OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
CH A PT E R
10
Diversity as Disagreement: The Role
of Group Conflict
Karen A. Jehn and Lindred L. Greer
Abstract
Conflict is critical for determining diversity’s influence on group effectiveness. A considerable amount
of work has amassed on the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and team outcomes. This
chapter will briefly review recent findings and developments in this area. Three specific complexities
needing future research will then be highlighted, with special attention to how diversity may promote
not only conflict but also asymmetric experiences of conflict in teams. The three areas for future
research are (1) the role of different conceptualizations and operationalizations of diversity in
predicting the emergence and asymmetric experience of conflict in teams; (2) the impact of new and
understudied forms of diversity, such as lifestyle diversity or power diversity, on conflict and conflict
asymmetries; and (3) the role of the perception of diversity in activating the relationship between
diversity and conflict asymmetries.
Key Words: conflict, disagreement, contagion, placement, group effectiveness, asymmetry, perception
Many questions remain about how diversity
influences workgroup outcomes (cf. Horwitz &
Horwitz, 2007). Numerous typologies of diversity
characteristics have been created in an attempt to
explain the varying effects of diversity on workgroup
outcomes (e.g., visible vs. invisible; task-related vs.
non–task-related; Pelled, 1996; social category vs.
informational, Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999;
surface- vs. deep-level, Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998;
Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). However,
recent reviews and meta-analyses (Jackson, Joshi,
& Erhardt, 2003; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Mannix &
Neale, 2005) suggest that there are no consistent
direct effects of diversity on organizational performance, even when the different types are considered. More nuanced and context-dependent views of
diversity are therefore needed to better understand
how diversity affects group outcomes (cf. Joshi &
Roh, 2009), and special attention is needed to the
underlying processes that may explain how diversity
affects group outcomes.
Conflict has been identified as a primary mediating process that has the potential to explain the
effects of diversity upon important group outcomes,
such as performance (cf. Jehn, Greer & Rupert,
2008; King, Hebl, & Beal, 2009; Lau & Murnighan,
1998; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). In this chapter on diversity as disagreement, we focus on the
multiple ways in which conflict may explain how
and when diversity produces effective or ineffective
outcomes in groups. This chapter will briefly review
recent findings and developments in this area. Three
specific complexities needing future research in the
study of diversity and conflict in groups will then
be highlighted, with special attention to how diversity may promote not only conflict but also asymmetric experiences of conflict in teams by diverse
members. Areas for future research are the role of
179
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 179
8/8/2012 3:54:36 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
different conceptualizations and operationalizations
of diversity in predicting the emergence and asymmetric experience of conflict in teams; the impact
of new and understudied forms of diversity, such
as lifestyle diversity or power diversity, on conflict
asymmetries; and the role of the perception of diversity in activating the relationship between diversity
and conflict asymmetries.
Group conflict
We begin by defining intragroup conflicts and
discussing the different ways conflict can be conceptualized. Intragroup conflict has been defined as the
process arising from perceived or real incompatibilities among group members (e.g., Boulding, 1962;
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Thomas, 1992; Wall &
Callister, 1995). The most common way researchers have approached the study of conflict in groups
(i.e., intragroup conflict) is to examine the general
level of conflict in groups (i.e. “how much conflict
is there in this team?”).
More recently, researchers have begun to examine the asymmetry of conflict within groups. Recent
work (e.g., Coleman, Kugler, Mitchinson, Chung,
& Musallam, 2010; Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher,
2010; Jehn, Rupert, Nauta, & den Bosche, 2010;
Thatcher & Phillips, 2010) has highlighted how
members in a group may have different perceptions of the level, amount, and type of conflict in
the group, and as a result may exhibit more or less
conflict behaviors than their other group members (e.g., Jehn, Greer, Rispens, & Jonsen, 2012;
Mannes, 2009). For example, in a study of 51 workgroups, Jehn and colleagues (2010) examined the
consequences of asymmetric conflict perceptions on
the effectiveness of individuals and groups. Group
conflict asymmetry was defined as the degree to
which members differed in their perceptions of the
level of conflict in the group. They found that group
conflict asymmetry decreased performance and creativity in the workgroups. They also examined individual conflict asymmetry, which was defined as one
member perceiving more or less conflict than other
group members. Whether a workgroup member was
a high or low perceiver of conflict (compared to the
other group members) determined his or her individual performance and satisfaction with the team.
They suggested multiple mechanisms by which this
could occur. Diversity between members in their
perceptions of conflict in the team decreases their
trust in and respect for one another; it also frustrates
members and increases their cognitive load as they
spend time and energy trying to make sense of their
180
divergent perceptions of the conflict environment
in the team.
We believe that this multilevel conceptualization
and understanding of the process of intragroup conflict is important for diversity researchers to consider
when examining the effects of workgroup diversity
on individual and team effectiveness. Perhaps one
of the reasons why the effects of diversity and conflict have been mixed is that past conceptualizations
of these relationships have overlooked the ability
of diversity to differentially affect certain members within the team and to feed conflict asymmetries. To facilitate this goal, following our review of
the current state of the literatures on conflict and
diversity, we will then discuss how different types
and configurations of diversity in workgroups may
influence the multilevel and potentially asymmetric
process of intragroup conflict and how this in turn
may help explain how diversity ultimately affects
individual and team outcomes. We highlight new
types of diversity categorizations (e.g., lifestyle diversity, power diversity), configurations (e.g., faultline
placement), and perceptions that directly relate to
our multilevel view of conflict in workgroups and
may provide answers to how diversity affects individuals in groups via conflict and disagreement.
Types of intragroup conflict
Past research on intragroup conflict has primarily focused on conflicts arising from either task
or relationship issues (Amason, 1996; Guetzkow
& Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1995). Task conflicts involve
problems among group members about ideas and
opinions relating to the job the group is performing (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995,
1997), such as the focus for a major advertising plan.
Relationship conflicts are about non–work-related
issues between members, such as differences about
politics, religion, environmental issues, or commuting that are often important to people but not necessarily related to the task they are working on (e.g.,
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn, 1995, 1997).
Process conflicts involve logistical issues within
the group, such as disagreements about the delegation of resources and task responsibilities (Behfar,
Mannix, Peterson, & Trochim, 2011; Greer & Jehn,
2007; Jehn, 1997).
Conflict and group effectiveness
When investigating the impact of diversity and
conflict on group outcomes, the group outcomes
typically studied fall into two general categories,
those that are performance-related and those that
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 180
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
are morale-related. Indicators of team performance
can include departmental production records or
supervisor ratings (e.g., Jehn, 1997; Pelled et al.,
1999). Measures of morale typically focus on satisfaction with the group or member turnover intentions (Jehn, 1997; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991;
Pelled et al., 1999). These indicators of morale are
thought to represent team viability and are as important for group functioning and success as actual performance (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Hackman,
1987; Hackman & Wageman, 2005).
Research has shown that task conflict can
improve performance under certain conditions
(e.g., nonroutine tasks, open conflict norms)
through improved consideration of different alternatives and group problem solving (e.g., Amason,
1996; Corseu & Schruijer, 2010; Greer et al., 2006;
Jehn, 1997; Matsuo, 2006; Olson et al., 2007;
Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Other research
suggests that conflict interferes with the cognitive
processing of group members (e.g., Carnevale &
Probst, 1998). Task conflicts may impede a group
member’s ability to adequately process information. While the cognitive processing perspective
has received support (see the meta-analysis by De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003), De Dreu and Weingart
do suggest, consistent with Jehn (1995, 1997), that
under certain conditions task conflicts may still be
able to increase group performance. Specifically,
De Dreu and Weingart suggest that task conflict in
groups performing nonroutine tasks in a trusting
and psychologically safe environment can result in
improved group performance.
The effects of task conflict on team viability
(e.g., satisfaction, commitment, or willingness to
work together again) are consistently negative (cf.
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Bendersky,
2003). In general, frustration and dissatisfaction
are common reactions to any sort of disagreement or conflict among individuals (Ross, 1989).
Therefore, relationship conflicts, as well as task
conflicts, cause problems for team viability. If
members are fighting, they are often unsatisfied
and likely not to want to continue in the group,
thus decreasing group morale. Relationship conflicts also interfere with successful group performance because of the misspent time and effort
(Jehn & Bendersky, 2003) wasted on petty fighting over non–task-related issues or resolving the
non–task-related issues, rather than on completing
the task (e.g., Amason, 1996; Evan, 1965; Jehn,
1995; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Matsuo, 2006; Nibler
& Harris, 2003; Pelled, 1997; Rau, 2005).
Regarding process conflict, some research has
proposed that these disagreements in a team may
improve group functioning as members’ ability are
fit to the task requirements (e.g., Goncalo, Polman,
& Maslach, 2010; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,
1999). Other research shows that process conflict
decreases members’ cognitive abilities and distracts
them from more important goal-related issues (e.g.,
Behfar et al., 2011; Greer & Jehn, 2007; Greer et
al., 2006; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Vodosek, 2007).
Process conflict, as with the other types of conflict,
is consistently found to decrease morale and satisfaction in the group due to the personal challenging
and discomfort of individuals with conflict-filled
interactions.
Past empirical findings on diversity
and conflict
Social category heterogeneity and conflict
Social category heterogeneity has been shown to
increase relationship conflicts in groups (e.g., Ayub
& Jehn, 2010; Jehn et al., 1999; Mohammed &
Angel, 2004; O’Reilly, Williams, & Barsade; 1997;
Pelled et al., 1999). This is thought to be because
social identity and social categorization processes in
diverse groups lead to discomfort, hostility, and tension (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
and dislike between members of different demographic categories (Byrne, 1971). Social category
heterogeneity also influences task conflict in groups
(Ayub & Jehn, 2010; Curseu & Schruijer, 2010; cf.
Jehn, Bezrukova, & Thatcher, 2006): when group
members have different social category characteristics, they are likely to have different experiences or
values (Dougherty, 1992). These different “thought
worlds” can cause task conflicts and can also lead to
process conflicts regarding how best to coordinate
the task at hand (Behfar et al., 2011; Jehn et al.,
1999). In support of these ideas, Vodosek (2007)
found all three forms of conflict to mediate the
negative impact of cultural diversity on team outcomes. However, a recent meta-analysis by Stahl,
Maznefski, Voigt, and Jonsen (2010) found that
cultural diversity is positively related to task conflict, but is not significantly related to either relationship or process conflict.
Functional heterogeneity and conflict
Functional differences, just like social category
differences, elicit in-group/out-group comparisons that result in tensions within groups that can
escalate to relationship conflicts due to increased
communication problems and resentment across
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 181
181
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
different areas (Strauss, 1962). Functional heterogeneity also increases task conflict. Members of
different functional backgrounds, by definition,
bring different education, training, and experience
to the group (e.g., Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart,
2001). These different perspectives, or “representational gaps” (Cronin & Weingart, 2007), lead to
debates and disagreements about the group task
(Pelled et al., 1999). Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale
(1999) found that functional diversity increased
improved performance when mediated by task conflict. Knight and colleagues (1999), in their study of
76 top management teams, showed that functional
diversity’s effects on goal consensus were mediated
by relationship conflict and agreement seeking.
Olson, Parayitam, and Bao (2007) showed that task
conflict mediated the effect of cognitive diversity on
team performance. In addition, members of different functional backgrounds rely on different working methods (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Gruenfeld
et al., 1996) and different views of how to coordinate a task (cf. Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Jehn et
al., 1999) that can lead to process conflicts (Behfar
et al., 2011; Jehn et al., 1999). Recent research by
Klein, Knight, Ziegert, Lim, and Saltz (2011) contributed to this line of work by showing that the
effects of functional diversity (operationalized as
differences in work values) on team conflict depend
on the style of the team leader. Work-value diversity
was associated with team conflict only when leaders
were person-focused rather than task-oriented.
Diversity faultlines and conflict
The concept of demographic faultlines (Lau
& Murnighan, 1998) has arisen in response to
critiques of the traditional conceptualization of
diversity (see Chapter 4 in this book for a review).
Demographic faultlines have been hypothesized to
lead to increased levels of relationship conflict (e.g.,
Lau & Murnighan, 1998; 2005; Li & Hambrick,
2005; Thatcher et al., 2003). When faultlines occur
in groups, the resulting subgroups, or coalitions, may
increase the salience of in-group/out-group memberships, resulting in strain and polarization, and
inter-subgroup competition (Lau & Murnighan,
1998). When group members align with others of
similar demographics, they will see the others in
the group as outsiders (Hogg, Turner, & Davidson,
1990), resulting in tensions that intensify relationship conflict within the group (Jehn, Bezrukova, &
Thatcher, 2006). In addition, research indicates that
aligned subgroups will have negative beliefs about
members of the other subgroup, the “out-group,”
182
causing feelings of inequity and disrespect (Hogg,
1996), which increase experiences of relationship
conflict. This can distract members from the task
and can cause competition within the group based
on non–task-related dimensions (e.g., “we older
workers know more than you young members” or
“those of us from the U.S. are more capable than
you others”). These distinctions and splits within a
common-goal workgroup can cause decreased performance and negative attitudes that, in the end,
will decrease the effectiveness of the task performance of the group.
While demographic faultlines are likely to
increase relationship conflict, their effects on task
conflict within the group are less clear. On the one
hand, when in-group and out-group identities are
salient, subgroups may polarize (Lau & Murnighan,
1998) and talk less with each other about work
issues. When communication between subgroups
declines, task conflict is less likely to occur. On the
other hand, when members have subgroup members
to share their opinion with, they may be more willing
to hold onto their own opinion during group discussions (Asch, 1952; cf. Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Task
conflicts are therefore more likely because members
backed up by representative subgroup members may
be more willing to enter into task conflicts, given
the support they feel based on their alignments. Task
conflicts may become even more intense as subgroups each rally around their own unique point of
view (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
In addition, the different backgrounds that members of different functional subgroups have may
lead members to approach process issues differently
(Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Gruenfeld et al., 1996;
Pelled, 1996). These differences may be accentuated by subgroup dynamics relating to equity and
appropriate delegation of staff and resources. When
subgroups form, inter-subgroup competition may
take place as to who should get the overall group
resources and how to delegate sought-after tasks
(Lau & Murnighan, 1998). When subgroups feel
compelled to compete for group resources, higher
levels of process conflict may also result.
Findings so far on the effects of faultlines on
conflict and performance have been mixed. Li
and Hambrick (2005) found that strong faultlines
(based on age, tenure, gender, and ethnicity) led to
increased task conflict, relationship conflict, behavior disintegration, and decreased performance.
The relationship between faultline strength and
behavioral disintegration (decrease in interaction, exchange, and collective effort) was entirely
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 182
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
mediated by relationship conflict, but not by task
conflict. They found that relationship conflict had
a negative influence on performance, but did not
find an effect of task conflict on performance. The
group processes (relationship conflict, task conflict,
and behavioral disintegration) fully mediated the
negative relationship between faultline size and performance. Lau and Murnighan (2005) found that
faultlines (based on gender and ethnicity) explained
more variance in perception of team learning, psychological safety, satisfaction, and expected performance than single-attribute heterogeneity indices.
Lau and Murnighan also found strong faultlines to
decrease relationship conflict. Thatcher, Jehn, and
Zanutto (2003) found that diversity faultlines (based
on years of work experience, type of functional background, degree major, sex, age, race, and country of
origin) were linearly associated with lower levels of
relationship and process conflict, but did not find a
linear effect on either task conflict, performance, or
morale. In curvilinear tests, they found that faultline strength had a curvilinear effect on relationship
conflict, process conflict, performance, and morale.
Groups with low faultline strength (where no subgroups existed; i.e., Asian male accountant, Black
male manager, Native American male salesman,
and Hispanic male secretary) and groups with very
strong faultline strength (where subgroups cleanly
align on the basis of multiple characteristics; i.e.,
two Black male managers and two White female
assistants) had higher levels of process and relationship conflicts and lower levels of performance
and morale than groups where medium faultline
strength existed (i.e., one female Asian consultant,
one White female consultant, one White male assistant, one Black male assistant).
Molleman (2005) found that both demographic
faultline strength and distance (see Bezrukova,
Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009; Thatcher, Jehn,
& Zanutto, 2003, for overview of faultline strength
and distance) increased general intragroup conflict
(the average of task and relationship conflict items).
He also found that faultlines formed on the basis of
personality types significantly interacted with team
autonomy in predicting intragroup conflict, such
that when personality faultline distance was high
and team autonomy was high, intragroup conflict
was the highest, and when faultline distance was
low and team autonomy was low, intragroup conflict was the lowest.
Furthermore, Pearsall, Ellis, and Evans (2007)
found that relationship conflict mediated the relationship between activated gender faultlines and
team creativity, such that faultlines were positively
related to relationship conflict and relationship conflict was negatively related to team creativity. Choi
and Sy (2010) found that social category faultlines,
such as gender/age or age/race faultlines, were positively related to relationship conflict, which was
indirectly negatively related to team performance.
Lastly, Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) found that activated racial faultlines positively influenced general
levels of conflict in the team, which negatively
affected team outcomes.
In sum, research on faultlines and conflict has
mixed results. Faultlines have been shown to both
positively and negatively relate to general levels of
intragroup conflict. We suggest by taking a more
nuanced view of conflict, in terms of how it is asymmetrically perceived in groups, and investigating the
effect of diversity and faultlines on conflict asymmetry, we may be able to gain better insight into how
diversity and faultlines affect the conflict dynamics
and ultimate outcomes of diverse groups. Therefore,
we provide a new framework for understanding
diversity and disagreement in groups using the conflict asymmetry perspective.
A new framework for understanding
diversity and conflict: conflict
asymmetry
We suggest that research needs to consider the
asymmetry of perceptions by members of diverse
groups to more thoroughly explain the effects of
diversity and disagreement on group conflict and
outcomes. Past conflict research often assumes that
all members interacting on a work task perceive and
experience the same amount of conflict (De Dreu
& Weingart, 2003; cf. Jehn & Chatman, 2000).
This assumption ignores the possibility that different parties involved in a conflict may perceive different levels of conflict. For example, one person in
a workgroup may perceive a high level of conflict,
while another may perceive little or no conflict.
This view of asymmetric conflict perceptions has
often been ignored in past research on conflict (e.g.,
Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; cf. Jehn
& Rispens, 2007). Similarly, research on organizational groups and teams in general often takes the
view that groups possess shared team properties, or
that experiences are commonly held by team members (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Mason, 2006),
rather than configural team properties, or properties
that reflect the differences in attitudes and perceptions among individuals working together (Chan,
1998; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 183
183
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
Recent research (Jehn et al., 2010) shows that
group conflict asymmetry (the degree to which
members differ in perceptions of the level of conflict in the group) decreases performance and creativity in groups. This effect was explained by the
social processes (e.g., communication, cooperation)
and the group atmosphere (e.g., trust, respect) that
resulted from asymmetric perceptions. In addition,
at the individual level, high perceivers of conflict
reported lower performance and satisfaction with
the team than did low perceivers of conflict. We
therefore suggest that it is critical to assess individuals’ different perceptions of conflict levels to accurately predict the effects of diversity on group and
individual behavior and outcomes.
In addition to perceiving different levels of conflict, individuals may also respond or behave differently when conflict is perceived in a team. Individual
conflict engagement is defined as an individual’s
behavioral confrontation of conflict issues (Greer
& Jehn, 2010). This distinction between conflict
perceptions and behaviors traces back to the classic work of Pondy (1967) on felt versus manifest
conflicts. As an example of the differences between
asymmetries in conflict perceptions and conflict
engagement, imagine a team meeting in which a
member perceives that others’ opinions are in disagreement with her own, but has not yet expressed
her own opinion. Perceptual conflict asymmetry
may exist at this point. She may choose whether or
not to verbally contradict the opinions of the others. If she does choose to express a contradictory
opinion, this would be defined as conflict engagement. Similar to asymmetries in perceptions of
conflict, individual engagement in conflict can also
have negative outcomes for the individual within a
team. Behaviorally engaging in relationship or process conflicts can distract individuals from the task
and create tensions with other team members (Jehn
& Bendersky, 2003), while behaviorally engaging in
task conflict may help the individual to showcase his
or her expertise on the issue and may increase
the individual’s intellective engagement with the
issue as the individual formulates the argument.
Therefore, by distinguishing between group-level
and individual-level conflict perceptions and behaviors, more nuanced and clearer understanding of
conflicts can be obtained (cf. Jehn et al., 2012;
Korsgaard et al., 2008) and better insight gained
into the exact process by which diversity influences
team outcomes.
Given these different views of conflicts (asymmetry of perception and engagement), we suggest three
184
areas for future research to move forward the study
of diversity and disagreement in groups: (1) How
do different conceptualizations of diversity affect
these more nuanced conceptualizations of conflict
in groups? (2) How do different understudied types
of diversity (e.g., lifestyle and power) influence conflict perceptions and behaviors? (3) How does the
perception of diversity add to or differ from the
examination (as is common in much past research)
of objective diversity when predicting multifaceted
notions of conflict in teams?
Research question 1
As previously discussed in this chapter, the concept of demographic faultlines, wherein demographic characteristics align within a team in such a
way as to create a clear dividing line between dissimilar team members (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), has
generated a steady stream of research over the past
decade. However, these studies have revealed contrasting results. We suggest that this is because past
views of faultlines have been too simplistic and do
not allow the possibility of understanding how different configurations of diversity differentially affect
the conflict perceptions and behaviors of individual
team members.
Recent work by O’Leary and Mortenson (2010)
as well as by Polzer and colleagues (2006) and Greer,
Jehn, Thatcher, and Van Beest (2010) all suggest that
not all faultlines are created equal. Rather, the way
in which faultlines divide a group (such as between
two equally sized subgroups or between a larger
subgroup and an excluded individual) may have not
only important implications for group-level conflict
(e.g., Polzer et al., 2006) but also important implications in that different faultlines may create important differences in the perception and expression of
conflict between individuals within the same group.
For example, Greer and colleagues (2010) show
that when faultlines create a solo member, that solo
member is more likely to perceive higher levels of
conflict than other group members, but less likely
to behaviorally engage in conflict. They show that
this can then translate into impaired team climate
and performance.
Future investigation of how different configurations of diversity can create differential experiences
within the same team is therefore an important
future research direction. The distinction between,
for example, solo members or subgroup members
based on demographic characteristics is theoretically
and practically very relevant for the understanding
of diversity and disagreement in groups. This is
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 184
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
because in diverse teams, the solo members in particular need to share their opinions in order for the
team to capitalize on the “value of diversity” within
the team (Homan et al., 2007), but this is difficult
as solos are likely to tend to conform to the dominant subgroup (Asch, 1952). Therefore, we suggest
that it would be useful for future research to identify
ways to make sure that all individuals on either sides
of a faultline in a team have similar perceptions of
conflict and feel empowered to speak about these
perceptions when they are about the task. Research
would benefit from both experimental designs that
can create and compare different forms of subgroups
in common-goal groups and also field research to
examine the natural placement and perceptions of
members based on their demographics and how
they view the conflict in the group. For example,
in a recent study of faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova,
2010), members were placed into groups based on
demographic alignment (e.g., Black males vs. White
females). An interesting result of this research was
that not all members perceived there to be a faultline and in turn did not perceive conflict or act in a
conflict-filled way. The members who did perceive
faultiness were more engaged in conflict and dissatisfied, thus leading to lower performance. This
suggests that future research incorporate measures
of both objective (calculated) and perceived demographic faultlines and relate these to individual
perceptions of conflict to capture the asymmetry of
conflict within the group that may exist.
Research question 2
We offer another line of inquiry challenging the
assumptions often made in past diversity typologies. That is, we raise the question of whether there
are non–task-related invisible characteristics that
may be important. Much of the research assumes
that all social category variables are visible and
that all deep-level characteristics (often invisible)
are task-related (e.g., personality traits, work values; Rink, 2005). We therefore seek to introduce
a broader conceptualization of social category
diversity. This is desirable because relying on prior
conceptualizations of social category diversity has
often led to contradictory results regarding conflict
across studies. The typical troika of social category
variables studied in the literature (age, sex, and ethnicity) could be classified as “visible” social category
variables that often increase relationship conflict.
While obviously a crude categorization (people do
not always look their age, or look like they belong
to a certain ethnic group), these features are usually
more transparent to study than other potential
social category variables (such as sexual orientation, marital status, social class, family background,
whether one is a parent, whether one has a history
of substance abuse, or whether one has changed his
or her name), which may explain why they have
been the focus of attention when examining conflict in organizational workgroups. Yet the knowledge that a group member falls into one of these
latter categories is likely to activate the same categorization and comparison processes as occurs with
the visible social category diversity variables. Thus,
future research needs to more thoroughly examine
what categories individual members are basing their
behaviors and attitudes on (i.e., what is salient to
them) in order to determine what type or level of
conflict is likely to occur.
Lifestyle heterogeneity and conflict
An interesting and potentially highly influential
demographic characteristic in teams that has yet to
receive much empirical investigation in the workgroup setting is lifestyle diversity. Lifestyle diversity,
as we have defined it, could be considered a form
of value diversity related to nonwork issues (e.g.,
marital status, sexual orientation). We propose that
stigmas against sexual orientation, substance abuse,
and certain social classes will affect stereotyping and
prejudice (Brauer, 2001; Button, 2001; D’Emilio,
1983; Fussell, 1983; Hartmann, 1970; Herek, 1993;
Newcomb, Mercurio, & Wollard, 2000; Plummer,
1975; Sorensen, 2000), and ultimately performance, as much or more than the traditional social
category aspects examined (i.e., age and gender). In
related, initial studies of this form of diversity, Jehn
and colleagues (1999) introduced value diversity, a
third type of diversity, distinct from social category
or functional diversity. Value diversity represents
differences in the values that members hold regarding work. Value diversity was found to increase all
three conflict types and to decrease perceived and
actual performance as well as morale. Research on
various other lifestyle characteristics suggests that
this form of diversity will also increase conflict in
groups, but has been understudied within organizations for a number of reasons. First, it is very
controversial to ask employees about these characteristics; however, a study on punk rock bands by
Jehn, Conlon, and Greer (2010) demonstrated that
these characteristics may have a larger influence on
workgroup processes such as conflict and performance outcomes (e.g., productivity and morale)
than the more traditional diversity characteristics
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 185
185
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
(e.g., gender, race, work experience). In addition,
the theory regarding these characteristics is underdeveloped. Therefore, more examination is required to
determine how people who lead different lifestyles
will perceive conflict differently, similar to the more
visible social categories, and how this will influence
the effects of conflict.
Power diversity
Another form of diversity that is understudied
and does not readily fit into past categorization
schemes of diversity forms is diversity in power or
status within teams. Initial research and theorizing
in this area has suggested that differences in power
or status within a team may have the potential to
both benefit group interactions and to harm group
interactions. On the one hand, power diversity
offers a heuristic solution to problems of resource
allocation (De Cremer, 2003; Keltner, van Kleef,
Chen, & Kraus, 2008) and can facilitate order and
coordination in groups (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
On the other hand, power diversity has the potential to make salient feelings of inequality and injustice (Henderson & Frederickson, 2001; cf. Lawler
& Proell, 2009; Muller, 1985) and can breed rivalry
and competition (Bloom, 1999; cf. Harrison &
Klein, 2007). Greer and Van Kleef (2010) reconciled these viewpoints by showing that the effects
of power dispersion depend on the amount of
resources available to the group. When a group has
low power, power dispersion is helpful, but when
a group has high power, power dispersion leads
to power struggles and conflict within the team.
Further research into the potential moderators of
power diversity and the exact underlying dynamics
by which groups create and change power diversity
within their team would be interesting.
Directly integrating work on power and status
with work on traditionally studied demographic
characteristics would also be an interesting pathway
for future research. A potential mechanism by which
differences in, say, gender exert their influence on
group conflict may be through the instigation of
power differences and inequalities within the team,
which promote perceptions of conflict and are also
likely to result in actual conflict behaviors, given
their degree of personal importance to members.
For example, Greer and colleagues (2006) found
that status moderated the effects of demographic
diversity, such that high-status demographic solo
members in workgroups were less likely to perceive
conflict, but more likely to act on conflict when
perceived, than low-status solo members in teams.
186
Therefore, integrating notions of power and status
into research on diversity and conflict is important
for future research.
Research question 3
One key direction in future research that has
been largely neglected thus far is the distinction
between actual diversity and perceived diversity (for
exceptions, see Dooley, Freyxell, & Judge, 2000;
Harrison et al., 1998, 2002; Jehn et al., 1999). Most
past work on diversity has focused on objective
demographic characteristics, such as gender, age,
or race (cf. Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), that can
potentially influence team processes, such as conflict, and team outcomes. However, as seen in the
recent reviews and meta-analyses on diversity and
group processes and outcomes (Jackson et al., 2003;
Mannix & Neale, 2005; Stewart, 2006; Webber &
Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), findings on diversity have been largely inconsistent. We
propose that one possible way of explaining these
contradictory findings is by proposing that diversity affects group process and outcomes only when
it is perceived or salient. Research has proposed and
shown, for example, that individuals are not always
accurate when assessing the degree of diversity in
their work unit as compared to other work units (cf.
Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Therefore, considering the perception, as well as
the actuality, of diversity may help us better understand the effects of diversity on intragroup conflict
and outcomes. In addition, as we mentioned before,
members may have different perceptions of the level
of conflict in the group, as well as different degrees
of behavioral involvement. A member of a certain
demographic category, when perceiving himself or
herself to be in the minority, may be more likely
to perceive the conflict as relationship-based rather
than task-based, but less likely to engage in actual
conflict behaviors while in a perceived minority
position. If individuals feel that others are getting
more resources or the best tasks within the group,
they may be more likely to perceive process conflict
rather than perceiving that it is a task conflict or
based on task capabilities.
There is a conceptual distinction between objective
and perceived demographic differences within groups
(Garcia-Prieto, Bellard, & Schneider, 2003; Harrison
& Klein, 2007; Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, &
Salvador, 2008) that has been acknowledged in the
empirical work on surface- and deep-level diversity
(Cunningham, 2007; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998;
Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Phillips &
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 186
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
Loyd, 2006; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006),
mentoring relationships (e.g., Lankau, Riordan, &
Thomas, 2005), value and goal diversity (e.g., Jehn,
Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Mannix & Jehn, 2004;
Rink, 2005), face-to-face versus computer-mediated
communication (e.g., Bhappu, Griffith, & Northcraft,
1997), and perceived variability/homogeneity in
in-groups and out-groups (e.g., Lee & Ottati, 1993).
Research on supervisor–subordinate relations has suggested that perceived differences often have a greater
effect on interactions than objective demographic
differences (c.f., Riordan, 2000; Strauss, Barrick, &
Connerley, 2001; Turban & Jones, 1988). Ashforth
and Mael (1989) explain this by suggesting that the
effect of demographic differences is through individuals’ perceptions. Thus, we propose that these different
perceptions of members’ demographics and their difference in the group may also lead to different perceptions of conflict.
This same discrepancy between perceived and
actual diversity is also a point of contention in the
literature on demographic faultlines. Most work on
faultlines conceptualizes faultlines based on objective demographic characteristics that can potentially
influence team processes and team functioning
(Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Lau & Murnighan,
2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005; but for an exception
see Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). However, as Lau
and Murnighan (1998) put forth in their original
article on faultline theory, groups may have many
potential faultlines, “each of which may activate or
increase the potential for particular subgroupings”
(p. 328). Since faultlines can remain inactive and go
unnoticed for years without influencing the group
process (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), it is important
to take into account whether team members actually perceive or experience these subgroup splits and
to what extent these faultline perceptions determine
intragroup processes and outcomes. Recent work on
faultline activation (the process by which objective
faultlines become perceived within a group; Jehn
& Bezrukova, 2010) suggests one possible route
toward exploring the relationship between actual
and perceived diversity and conflict experienced in
a group. In this research, faultlines were activated
when there were group members with certain personalities in each subgroup (e.g., narcissism, entitlement) that pulled the groups apart and made the
faultlines salient, hence increasing perceptions of
conflict. Future research should also examine other
factors that may activate faultlines and pull the
demographically aligned subgroups apart, such as
specific demographic characteristics or perceptions
and attitudes of group members. It is also important
to note that certain group aspects can “deactivate”
faultlines; that is, when groups had a superordinate group identity, the faultlines were less likely to
be perceived, and conflict was decreased (Jehn &
Bezrukova, 2010). By understanding this and other
such factors that can lead to faultline activation,
researchers can increase their understanding of the
role of faultlines in the perceived conflicts of workgroups; that is, one subgroup may perceive all is
fine while the other subgroup is experiencing large
amounts of conflict. What this means for actual
conflict behavior is also interesting. If there are
asymmetric perceptions, conflict behavior may be
potentially less manifest than if all subgroups perceived the conflict. However, this also means such
conflicts may be more difficult to resolve and more
negative for group outcomes.
Other work looking at identity salience as a
mediator of the relationship between intragroup
conflict and outcomes (e.g., Garcia-Prieto et al.,
2003; Randel, 2002) may also represent another
way to better understand the effects of diversity
on conflict and group outcomes. Faultlines may
become activated and instigate conflict only when
identity salience relating to the faultlines is high—
and identity salience may vary between members
within the team, leading to individual differences in
perceptual faultline activation and conflict perceptions and behaviors. We therefore propose that it
is the workgroup members’ perceptions that matter and that inform ultimate behaviors and group
outcomes.
Conclusion
This chapter reviewed past research on diversity and disagreement in groups and proposed new
frameworks to resolve the inconsistencies in past
work and move the area forward. Three complex
issues needing future research in the study of diversity and conflict in groups were presented, with
special attention to how diversity may promote not
only conflict but also asymmetric experiences of
conflict in teams by diverse members. The areas for
future research were the role of different conceptualizations and operationalizations of diversity in predicting the emergence and asymmetric experience
of conflict in teams; the impact of new and understudied forms of diversity, such as lifestyle diversity
or power diversity; and the role of the perception
of diversity in activating the relationship between
diversity and disagreement in teams. By examining
these areas, we hope that research will continue to
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 187
187
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
advance our understanding of diverse teams and
how they interact, as well as providing suggestions
for group leaders, members, and managers.
References
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing effects of functional
and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making,
Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Ayub, N., & Jehn, K. A. (2010). The moderating influence of
nationalism on the relationship between national diversity
and conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
3, 249–275.
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time
in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects
on team viability and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 49–68.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and
innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top
management team make a difference. Strategic Management
Journal, 10, 107–124.
Behfar, K., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. & Trochim, W. (2011).
Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of
process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127–176.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E., & Thatcher, S. M. B.
(2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated
model of group faultlines, team identification, and group
performance. Organization Science, 20, 35–50.
Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1997).
Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70,
199–205.
Bloom, M. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion
on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 25–40.
Boulding, K. (1962). Conflict and defense. New York: Harper and
Row.
Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context:
The effects of social status and group membership on
outgroup homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 15–31.
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual
diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 17–28.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York:
Academic Press.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values
and social conflict in creative problem solving and
categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1300–1309.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations amongst constructs in the
same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology
of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
234–246.
Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational
citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and
conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 1032–1054.
188
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Mitchinson, A., Chung, C., &
Musallam, N. (2010). The view from above and below: The
effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict
dynamics and outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, 13, 283–311.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps,
information processing and conflict in functionally diverse
teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773.
Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Perceptions as reality: the influence
of actual and perceived demographic dissimilarity. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 22, 79–89.
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict
shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the
relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 14, 66–79.
De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to
inequality: effect of hierarchical roles on the equality rule in
organizational resource-sharing tasks. Group & Organization
Management, 28, 282–302.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus
relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 741–749.
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: the
making of a homosexual minority in the United States,
1940–70. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dooley, R. S., Fryxell, G. E., & Judge, W. Q. (2000). Belaboring
the not-so-obvious: Consensus, commitment, and strategy
implementation speed and success. Journal of Management,
26, 1237–1257.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product
innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179–202.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team
cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26–49.
Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D
organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7, 37–46.
Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A guide through the american status
system. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003).
Experiencing diversity, conflict, and emotions in teams.
Applied Psychology, An International Review, 52(3), 413–440.
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups
as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.
Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can
confidence come to soon?: Collective efficacy, conflict and
group performance over time. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 113, 13–24.
Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of emotion
in intragroup process conflict. Research on Managing Groups
and Teams, 10, 23–45.
Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2010). Individual engagement in
conflict: Performance effects moderated by verbal style and
influence tactic usage. University of Amsterdam working
paper.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2006).
Demographic faultline token splits: Effects on conflict and
performance. Presented at the Academy of Management,
Atlanta, GA.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Van Beest, I.
(2010). Faultline token splits. University of Amsterdam
working paper.
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 188
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus
differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on social
interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032–1044.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M.
A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How
member familiarity and information distribution affect
processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 67, 1–15.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in
decision making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367–381.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J.
W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team
coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269–287.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference?
Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32,
1199–1228.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational
demography, Time and the effects of surface- and deep- level
diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 96–107.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. T. (2002).
Times, teams, and task performance. Changing effects of
surface- and deep- level diversity on work group cohesion.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.
Hartman, G. (1970). Structuralism: The Anglo-American
adventure. In J. Ehrmann (Ed.), Structuralism
(pp. 137–158). Garden City: Doubleday
Henderson, A. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Top
management team coordination needs and the CEO pay
gap: A competitive test of economic and behavioral views.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 96–117.
Herek, G. M. (1993). Sexual orientation and military service:
a social science perspective. American Psychologist, 48(5),
538–549.
Hogg, M. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the
small group. In J. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding
group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 227–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized
norms and social frames of reference: A test of the
self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100.
Homan, A. C., Knippenberg, D. v., Kleef, G. A. v., & De Dreu,
C. K.W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity:
The effects of diversity beliefs on information elaboration
and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team
diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team
demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent
research on team and organizational diversity, SWOT
analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29,
801–830.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits
and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and
dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict
in organizations, A contingency perspective on the
conflict-outcome relationship. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (25, pp. 189–244).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation
process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition
formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 24–42.
Jehn, K. A., Bezrukova, K., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2006).
Conflict, diversity and faultlines in workgroups. In C. K. W.
De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict
and conflict management in organizations (pp. 177–204).
New York: SIOP Frontier Series, Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of
proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team
performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,
11, 56–73.
Jehn, K. A., Conlon, D., & Greer, L. (2010). Lifestyle diversity
in organizational groups. Presented at the Academy of
Management Meeting, Boston, MA.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., Rispens, S., & Jonsen, K. (2012).
Conflict contagion: A theoretical model of the development
and spread of conflict in teams. International Journal of
Conflict Management, in press.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L. L., & Rupert, J. (2008). Diversity and
conflict. In A. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 166–219).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of
conflict. A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
238–251.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why
differences make a difference, A field study of diversity,
conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
Jehn, K. A., & Rispens, S. (2007). Conflict in workgroups. In C.
I. Cooper & J. Barlings (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 262–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The
effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 596–616.
Jehn, K. A., Rupert, J., Nauta, A., & Van Den Bossche, S.
(2010). Crooked conflicts: The effects of conflict asymmetry
in mediation. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
13, 338–357.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work
team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 599–627.
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008).
A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging
principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and
cooperation in diverse workgroups. Journal of Social Issues,
65, 261–285.
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L.
(2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating
role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 114, 25–36.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso:
Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 189
189
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H.
P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team
diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic
Management Journal, 20, 445–465.
Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H.
(2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of
Management, 34, 1222–1252.
Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The
effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between
mentors and protégés. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,
252–265.
Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups
and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–659.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic
diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of
organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23,
325–340.
Lawler, E. J., & Proell, C. A. (2009). The power process and
emotion. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and
interdependence in organizations (pp. 169–185). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Y., & Ottati, V. (1993). Determinants of in-group and
out-group perceptions of heterogeneity: An investigation
of Sino-American stereotypes. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 24, 298–318.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D.C. (2005). Factional groups: A
new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and
disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 794–813.
Lovelace, K. Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L. R. (2001).
Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’
innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict
communications perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 779–784.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The
self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of
Management Annals, 2, 351–398.
Mannes, A. E. (2009). Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds?
The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management
Science, 55(8), 1267–1279.
Mannix, E., & Jehn, K. A. (2003). Let’s norm and storm, but
not right now: Integrating models of group development
and performance. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & S. Blount
(Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp.11–37).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make
a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in
organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2),
31–55.
Mason, C. M. (2006). Exploring the processes underlying
within-group homogeneity. Small Group Research, 37(3),
233–270.
Matsuo, M. (2006). Customer orientation, conflict, and
innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of
Business Research, 59, 242–250.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and
deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the
moderating effects of team orientation and team process
on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 1015–1039.
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics,
abilities, and personality traits: Do faultlines affect
190
team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14,
173–193.
Muller, E. N. (1985). Income inequality, regime repressiveness,
and political violence. American Sociological Review, 50(1),
47–61.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of
intense workgroups: A study of British string quartets.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186.
Newcomb, M. D., Mercurio, S. C. A., & Wollard, C. A. (2000).
Rock stars in anti-drug-abuse commercials: An experimental
study of adolescents’ reactions. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30, 1160–1185.
Nibler, R., & Harris, K. L. (2003). The effects of culture and
cohesiveness on intragroup conflict and effectiveness. Journal
of Social Psychology, 143, 613–631.
O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure:
Subgroups, imbalances, and isolates in geographically
distributed teams. Organization Science, 21, 115–131.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision
making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and
trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33,
196–222.
O’Reilly, C., Williams, K., & Barsade, S. (1997). Group
demography and innovation, Does diversity help? In E.
Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research in the management of
groups and teams (Vol. 1, pp. 34–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2007). Unlocking
the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation
the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work
group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization
Science, 6, 615–631.
Pelled, L. H. (1997). Relational demography and perceptions
of group conflict and performance: A field investigation.
International Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22(1), 54–67.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring
the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict,
and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
1–28.
Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. (2006) When surface and deep-level
diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99,
143–160.
Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006).
Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When
does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 9, 467–482.
Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account.
London: Routledge.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, B., Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Kim, J. W. (2006).
Extending the faultline concept to geographically dispersed
teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679–692.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: concepts and
models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296–320.
Randel, A. E. (2002). Identity salience, a moderator of the
relationship between group gender composition and work
group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
749–766.
Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and
trust on the transactive memory. Small Group Research, 36,
746–771.
diversit y as disagreement
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 190
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 08/08/12, NEWGEN
Rink, F. (2005). Diversity and small group decision making:
Towards a social identity framework for studying the effects
of task-related differences in dyads and groups. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups:
Past developments, contradictions, and new directions.
Research in Personnel & Human Resource Management, 19,
131–173.
Ross, R. (1989). Conflict. In R. Ross & J. Ross (Eds.), Small
groups in organizational settings (pp. 139–178). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sorensen, J. B. (2000). The longitudinal effects of group tenure
composition on turnover. American Sociological Review, 65,
298–310.
Stahl, G. K., Maznefski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010).
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A
meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690–709.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships
between team design features and team performance. Journal
of Management, 32, 29–54.
Strauss, G. (1962). Tactics of lateral relationships. The purchasing
agent. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 161–186.
Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An
investigation of personality similarity effects (relational
and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the
role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 637–657.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks
in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on
conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation,
12(3), 217–241.
Thatcher, S. M. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2010). Beauty is in the
eye of the beholder: How asymmetric perceptions color our
experience. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
13, 277–282.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation process in
organizations. In M. Dunette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 651–718).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate
similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 228–234.
Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between
cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 345–375.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its
management. Journal of Management, 21, 515–558.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly
and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and
performance, a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27,
141–162.
Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and diversity
in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(20, pp. 77–140). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Inc.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., &
Salvador, R. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An
exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 41–59.
jehn, greer
10_Roberson_Ch10.indd 191
191
8/8/2012 3:54:37 PM