needs tend to experiment with new policies
and work arrangements continuously and
engage in explorative learning on a regular
basis (Lee et al., 2000).
Building on this framework, it is suggested
here that groups may respond in a similar
fashion to the diverse cognitive resources
provided by their members. That is, as
members offer their diverse resources, they
also place demands on the group to respect
and work with these resources. As the group
seeks to solve problems, the diverse opinions,
perspectives and ideas offered by members
create potential conflict and place a burden
on the group to integrate a greater variety of
inputs making the problem-solving process at
once richer and more complex.
Consequently, the group may decide to
respond to members’ diverse cognitive
resources much like organizations respond to
diverse employee needs for different work
schedules.
Some groups may decide to invest heavily
into cognitive diversity and learn to work
through the differences to enhance their
problem-solving ability by transforming the
way the group, as a whole and each individual
member in it, approaches the problem. As a
result, these groups may perform in a manner
that demonstrates generative or exploratory
collective learning. Other groups may choose
to invest less in cognitive diversity and
acknowledge and work with some differences
to some degree but not transform the
problem-solving process. Rather, these
groups may make some allowances for
differences of perspective, for example, and
integrate different ideas into some aspects of
the problem-solving process but would not
radically reframe the way they approach the
problem as individuals. As a result, these
groups may perform in a manner that
demonstrates some exploratory as well as
some more routine or exploitative learning.
Finally, some groups may decide not to invest
a great deal into cognitive diversity at all and
may even acknowledge the diverse resources
offered by their members, avoiding conflict
wherever possible and agreeing to problemsolving approaches that capitalize on the
smallest common denominator. As a result,
these groups may perform in a manner that
demonstrates little or no exploratory,
collective learning.
Specifically, it is suggested here that
accommodating, elaborating and
transforming groups differ significantly
relative to some of the key group behaviors
152
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
critical for capitalizing on cognitive diversity
and effective group performance, with regard
to non-routine or exploratory forms of
collective learning that were identified in the
literature review on diversity. As shown in
Table I, accommodating, elaborating and
transforming groups may differ across seven
dimensions.
First, they may differ in the degree to which
they are aware of and recognize cognitive
diversity among group members. Second,
they may differ in the degree to which they
strive to capitalize on this diversity in a way
that neither overloads their members’ ability
to cope with cognitive novelty nor
impoverishes problem solving by
undermining diversity and overlooking or
stifling the different cognitive resources of
group members. Third, groups may differ in
the degree to which they ensure that all
members are involved and participate in
group problem solving and task
accomplishment. Fourth, they may differ in
the degree to which group members seek just
the right amount of group identity and
cohesion, that is not too little so that the
group cannot effectively cooperate or learn
together, and not too much so that the group
does not slide into groupthink (Janis, 1982).
Fifth, they may differ in the degree to which
they are able to minimize interpersonal
conflict arising perhaps from affective or
value-driven differences (Jehn et al., 1999)
and focus instead on task-related differences
that enhance group performance. Sixth, they
may differ in the degree to which the group
acknowledges and works through the
unconscious anxieties of group members and
works from the homogenized group toward
the intentional group (Diamond, 1991;
Gabriel, 1999). Seventh, they may differ in
the degree to which group performance
reflects exploratory or generative collective
learning. While Table I shows these
differences as three distinct categories, they
are likely better understood as three points on
a continuum along which characteristics of
the accommodating, elaborating and
transforming groups may be positioned.
While placing groups along this continuum is
a matter of interpretation rather than a clear
yes or no decision, doing so, especially if done
as a participatory research tool in facilitating
group development, may help to highlight
critical factors in groups’ abilities to capitalize
on cognitive diversity.
The study
To gain more insight into how groups may
respond to cognitive diversity and learn from
Table I A learning framework for understanding how groups manage cognitive diversity
Group behaviors
Cognitive diversity is recognized as a group
asset
Cognitive diversity is built into and optimized
throughout the process of accomplishing the
group tasks (there is not too much or too
little at any time)
Participation and involvement are sought from
all members
Members work to build just the right amount of
group identity and cohesion (not too much
and not too little)
Conflict is managed in such a way as to
minimize interpersonal conflict and to focus
on constructive, task-related differences
among group members
Unconscious member anxieties of members are
acknowledged and worked through
Group performance demonstrates that
collective, explorative (non-routine) learning
took place
Transforming
Elaborating
Accommodating
Most of the time
Sometimes
Not at all
Most of the time
Sometimes
Not at all
Most of the time
Sometimes
Not at all
Most of the time
Sometimes
Not at all
Most of the time
Most of the time
(intentional group)
Sometimes
Sometimes
(institutional or
autocratic group)
Not at all
Not at all
(homogenized
group)
Most of the time
Sometimes
Not at all
153
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
member contributions, the author conducted
a study over the course of one semester in two
undergraduate business classes. In these
classes, students were asked to work in groups
on a collaborative project and to conduct all
of their work for this project in group
discussion areas on a Web site created for the
classes. Students were to post contributions to
the group’s work in the form of an
asynchronous, threaded discussion. This
included weekly exchanges as well as postings
of summary reports and meeting minutes for
every meeting that was held face-to-face or
using other media like e-mail. Students were
assigned to groups based on the results from a
learning style inventory that they filled out in
class at the beginning of the semester (Osland
et al., 2001).
Specifically, each group consisted of four to
seven members with different learning styles
with most groups having at least three of the
four learning styles represented. Learning
style differences have been used frequently to
assess group member differences (Offermann
and Spiros, 2001) and served in this study to
ensure that every group had some cognitive
diversity, even if demographic characteristics
and value-related diversity would not have
created a threshold of diversity in the group.
In a sense, the group member assignments,
based on learning style differences, created at
least some baseline if not experimental
control for cognitive diversity in the groups.
In total, 38 students were enrolled in the
courses and assigned to seven groups. The
instructor graded the group members’
contributions to the discussion areas based on
frequency, content, quality and involvement
with the group (this made up one-third of the
overall project grade). The groups’ task
consisted of writing a paper and creating a
class presentation. In the paper and the
presentation a story of leadership had to be
created, a fictitious adventure of a group of
people, in which concepts from the course
(advanced organizational behavior) were used
to explain the behavior of the story’s actors
and to craft solutions to problems or crises
encountered along the way. The project was
designed to challenge group members to
contribute their unique understanding of
course materials and for the group to
demonstrate how it could integrate these into
new and innovative ways of applying them.
That is, the groups’ tasks were designed to
require substantial task and goal
interdependence (Porter and Lilly, 1996;
Timmerman, 2000; Van Der Vegt et al.,
2001) and to provide substantial
opportunities for the groups to capitalize on
cognitive diversity.
Methodology
This study is based on a qualitative analysis of
1475 transcripts from the groups’ discussion
boards, seven final project papers and
presentations, notes from 45 minute
interviews conducted with groups 1, 2, 3 and
4 at the end of the semester where each
group’s process was discussed. All group
members were prompted to consider
specifically how the group worked together
and how they generated and decided on
particular ideas at particular points
throughout the project. Throughout each
interview the author took notes about specific
member comments.
The qualitative analyses aimed at assessing
to which degree behaviors, described in
Table I, were exhibited in the different groups
and to place each group along the continuum
from accommodating to transforming. To this
end all the responses and exchanges posted by
the group members in their group discussion
areas, notes from the group interviews and the
groups’ presentations and papers were
evaluated and then interpreted as fitting in
with the accommodating, elaborating or
transforming category. As mentioned earlier,
the categories are points on a continuum and
the interpretation is highly subjective but
every effort was made to relate the utterances
made by individuals back to what behaviors in
each category might look like in practice,
keeping in mind the overall group processes
and performance. It is important to note that
the study is of an exploratory nature and
aimed primarily at illustrating how the
learning framework of group diversity
developed here may facilitate an
understanding of how groups deal with
diversity. As such, the study is intended to
stimulate further research rather than to
validate the framework.
Study results
From an analysis of the discussion area
transcripts, final group project papers and
presentations, and the interview data, it seems
that the seven groups in this study showed
different responses as they dealt with their
members’ diverse resources. Particularly, it
154
Diversity and learning in groups
Michaela Driver
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
seems that groups 1, 2, 5 and 6 fit into an
accommodating pattern, while groups 3 and 7
fit into an elaborating pattern and group 4 fits
into a transforming pattern.
The author analyzed transcripts of all
responses posted in all groups on the course
Web sites throughout the semester as well as
each group’s final project paper and
presentation. Each group posted between 130
and 240 responses to their electronic
discussion boards over the course of the
semester, so that a total of 1,475 postings
were analyzed for this study. Each response
consisted of one paragraph or longer
statements from a particular group member
providing input to the project, answering
another group member’s question, asking a
question or just voicing an opinion on some
issue the group was dealing with. A summary
of the group processes synthesized from the
discussion transcripts, and an analysis of final
project papers and presentations are provided
in Table II. Excerpts from the actual
discussion board postings are provided in
Table III.
As described in Table II, it seems that
groups 1, 2, 5 and 6 spent very little time on
exchanging diverse ideas or even
acknowledging that members had diverse
contributions to make. Any kind of conflict
seemed to have been avoided as group
members did not challenge each other’s ideas.
While at times some members vented their
frustrations with the group process as in
group 6 toward the end of the project when a
few members posted angry messages,
apologies were issued right away or the other
members simply did not respond as in
group 2. Consequently, conflict never seemed
to be resolved but remained a problem for the
groups’ cooperation and performance. It
seemed that perhaps members’ anxiety over
rejection and too much diversity in members’
beliefs about how to work as a group and what
to accomplish in their project potentially led
these groups to repress diversity so that they
might fit into the homogenized groups
category (Diamond, 1991) where any
differences are ignored. Furthermore, several
group members did not participate on a
regular basis in the discussions and often
decisions were made by one or two active
members, as in group 2, for example, where
several group tasks were completed by one
and the same person. When ideas were
generated, they often came from the same
members and were not challenged by others
in the group. This is also illustrated by the
discussion board transcript excerpts provided
in Table III.
From the excerpts in Table III, it seems that
the accommodating groups were just happy to
have any ideas at all and to get the project
done with whatever individual members were
willing to contribute. The excerpts show how
the first idea generated by one group member
was accepted by all others without challenge.
For group 1, the idea that the group adopted
without looking for more diverse
contributions was the circus, in group 2 it was
Santa at Christmas, in group 5 it was the
Puppet Show theme and in group 6 it was the
Smurfs. The transcripts also mirror what was
synthesized from Table II, namely that the
accommodating groups were unable to work
through conflict constructively, if at all. For
example, in group 5, one member posted an
angry message partially in capital letters to
underline their exasperation perhaps that
reprimanded and pleaded with one member
who had not been contributing to the
discussions for the project. The only response
this elicited was another member asking the
group to ‘‘calm down’’ and go on about their
business, which the group apparently did,
since the issue was never mentioned after that
except when one group member later referred
to the group as having had a ‘‘rough start.’’
Findings from the transcript and project
analyses seem to be mirrored by the notes
from interviews conducted by the author with
groups 1-4 of which excerpts are shown in
Table IV.
The comments from various group
members in groups 1 and 2 seem to show,
among other things, that these groups seemed
to have had difficulties building cohesive
group identities. Group 2, for example,
admitted to having had an underlying conflict
over certain members not contributing
adequately. Its members also stated that they
did not want to confront this conflict directly
for fear of offending any member. This may
illustrate also how conflict was seen as a threat
to group identity rather than as an
opportunity for learning. Conflicts that did
appear were often smoothed over without
resolution. In group 1, for example, there
seemed to have been conflict over story ideas
for the project but it seemed to have been
side-stepped rather than confronted. This
may illustrate how underlying conflicts
155
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
Table II Overview of group processes and products
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Contributions
Out of seven
members, four
regularly contributed
to the discussions
on the Web site, the
others contributed
only sporadically.
Group members
took turns
completing tasks
Contributions
Out of six members,
only three
contributed
regularly. The other
three contributed
only around
deadlines and only
after being
prompted several
times. Group
members did not
share the work
evenly
Contributions
Out of five
members, three
were continuously
posting, while two
posted regularly
but not as often as
the others. While
all contributed, a
couple of members
were the
workhorses in the
group
Contributions
Out of six
members, five
contributed
regularly while one
member only
contributed
sporadically. Work
was evenly divided
in the group
Contributions
Out of four
members, only two
contributed
somewhat
regularly, the other
two hardly ever
contributed, and
then did so only
around due dates.
Work was not
evenly shared
Contributions
Out of five
members, four
contributed
regularly while one
member hardly
ever contributed
anything and then
did so only after
the group had
severely
reprimanded this
member. The work
was not evenly
shared
Contributions
Out of five
members, three
contributed
regularly while two
contributed only
sporadically around
task due dates.
Work was done
mainly in face-toface meetings
Quality of
exchanges
Often the discussion
area was used for
scheduling or
logistics. Not much
idea generation
happened.
Exchanges were
brief and did not
develop ideas or
challenge views.
Team tasks were
always completed
on time, although
often the team
missed some aspect
and had to rework
them
Final paper and
presentation
The final paper and
presentation
reflected that the
group did not spend
much time on
integrating diverse
member ideas or
exploring new and
innovative ideas
throughout the
project. They met
the minimum
requirements but
were not innovative.
Their story lacked
some coherence and
depth. While the
group had fun in
their presentation,
they did not
demonstrate that
they were able to
present the course
material in new and
innovative ways
Quality of
exchanges
The group used
Quality of
the Web site
Quality of
exchanges
extensively to
exchanges
The group was
work on their
The discussion
very creative. All
project. Exchanges
board often
members
were lengthy and
remained inactive
continuously
well structured.
for long periods of
posted new ideas
Individual team
time. Individual
and elaborated on members
members logged on each other’s story
summarized what
and asked others for ideas. The tone
had been done
help but no
was enthusiastic
previously and
response followed.
and humorous.
built the story from
Several times,
While much joking there asking for
around task
took place in the
input or
deadlines, the
postings, they
clarification from
postings got
often lacked
others. The tone
frustrated in tone
structure and
was friendly,
and reprimands or
sometimes failed
enthusiastic and
pleas were posted
to build cohesive
goal-oriented.
in capital letters for dialogs. Group
Members
the group to get
members
contributed their
going with a
challenged each
assigned tasks on
particular task.
other to work on
time and without
Team tasks were
particular aspects
being called to do
late several times or of the story but
so. All the team
were completed at
sometimes the
tasks were
the last minute,
group lost focus.
completed ahead
often by the same
Tasks were
of the deadlines
person
sometimes not
and with excellent
completed until the quality
Final paper and
last minute and
presentation
details were
Final paper and
The paper and the
missed
presentation
presentation
The paper and the
reflected a lack of
Final paper and
presentation
cooperation and
presentation
reflected that the
group identity in the The paper and
group had gone to
group. The story
presentation
great length to
lacked coherence
reflected that the
develop a cohesive
and depth and
group worked hard group as well as a
seemed patched
at being creative
creative story. The
together from
and had built a
group was
individually created
strong group
successful in
segments
identity. Both also demonstrating that
lacked coherence
they understood
and some depth as course materials
if the group kept
and were able to
adding ideas
present them in
without evaluating new and
how the story
innovative ways
would flow overall
156
Quality of
exchanges
Exchanges were
more often than
not apologies for
not doing
something or
falling behind on a
task. Ideas were
not developed on
the Web site. The
group worked on
last minute
completions in
face-to-face
meetings. The tone
of the exchanges
remained mostly
cordial although a
couple of times
frustration was
vented by the
members who
contributed, but
apologies for any
offense taken were
quickly issued and
the underlying
problems were
never solved. Team
tasks were nearly
always late and
not well done
Final paper and
presentation
The paper and
presentation
reflected the
group’s difficulties
in building group
identity and
cooperation. The
story they
presented seemed
disjointed and
thrown together
perhaps by one or
two individuals
Quality of
exchanges
Exchanges were
enthusiastic but
lacked structure
and focus.
Members did not
build their story on
the Web site or
seek to contribute
to each other’s
ideas. Toward the
end of the project,
conflict over the
inactive member
and another
member who
sought to do
everything erupted.
Frustration and
anger were vented
although apologies
followed. Prior to
project completion
it looked as if the
group was ready
to split up but they
managed to pull
through. Their
team tasks and
final project
suffered from the
unresolved
conflicts and
member
frustrations
Final paper and
presentation
The paper and
presentation barely
met minimum
requirements. The
group had not
mastered its task
or grasped the
purpose of the
project
Quality of
exchanges
Exchanges were
cordial although a
few times the
more dedicated
members would
issue reprimands
to the less
involved members.
When the latter
rebuffed the
reprimands,
apologies were
issued. The group
used the Web site
minimally for
developing ideas.
Mostly meetings
were scheduled
and held face-toface. Team tasks
were always
completed on time
and of good
quality
Final paper and
presentation
The paper and
presentation
reflected that this
group tried to
develop some
group identity and
a creative story.
Their story
reflected that they
had done quite a
bit of
brainstorming
toward the end
but failed to
integrate this in
places into a
coherent story line
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
Table III Transcript excerpts from the electronic discussion board
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
I’ve been thinking
about story ideas as
well. Something to do
with a circus ± we
could have a ring
leader, dress up as
circus animals, a
clown, even a popcorn
or cotton candy
vendor, mime, etc. and
implement theories ±
like rewards for the
animals obeying
commands and tie in
leadership theories
Since it will be
December we could
have a Christmas
theme with little elves
and all of that stuff
and we could have
one evil elf trying to
mess everything thing
up simply because he
is not happy with his
job because maybe his
psychological contract
was broken with
Santa...I don’t know...if
you all can give some
more ideas tonight or
at least by tomorrow
morning sometime
then I will write the
summary
Hey, everyone! I
hope you all had a
great weekend, I
know that I have
been so busy that I
didn’t get a chance
this weekend to ever
get online. Imagine
that! I hope that
tomorrow we can
start brainstorming
on where we want to
go with this thing. I
think we will have a
lot of fun with, but
you all will have to
help kick start my
creative mind
We met to work on
this task and also
discussed possible
story ideas. We
agreed that each team
member would post at
least one idea for a
storyline, along with
ideas for theories/
concepts that would
fit with such a story
About the project.
We need to get
together sometime in
the next few days.
I’ll be in the library
tonight if some
people want to meet
there and maybe talk
some things out. If
not just post
something and we’ll
try and get a time
worked out where
we can get rolling. I
like the idea that we
threw out in class
last week about a
puppet show. I think
that we could make
things interesting
I thought about the
Smurfs, or we could
do the Wizard of Oz
I’m thinking we can
use a Wizard of Oz
theme but make our
characters out to be
people who are
popular today
I agree that we need
to come up with one
idea for a story very
soon. I think that all of
the ideas are great so
maybe we should think
about which story
would work better
with the theories and
leadership theme
It looks like we’re
making a little
progress with the
circus idea. I think if
we are going to have
a ``hero’’ in our circus
we need to start out
with a problem. Maybe
the circus is going
broke or has lost all of
its attractions or
something. The hero
could come in and
take what he has to
work with and save
the day using some of
the theories we have
talked about in class
I think the circus idea
is going to be the
easiest as well as the
most entertaining thing
we can do
I think we should each
try to figure out a few
story lines to see if we
can figure out where
we are taking this
I am with the whole
Santa deal I do think
that we can take that
idea and do a lot with
it
I also like the
Christmas idea very
much. I think if you all
want to do the Santa
deal lets take that idea
and spread it out and
start making all of the
story
Hey everyone! I really
like the idea about
Santa and the elves
too. I think we could
really have fun with it.
So, we could have one
person be Santa, one
person be the narrator,
and then that would
leave us having four
elves. I think it would
work out good. The
costumes shouldn’t be
hard to make or find
since we will be doing
this close to the end
of the semester and
stores always put out
Christmas stuff early
Sorry I haven’t been
on in a while. I really
like the elves idea. I
think we could think
of an entertaining
story with it
We began to discuss
ideas that we had on
the storyline. Most
ideas mentioned
centered around us
doing a parody of a
well-known fictional
adventure. We had
many great ideas,
and everyone
participated actively
in our decision
making process, but
we have chosen to
write about the
Wizard of Oz, with a
twenty-first century
twist. Of course this
isn’t carved in stone
and I am sure that
we will all call on
each other to help
with various needs
associated, and all
tasks will generally
be done as one. We
seem to have good
team chemistry and
further meetings will
establish that fact
Maybe we could use
the Wizard of Oz as
a basis for our
characters in our
story. We can change
the physical form of
the characters, the
setting, the plot or
anything else. I just
thought that maybe
Dorothy could be a
starting point for
forming our own
leader and the
Wizard of Oz could
help us in the
development of our
own unique story
My idea is a Star
Trek episode.
Everybody loves
Captain Kirk
(especially the
women)
I also thought of the
Wizard of Oz as a
theme. I envisioned
the yellow brick road
can represent the
path a leader must
take in order to
reach their goal
I thought I would
post a few other
ideas just in case.
Here’s a few that I
came up with Robin
Hood ± leading his
merry men, The
Three Little Pigs ±
the pig who built the
brick house tried to
set a good example,
Goldilocks and the
Three Bears ±
Goldilocks was a
visionary risk taker
who was seeking
alternatives The Little
Boy Who Cried Wolf
± show how past
experiences affect
communication
Hey guys, sorry I
haven’t logged on in
a few days. I
honestly don’t have
any excuses.
However, I have had
some ideas.What
about a puppet show
with all of us being a
teeny-bopper band.
We could have fun
making the puppets
and it would be easy
using teens to show
how to be role
models and leaders
by the actions they
take
I like your idea about
the puppets that
sounds like a lot of
fun. I haven’t come
up with any new
ones since yesterday,
but I think were
headed in the right
direction
I liked the idea of
using the Smurfs
I was thinking that
we should do with
the Smurfs or the
Wizard of Oz
I was thinking we
really need to be
working on our
project. I think we
should vote and
decide on the Smurfs
or Wizard of Oz. I
happen to know that
the day class is doing
Wizard of Oz, so I
vote on Smurfs
I have been thinking
about the project and
I think that the Smurf
idea is a good idea
I think we should all
get together at least
to come up with
what sections
whoever needs to
write about. I don’t
want to sound crazy,
I am just a little
worried about the
paper. I would really
like to hear from you
guys to see if you
have the same
concerns or not.
Thanks
I am so glad that we
are starting to get
things together! Has
anyone talked to
John (name changed)
about his inputs????
I am really starting to
get concerned!
I really like your idea,
and it’s going to be
fun!
I read your idea and
it really sounds
creative and fun
I hope this helps out.
I went ahead and
posted all of the
ideas that we have
collaborated for our
presentation. It is
VERY important that
you guys add to this
so that we can all
agree to it
So far, I think we’re
a little short on the
story. If everyone
feels they need to
rewrite a section, by
all means, do it and
present your new
part to the rest of
the group
I threw some more
of our ideas into the
story. I’m going to
attempt to attach it
to this post!!!! Look
over it and post any
last minute changes
or ideas
I hope I haven’t
missed anybody’s
comments. I don’t
want to hurt
anyone’s feelings.
Please feel free to
comment if I missed
any comments
(continued)
157
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
Table III
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
I think the circus going
broke is a good idea.
We could start out
with everything
looking shabby and
when a little known
ring master comes in
to save the day. By
the end everything
could look really nice.
We should all try to
figure out where one
of the theories could
fit into the story line
Haven’t heard
everyone’s ideas and
I’ve got to tell you, I
ABSOLUTELY refuse to
get a bad grade on
this project. We need
everyone in agreement
with a story (theme)
whatever you wish to
call it before we can
do anything else
I WAS THINKING
MAYBE WE COULD
INTEGRATE CAPTAIN
AMERICA WITH
SAVING DOROTHY
FROM THE EVIL
WICKED WITCH. HEY
JUST A THOUGHT,
TRY TO GET BACK
TO ME AND WHEN
WE HAVE EITHER AN
INTERNET CHAT OR
A FACE TO FACE
MEETING MY IDEAS
WILL COME OUT
THEN
All those are great
story ideas, Robin
Hood would be a
great example of
human relations,
values, and ethics,
and he has a mission
I really like the idea
of doing a puppet
show. I could really
get into making a
set/stage and stuff
like that ± plus
making some sock
puppets would be
fun ± everyone could
make one that
represents them, also
I love the idea to do
a ``band’’ theme
there are just so
many out there that
need to be made fun
of
We cannot get a
response from John!
I don’t know what
else to do. This was
his responsibility!
John WE WOULD ALL
LOVE TO HEAR
FROM YOU! OUR
GRADE DEPENDS ON
THIS! THANKS
This semester is
almost over so lets
all Buckle Down and
Do good on this. This
should be Really
FUN.
You have some good
ideas! It sounds like
we all are working
towards a story line
Hey everyone! Okay,
after talking to you all
after class today, it
sounded like just
about everyone was in
agreement about going
ahead with the ``Santa
and the Elves’’ idea
I guess we need to
get something going
on Dorothy and her
addiction to
technology for the
beginning. I’ll leave
that up to you guys
and girls
Like we
discussed these are
just ideas, so do
WHATEVER you like
with them!!! TAKE IT
FROM HERE, MOODY
IS 10/4 OVER AND
OUT TEAM 3
ROCKS!!
Hi wonderful group
ok
now for
the my cheesy ideas
how about a
corny sort of take on
Baywatch
I am
not a fan but the
show makes me
laugh
how about
Oedipus Rex
Oedipus Rex displays
many types of
leadership skills
and is also lacking
important skills as
well
Hey everyone!!!! I’ve
just finished reading
over the other
postings and new
ideas on story lines. I
like all the ideas and
feel we could use
any one of them
successfully. I just
wanted to touch
base with everyone
at the moment I
don’t really have any
news I’ll be thinking
about our ``success’’
in the next few days.
Look forward to
hearing from
everyone
remained unresolved in the accommodating
groups and how conflict in general seemed to
verge on dysfunctional interpersonal
disagreements rather than to be a constructive
means by which the group could build on
diverse member ideas. Perhaps members were
too defensive subconsciously to engage in the
kind of anxiety causing confrontations that
would have resolved some of their issues
(Gabriel, 1999) and would have allowed the
group to build cohesion. This anxiety may
come through in the apologies members
continued to issue to each other for not
contributing or missing some deadline. Often
members logged on exclusively to write an
apology but never contributed anything to the
discussion. Additionally, even when they
contributed, they often began by apologizing
I think that we need
to use a band and
have a puppet for
each band member.
Is anyone good with
simple sewing and
can be creative with
it? I think one or two
people should do the
puppets so they all
look about the same.
Well, let me know
what you think so
far. I don’t mind
putting the story
together
Hey, we all need to
calm down. I know
how important this is
to all concerned,
including me. I can
not afford to retake
this class next
semester
I am almost finished
with TT5. I have
been working on it
for almost 4 hours,
so I am taking a
break
I checked the
discussion board 3-5
times per day since
day 1, so DO NOT
"where the heck"
me!!! It’s just I don’t
have anything to say
or I think everything
is fine so I will not
leave a message. I
am always there
Sorry If I offended
you but we are just
trying to get input
from everyone in the
group considering
this is a Group
project. If you think
everything is A ± OK,
then please post a
post saying so. That
will at least let the
rest of us know of
your existence
Thanks to everyone
and I enjoyed
working with you all
as a group and
getting to know you
guys individually
first as shown in Table III where a statement
from a member of group 2 reads as follows:
‘‘Sorry I haven’t been on in a while
’’ At
times it seemed that more effort was spent
apologizing to the group for not doing
something than was spent on getting
something done. Consequently, from the
group process summaries, the transcripts of
the electronic discussions and the interview
notes, it appears as if groups 1, 2, 5 and 6
accommodated member cognitive diversity by
allowing group members who had anything to
contribute to take charge of particular tasks or
project aspects. More often than not, a few
individuals would prepare whole sections of
the story and the group would agree to what
was proposed. In Table III, a group member
of group 5 states: ‘‘I am almost finished with
158
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
Table IV Interview notes for group 1-4
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
S1: ``Our group was like congress,
majority vote decided on which
ideas we’d go with’’
S1: ``We didn’t have a whole lot of
communication till a task was due.
We didn’t ever work face-to-face
really’’
S1: ``We have a group of organized
chaos. We met our deadlines, but
lots of other things were going on’’
S1: ``Our group was like a subway,
we kept picking up the next idea’’
S2: ``We didn’t have conflict, we just
expanded on ideas instead of
changing them’’
S3: ``We really didn’t want to
disagree. Each group should talk
through all options, we jumped on
the first one that came along’’
S4: ``We didn’t have a lot of off the
wall ideas’’
S3: ``We had two conflicts in the
whole process, mostly in the
beginning over the storyline’’
S1: "There was conflict about the
first idea we had, but we didn’t
want to start over and switch to
another idea’’
S3: ``We had committed to the first
idea and didn’t want to back off,
but then someone had another idea
and everybody jumped on that’’
S1: ``Not having alternatives was
scary. We were so limited in time.
It’s the most time consuming thing
to be creative and you’re putting
yourself up for criticism’’
S2: ``It was like a plane without
wings. We lacked a good plan for
landing and takeoff’’
S2: ``We worked in spurts with lots
of up and down times. When we
had an idea, we decided by
majority’’
S2: ``You have to be humorous. We
got along great’’
S3: ``Everybody put in their own
ideas. Somebody else picked them
S3: ``We had tons of ideas on every up and combined them or added
part. It’s good but we had problems stuff’’
S1: ``When an idea was thrown out, putting it all together’’
we went with it. We accepted ideas
S4: ``Everyone got to contribute
because we didn’t have many. And S4: ``We had a great sense of
ideas’’
we selected ideas that were easier
humor. We did great when we met
on us’’
face-to-face’’
S5: ``Most of our ideas were really
similar’’
S3: ``We only had three story ideas’’ S5: "It was hard in the beginning,
but we got it down’’
S6: ``We picked ideas by consensus’’
S1: ``A lot of people procrastinated
(All nod in agreement)’’
S1: ``We did so much brainstorming’’ S4: ``If it wasn’t doable, we
wouldn’t do it. We had a minor
S4: ``We’ve never resolved our group S2: ``We looked for the most
conflict over the story’’
conflict’’
creative and that’s the most
stressful’’
S1: ``We were always ready to
S1: ``We didn’t want to discuss it
modify and revisit stuff’’
because it might have gotten worse S1: ``It didn’t matter how silly or
or more personal’’
distasteful something was, we said S3: ``We encouraged each other to
it. It didn’t bother me if they said
share ideas. We all wanted to do
S3: ``I don’t want to confront
that’s out there’’
well. We all knew we had to get
anyone’’
through it and help each other to do
S3: ``It takes getting to know each
it’’
S4: ``I don’t want to have anyone
other’’
know how I feel’’
S4: ``Everybody pitched in and we
S4: ``We scrapped a lot of ideas’’
had milestones’’
S2: ``I’d rather have fun, but we’d
have to work through our conflict’’
S5: ``The script always changed’’
S2: ``You have to have a leader,
someone to help structure. It just
S1: ``We always asked what
happened’’
S5: ``I’d rather not have fun than
have conflict’’
everybody else thought and added
to their stuff’’
S6: ``All these things were
understood. One didn’t understand
S1: ``There’s a tradeoff between
solving that conflict and having a
S3: ``Humor helps, you can’t get
and he’s not here now’’
great team experience’’
offended’’
S1: ``We’re lucky he dropped instead
S2: ``Sure I’d like a great experience
of having to make him leave the
but I’d rather not confront anything
group’’
(All nod in agreement)
TT5 (team task 5). I have been working on it
for almost four hours
’’ Cognitive diversity
seems to have been neither recognized nor
optimized or utilized in these groups as shown
by how the groups picked one idea early on by
one member and just adopted it without
further exploration. One member, in group 2,
for example, stated in the group interview that
they ‘‘accepted ideas because we didn’t have
many.’’ Additionally, equal participation or
involvement of group members did not seem
to have been attained as illustrated by the fact
that members continued to apologize for not
contributing or by the reprimands issued from
others to non-contributing members. Further,
little if any group identity or cohesion seems
to have been developed as members just
agreed to what one individual proposed and
allowed individuals to complete entire group
tasks. Perhaps there was too much valuedriven diversity (Jehn et al., 1999) in the
groups for them to build cohesion and
identity (Brewer, 1996; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel
and Turner, 1979). The groups could not
159
Diversity and learning in groups
Michaela Driver
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
agree, it seemed, on what to accomplish
together or on what the project meant to
them. In a few exchanges in group 5,
members reprimand others for not
contributing by pointing out that ‘‘our grade
depends on this (everyone’s contribution).’’
This may illustrate perhaps that the group
members did not place the same value on
getting a good grade or did not care equally
about the project. All this meant that the
accommodating groups built the project
nearly exclusively on existing group members’
knowledge and did not create new knowledge
from the pooled cognitive resources of the
group delivering final project papers and
presentations which appeared disjointed or
patched together as if the groups had assigned
different parts to different individuals and
then just put the parts together without
integrating them into a cohesive whole.
Furthermore, the papers and presentations
did not apply the theories in much depth and
did not reflect the group’s understanding of
the ideas. Rather both seemed to reflect a
smallest common denominator, a story that
lacked depth and failed to demonstrate that
group members had mastered course
materials or were able to present them in new
and innovative ways. In general, these groups’
performances did not seem to reflect a process
of collective, generative or exploratory
learning.
Groups 3 and 7, on the other hand, seemed
to fit more with an elaborating pattern. They
seemed more interested in challenging each
other and in building new ideas from their
diverse member resources than the
accommodating groups. Both groups
generated a story idea around the Wizard of
Oz theme early on in the project but
continued to elaborate on this theme, until in
the end, more so for group 3 than for group7,
the story had little to do with the original
Wizard of Oz tale. Group 3, in particular,
seemed interested in capitalizing more on
cognitive diversity and added all kinds of
twists to the Oz theme from Captain America
to science fiction. Throughout the semester,
all of the members of group 3 contributed
creatively to the paper, which was built nearly
entirely via the electronic discussions
although a few meetings were held face-toface. Members were very active on the
discussion board and would ask each other
what they thought about ideas and solicit
input for more creative ideas. One member
commented, in a posting for group 3, for
example, that ‘‘we had many great ideas and
everyone participated actively.’’ Group 7
differed from group 3 in that most meetings
were held face-to-face rather than
electronically. From the meeting minutes
posted, it appears as if group 7 also attempted
to co-create their story and to strive for
creativity in the process. Several members, as
shown in Table III, commented on how they
collated ideas on the discussion board
generated in meetings so that the group could
look over them and add or change anything.
In contrast to group 3, group 7 was more
organized and seemed to be more worried
about meeting deadlines and getting members
to contribute than being creative. At times
interpersonal conflict erupted over noncontributing members as when someone had
to apologize for offending another group
member they had reprimanded. This conflict
was not resolved entirely, although the group
seemed better able to handle it than the
accommodating groups as the two individuals
responded to each other and came to an
understanding it seemed as shown in the next
to last posting of group 7 in Table III. In some
ways, the organizational or institutional
controls that the group imposed on its
members to keep them on task may have
served to reduce anxieties over too much
diversity and provided psychological safety for
the group members (Diamond, 1991) to work
through some of their differences. This may
also be the reason why the group held mainly
face-to-face meetings rather than using the
Web site. In the meetings they were perhaps
more comfortable generating ideas seeing
others react rather than writing something on
the discussion board without knowing how
others might view this idea. In group 3, the
need for structure and control did not seem to
be felt until the end of the project when the
story had to be restructured because it was
not working with all the different story lines
the group had accumulated. At that point,
one or two members took the lead and made
important decisions for the group. It appears
as if group 3 resorted to autocratic rather than
institutional controls to manage the anxiety
that may have been generated over this
diversity (Diamond, 1991) especially toward
the end of the project but also somewhat
throughout the project as different individuals
who were more structured or assertive
directed the group toward task
160
Diversity and learning in groups
Michaela Driver
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
accomplishment. Consequently, neither
group 3 nor group 7 worked entirely through
their members’ anxieties and did seek to
impose some controls over diversity either
through institutional or autocratic
mechanisms. Additionally, both groups used
humor to release tensions and improve group
morale, which may be a further indication
that anxieties existed at a subconscious level
throughout the project. Members from group
3, for example, mention how chaotic and
stressful the group process seemed at times
and how humor and face-to-face meetings
were used to deal with stress and to keep
group morale high. One member of group 3
commented in the interview: ‘‘We had a great
sense of humor. We did great when we met
face to face.’’ So, on the one hand, diverse
ideas seemed important to the group. One
member stated in the interview, for example,
that there was no idea too silly to contribute.
On the other hand, they had trouble
providing an environment in which members
could adequately cope with all these ideas.
One member of group 3 comments in the
interview, for example, that the group was like
a plane without wings in need of a plan for
take off and landing seemingly indicating that
the group had a difficult time to meld the
diverse ideas together and find a common
structure. When anxieties in the group or
members’ abilities to cope with cognitive
novelty (Austin, 1997) were finally pushed to
the limit, toward the end of the project, the
group resorted to autocratic controls
(Diamond, 1991) for managing diversity as
one of two individuals took charge of the
project and made important decisions without
much group input.
There may have been some value-driven
diversity (Jehn et al., 1999) that caused the
groups toward some repression of diversity
and prevented necessary task conflict at times.
At times, perhaps members feared of
dysfunctional interpersonal conflict
(Lichtenstein et al., 1997; Northcraft et al.,
1996) and therefore, were unable to integrate
different member contributions into a
cohesive product. Both elaborating groups
tended to add members’ ideas to their papers
and presentations and to expand their stories
rather than to discuss which ideas fit and
which did not fit and to cut some of them out.
As a result, the groups ended up with stories
that were creative and diverse but lacked
focus. Neither group produced a story that
had a generally coherent story line or seemed
to reflect one group idea. Both groups seemed
to have elaborated on their members’
cognitive resources to some extent but were
able to transform these resources into
coherent collective and exploratory learning
because they lacked processes or structures
for effective integration.
Given the processes that occurred in groups
1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, group 4 seemed to be the
only group that fit with a transforming
response to diversity. It seemed to be the only
group that was able to build an adequately
cohesive group identity and to optimize
diverse member resources. Members in this
group seemed to make every effort to
challenge each other for more creative and
diverse inputs. By the same token, they spent
time integrating these inputs and building on
ideas step by step so as not to overload
members’ abilities to cope with cognitive
novelty (Austin, 1997). Furthermore, this
group seems to have confronted members’
subconscious anxieties over differences to
some extent and to have come close to
forming an intentional group (Diamond,
1991). For example, at times the group was at
risk of developing strong institutional controls
as they imposed rules on how to organize their
work that threatened to stifle more diverse
and creative contributions. However, they
seemed to have balanced this with a strong
drive for maintaining diversity so that overall
a balance seemed to have been maintained
between soliciting more ideas and proceeding
in an orderly fashion to meet deadlines.
Perhaps there was less value-driven (Jehn et
al., 1999) or emotional diversity (Coopman,
2001) in this group than in the others or this
group managed this diversity better and
perhaps the group was more successful in
creating the kind of structured and safe
environment in which members’ abilities to
cope with cognitive diversity were maximized
(Austin, 1997). Especially from the interview
notes, it seems that one of the strengths of this
group seemed to be its ability to create a
structure by which they could build on each
other’s ideas without losing sight of the overall
product and without stifling diverse inputs.
Comments mention consensus rules,
milestones and leadership as structuring
mechanisms. Comments also emphasize how
much the group valued diverse member
inputs. This seems to suggest that although
the group used some of the controls that
161
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
elaborating groups used to manage
subconscious anxieties over too much
diversity, such as institutional and autocratic,
they seemed to work through their anxieties
because they did not lose sight of the
importance of diverse inputs and perhaps
used the controls in an intentional way
(Diamond, 1991) to provide an appropriate
environment in which cognitive diversity
could be optimized (Austin, 1997).
Perhaps as a result of this, the paper and
presentation were both creative and of high
quality and seem to reflect at least some
collective, exploratory learning. While the
story had some sections that were not well
integrated with the overall storyline, it applied
theories correctly and demonstrated the
group’s understanding of the various theories
and its ability to apply them in new and
innovative ways. It seemed that in this group,
members transformed existing individual
knowledge into new group knowledge and at
times individuals revised their own ideas from
group knowledge. Notably, this was the only
group in both classes in which the group
members specifically explained their
individual ideas to each other and asked
questions of each other or pointed to
clarifications and corrections in others’ ideas.
Overall, group 4 seemed to have not only
recognized cognitive diversity in its members
but also provided an environment in which
this diversity could be optimally used for task
performance. Participation and involvement
were sought from all members throughout the
project and an appropriate amount of identity
and cohesion seemed to have been developed
in the group. Further, conflict was managed
so as to minimize interpersonal conflict but
not to avoid task related conflict and group
members seemed to have been fairly satisfied
with their group membership throughout. As
a result, group performance seems to reflect a
process of collective and exploratory learning.
Discussion
From the results of the study it appears as if a
learning framework may provide useful
insights about how groups respond to
diversity. Specifically, it seems that groups
often do not capitalize on diversity and
therefore do not engage in exploratory
collective learning. Across the eight
characteristics identified in the learning
framework as critical for capitalizing on
cognitive diversity presented in Table I, it
appears as if most groups in the study fit with
the accommodating or elaborating categories
and exhibited few if any characteristics, some
exhibited them some of the time and only one
exhibited all of them somewhat consistently.
As has been suggested in previous research, it
seems that most groups in the study tended
not to adequately recognize cognitive diversity
as an asset for group learning and
performance and were unable to build
diversity into the process of task
accomplishment in an optimal way (McGrath
et al., 1996). Specifically, the accommodating
and elaborating groups in the study seemed to
have struggled with finding the right amount
of cognitive diversity. It seemed that often
there was either too little cognitive diversity,
as in the accommodating groups, to generate
diverse contributions or there was too much
cognitive diversity, as there was at times in the
elaborating groups, perhaps overloading
members’ abilities to deal with cognitive
novelty (Austin, 1997) and making it difficult
for the groups to integrate diverse
contributions into a cohesive product.
Although group tasks and goals in the study
seemed to require substantial
interdependence (Porter and Lilly, 1996;
Timmerman, 2000; Van Der Vegt et al.,
2001) among group members due to the
amount of work, the requirements for group
performance and the creativity required in the
paper and presentation, the accommodating
and elaborating groups in the study, as many
groups examined in prior research, had
difficulties eliciting the appropriate amount of
participation and involvement from members
(Simons et al., 1999). By the same token, the
accommodating and to some extent the
elaborating groups in the study had difficulty
developing an appropriate level of group
identity and cohesion. Particularly the
accommodating groups seemed to have too
little identity and cohesion to manage diverse
member contributions effectively. Perhaps in
some cases there was too much diversity,
especially affective or value-driven diversity
(Coopman, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999) to build
this identity and cohesion or perhaps it was an
inability to manage this diversity so that taskrelated conflict could occur without
interpersonal conflict impeding it (Jehn and
Chatman, 2000; Pelled et al., 1999). At times
some of the elaborating groups also had too
162
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
little cohesion, and at other times they had
too much (Sethi et al., 2001) impeding their
ability to effectively integrate diverse member
contributions.
Similar to findings in prior research (Jehn
and Chatman, 2000; Pelled et al., 1999), the
accommodating and elaborating groups in the
study also seemed to have difficulties avoiding
dysfunctional interpersonal conflict and
focused, instead, on constructive task-related
conflict. In particular the accommodating
groups resolved these difficulties by avoiding
conflict altogether, while the elaborating
groups addressed them by sacrificing diverse
inputs to follow some rules or the leadership
of one or two members. Perhaps
subconscious anxieties prevented both the
accommodating and the elaborating groups
from dealing with diversity and conflict in an
intentional rather than a homogenizing
manner (Diamond, 1991).
Consequently, neither accommodating nor
elaborating groups in the study appeared to
engage in much exploratory group learning.
Members appeared not to learn from each
other or to generate group knowledge that
was significantly different from the knowledge
already possessed by each member. Only the
transforming group in the study seemed able
to exhibit the characteristics identified in
Table I on a relatively consistent basis. This
group seemed to recognize and optimally use
cognitive diversity. Furthermore, it seemed to
have high levels of member participation and
involvement and an appropriate level of group
identity and cohesion. It seemed to focus on
task rather than interpersonal conflict. And
while at times institutional and autocratic
controls were imposed on the group, this
group seemed to have worked through
potential, subconscious anxieties in an
intentional manner so as not to homogenize
differences (Gabriel, 1999). This group also
seemed different from the accommodating
and elaborating groups in that members made
an effort to learn from each other and to build
group ideas rather than patching together
individual ideas. Perhaps this group had
different levels of value-driven diversity (Jehn
et al., 1999) to begin with or it was able to
manage this diversity better than the other
groups, but it seemed to have been better able
to create an environment and processes that
maximized the gains from cognitive diversity
in the group.
Conclusion
As stated earlier, the aim of the study
presented here was to explore rather than to
validate the application of a learning
framework for understanding group responses
to cognitive diversity. As such, the study is
intended only to illustrate the theoretical
model in a more concrete manner keeping in
mind that the model or framework is itself still
in an exploratory stage. Consequently, both
the framework and the study may have
substantial limitations. First of all they may
simplify the complexities of diversity in
groups too much and may exclude important
dimensions such as value-driven or affective
diversity (Coopman, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999),
which is not specifically addressed in the
framework. Second, the framework offers no
insight into causal relationships of the various
group behaviors, that is, it is silent as to
whether low participation may cause low
group cohesion and therefore reduce a
group’s ability to optimize diversity. While the
study offers some attempts at relating the
dimensions to one another, a theoretical
foundation for doing so has yet to be
developed. Additionally, while the study
offers some examples of how the concepts
listed in the framework can be
operationalized, the framework provides no
systematic way in which to do so. Cognitive
diversity, for example, was operationalized as
differences in learning style inventories
(Osland et al., 2001) but it was only measured
as an individual characteristic not as an
attribute at the group level of analysis. Finally,
interpretations throughout the study were
made by extrapolating individual perceptions
of group members about the group and
interpreting individual exchanges among
group members in a way that would allow a
move from the individual to the group level of
analysis, which may be a problematic way of
analyzing group-level phenomena (Pedhazur
and Schmelkin, 1991).
Notwithstanding the limitations of the
framework and study presented here, the
primary goal of the paper seems to have been
accomplished in that a framework was
developed in which prior research on diversity
in groups was integrated from a learning
perspective. Since the ability of groups to learn
effectively and to capitalize on diverse
cognitive member resources is critical for
organizational learning and performance
163
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
(Crossan et al., 1999; Herriot and Pemberton,
1996), this may be an important first step
toward developing a model that not only
shows how groups learn and perform
effectively but also what behaviors are critical
in doing so and how these may be developed.
If the continuum along which groups’
responses to cognitive diversity and learning
may be classified may be seen as
developmental, then perhaps a way to improve
groups’ abilities to learn and perform could be
seen as an evolution from accommodation to
transformation. In other words, once groups
could be positioned along the continuum, it
may be possible to design interventions that
may help them to move toward transformation
and exploratory collective learning.
Furthermore, once it is better understood
whether the behaviors identified in the model
are the most crucial dimensions for effective
group learning and performance, then perhaps
it could be identified which behaviors are most
critical or are root causes for other behaviors
and these behaviors could be leveraged for
specific interventions. If, for example, it is
found that managing subconscious anxieties,
with regard to diversity, is critical for attaining
appropriate levels of group cohesion and
environments that provide psychological
safety for optimizing members’ abilities to
cope with cognitive diversity, then perhaps
interventions could be designed that deal with
group psychodynamics rather than to focus on
more traditional interventions that may not
address underlying problems (Gabriel, 1999).
In any event, it is hoped that the
exploratory framework and study serve as a
starting point for future research. In
particular, it is hoped that research might be
undertaken in which the dimensions of the
framework are examined and perhaps added
to. Additionally, it is hoped that research will
be stimulated in which the dimensions and
concepts of the framework are
operationalized in a more systematic fashion.
Much research on diversity has focused on
surface level and demographic data
(Harrison et al., 1998; Milliken and Martins,
1996) and there is much room to investigate
cognitive diversity beyond operationalizing it
as, for example, learning style differences
(Offerman and Spiros, 2001) or differences
due to working in a different function in the
organization (Austin, 1997). Furthermore, it
is hoped that future research may investigate
whether the learning framework can be used
effectively as a tool for group development
and whether and when groups can or should
be moved from one point on the continuum
to another. There may be tasks and
situations when an accommodating response
to diversity is more appropriate than a
transforming response, especially, for
example, when differences in underlying
values are too great (Jehn et al., 1999) or
when the task requires little or no group
interdependence (Porter and Lilly, 1996;
Timmerman, 2000; Van Der Vegt et al.,
2001). Finally, it may be critical to conduct
research that examines how the various
factors identified here as critical for group
learning from diversity are related to one
another and whether, as suggested above,
crucial leverage points or root causes can be
identified for more effective group
development.
References
Austin, J.R. (1997), ``A cognitive framework for
understanding demographic influences in groups’’,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 342-59.
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld,
J.A. (2000), Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 802-36.
Baugher, D., Varanelli, A. and Weisbord, E. (2000),
``Gender and culture diversity occurring in selfformed work groups’’, Journal of Managerial Issues,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
Brewer, M. (1996), ``Managing diversity: the role of social
identities’’, in Jackson, S.E. and Ruderman, M.N.
(Eds), Diversity In Work Teams, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 47-68.
Brickson, S. (2000), ``The impact of identity orientation on
individual and organizational outcomes in
demographically diverse settings’’, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 82-101.
Cady, S.H. and Valentine, J. (1999), ``Team innovation and
perception of consideration: what difference does
diversity make?’’, Small Group Research, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 730-50.
Coopman, S.J. (2001), ``Democracy, performance, and
outcomes in interdisciplinary health care teams’’,
The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 261-84.
Crossan, M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999), ``An
organizational learning framework: from intuition to
institution’’, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Diamond, M.A. (1991), ``Stresses of group membership:
balancing the needs for independence and
belonging’’, in Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.),
Organizations On The Couch, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
164
Diversity and learning in groups
Michaela Driver
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Dreachslin, J.L., Hunt, P.L., Sprainer, E. and Snook, I.D.
(1999), Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 252-66.
Ely, R.J. (1996), ``The role of dominant identity and
experience in organizational work on diversity’’, in
Jackson, S.E. and Ruderman, M.N. (Eds), Diversity In
Work Teams, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 161-86.
Gabriel, Y. (1999), Organizations In Depth, Sage, London.
Guzzo, R.A. (1986), ``Group decision making and group
effectiveness in organizations’’, in Goodman, P.S.
(Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups, Josey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 34-71.
Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975), ``Group tasks,
group interaction process, and group performance
effectiveness: a review and proposed integration’’,
in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 8, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 360-71.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), ``Beyond
relational demography: time and the effects of
surface- and deep-level diversity on work group
cohesion’’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Harung, H.S. and Martens, L. (1995), ``Enhancing
organizational performance by strengthening
diversity and unity’’, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1996), Competitive
Advantage Through Diversity: Organizational
Learning From Difference, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin.
Hoffman, L.R. (1979), ``Applying experimental research on
group problem solving to organization’’, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 19, pp. 375-91.
Hoffman, L.R. and Maier, N.R.E. (1961), ``Quality and
acceptance of problem solutions by members of
heterogeneous and homogeneous groups’’, Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62,
pp. 401-7.
Iles, P. (1995), ``Learning to work with difference’’,
Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 44-61.
Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of
Policy Decisions and Fiascos, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, MA.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), ``The dynamic nature
of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup
conflict and group performance’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-51.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999)., ``Why
differences make a difference: a field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups’’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 741-63.
Lee, M.D., Macdermid, S.M. and Buck, M.L. (2000),
``Organizational paradigms of reduced-load work:
accommodation, elaboration, and transformation’’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6,
pp. 1211-34.
Lembke, S. and Wilson, M.G. (1998), ``Putting the `team’
into teamwork: alternative theoretical contributions
for contemporary management practice’’, Human
Relations, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 927-45.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J.A., Jinnett, K. and Ullman, E.
(1997), ``Embedded intergroup relations in
interdisciplinary teams: effects on perceptions of
level of team integration’’, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 413-34.
Lincoln, J.R. and Miller, J. (1979), ``Work and friendship
ties in organizations: a comparative analysis or
related networks’’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 181-99.
McGrath, J.E., Berdahl, J.L. and Arrow, H. (1996), ``Traits,
expectations, culture, and clout: diversity in work
groups’’, in Jackson, S.E. and Ruderman, M.N. (Eds),
Diversity In Work Teams, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 17-45.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), ``Searching for
common threads: understanding the multiple effects
of diversity in organizational groups’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-33.
Northcraft, G.B., Polzer, J.T., Neale, M.A. and Kramer,
R.M. (1996), ``Diversity, social identity and
performance: emergent social dynamics in crossfunctional teams’’, in Jackson, S.E. and Ruderman,
M.N. (Eds), Diversity In Work Teams, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 69-96.
Offermann, L.R. and Spiros, R.K. (2001), ``The science and
practice of team development: improving the link’’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 376-92.
O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.E. and Barnett, W.P. (1989),
``Work group demography, social integration, and
turnover’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34,
pp. 21-37.
Osland, J.S., Kolb, D.A. and Rubin, I.M. (2001),
Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach,
7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L.P. (1991), Measurement,
Design, and Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillside, NJ.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999),
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 1-28.
Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996), ``The effects of conflict,
trust, and task commitment on project team
performance’’, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-76.
Robinson, G. and Dechant, K. (1997), ``Building a business
case for diversity’’, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 21-31.
Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Whan Park, C. (2001), ``The
effect of cross-functional teams on creativity and
the innovativeness of new products’’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-73.
Tajfel, H. (1982), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), ``An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict’’, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S.
(Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,
Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-53.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), ``Making differences
matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 79-91.
Timmerman, T.A. (2000), ``Racial diversity, age diversity,
interdependence, and team performance’’, Small
Group Research, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 592-606.
165
Diversity and learning in groups
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2003 . 149-166
Michaela Driver
Van Der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M. and Van De Vliert, E.
(2001), Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 51-69.
Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), ``Organizational
demography: the differential effects of age and
tenure on technical communication’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 353-76.
Further reading
Barker, M. and Neailey, K. (1999), ``From individual
learning to project team learning and innovation: a
structured approach’’, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Gerber, R. (1998), ``How do workers learn in their work?’’,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Goh, S.C. (1998), ``Toward a learning organization: the
strategic building blocks’’, SAM Advanced
Management Journal, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 15-21.
March, J.G. (1991), ``Exploration and exploitation in
organizational learning’’, Organization Science,
Vol. 2, pp. 71-87.
Robinson, T., Clemson, B. and Keating, C. (1997),
``Development of high performance organizational
learning units’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 4
No. 5, pp. 1-9.
166