University of Groningen

Better togetherOosterhof, Aad

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2008

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Oosterhof, A. (2008). Better together: antecedents and consequences of perceived expertise dissimilarityand perceived expertise complementarity in teams s.n.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 15-07-2018

7

Chapter 1Introduction

“Too much honor has been bestowed upon me, and too li le upon my closest assistants. Without their aid, I would have been tormented and hampered and delayed by details for a ending to which I have no earthly fi tness.”

“I hope to see this righted some day, and my invaluable associates awarded their just share of credit.” – Thomas Alva Edison (The Stock Ticker Company, 2007)

Thomas Edison, who created the world’s fi rst research lab in 1876, was arguably the fi rst to acknowledge that bringing together diverse people in teams can result in outstanding outcomes (Israel, 1998; Useem, 2006). The development of the fi rst electric lighting system would perhaps not have been feasible without the help of Lewis Latimer an African-American engineer; Francis Upton an American physicist and mathematician; John Kruesi a Swiss clockmaker; Charles Batchelor an English mechanic; and Ludwig Boehm a German glassblower.

Today, bringing together a diverse set of people into teams has become a widespread approach for organizations that aim to achieve remarkable outcomes (Fleming, 2004). Like Edison, organizational managers implement teams with the underlying premise that eff ectiveness can be enhanced when members combine and employ their diff erences through helping each other. Examples include project teams, cross-functional teams, research teams, and new product development teams. Although there is nothing wrong with this point of departure, practice reveals that team members o en prove ineff ective at capitalizing on the potential benefi ts of their diff erences. Research suggests that the same diff erences that are supposed to enhance eff ectiveness may also function as a barrier for team members to cooperate eff ectively (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Jackson & Ruderman, 1995; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Apparently, interpersonal diff erences within teams act as a two-edged sword, now producing successes as in Edison’s case, then producing failures as in multiple

8

other cases (cf., Milliken & Martins, 1996). Inspired by that basic observation, the topic of this dissertation deals with understanding how diff erences between team members aff ect the functioning of their teams.

A large number of studies has already examined the relation between interpersonal diff erences within teams and the functioning of those teams (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Tsui & Gutek, 1999; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Unfortunately, few clear and consistent fi ndings have emerged from these studies. Indeed, reviews of this literature indicate contradictory empirical results. Therefore, the goal of this dissertation is to advance our understanding of the processes by which and the conditions under which intrateam diff erences promote or hinder team performance.

Theory on the Link between Intrateam Diff erences and Team Performance Intrateam diff erences refer to a ributes that may lead to the perception that team members diff er from one another (Jackson & Joshi, 2003; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; Williams & O´Reilly, 1998). Researchers have defi ned and studied intrateam diff erences from diff erent approaches located at diff erent levels of analysis (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). One approach, referred to as the compositional approach, investigates how the composition of teams in terms of diff erence a ributes infl uences their functioning. This line of research conceptualizes intrateam diff erences at the team level of analysis as the diversity of individual demographic characteristics within a team. A second approach, referred to as the relational approach focuses on the relationship between an individual’s a ributes and those of the team. This line of research conceptualizes intrateam diff erences at the individual level of analysis and investigates how a team member’s dissimilarity from the rest of the team infl uences team member behavior and performance.

Researchers using these approaches and interested in the link between intrateam diff erences and the performance of teams have largely based their understanding on two theoretical perspectives (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The fi rst perspective, founded on theories of similarity-a raction (e.g., Byrne, 1971), social identity and self-categorization (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986), suggests that intrateam diff erences lead to lower team performance because diff erences cause division in teams (cf., Harrison & Klein, 2007). In broad strokes, this perspective asserts that team members cognitively categorize each other in subgroups (“us” and “them”) on the basis of diff erences in salient a ributes such as gender, age, ethnicity, functional background, and educational background. As people fi nd it more pleasurable to interact with others who have similar characteristics, they a ribute positive characteristics

9

Cha

pter

1

toward people who are similar and negative characteristics toward others who are dissimilar. Accordingly, team researchers have proposed that intrateam diff erences lead to more diffi cult intrateam relations, which, in turn, result in poor performance of teams (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).

The second perspective, based on theories of information processing and decision making (e.g., Winquist & Larson, 1998; Wi enbaum & Stasser, 1996), asserts that intrateam diff erences may lead to an increase in variety or “the number and spread of ‘batches’ of cognitive content […] across unit members” (Harrison & Klein, 2007: 14). In short, it is assumed that intrateam diff erences may be indicative of diff erences in informational background such as diff erences in skills, abilities, and knowledge team members possess. Consequently, these diff erences in informational background enrich available knowledge and unique approaches, which benefi ts the generation of ideas, creativity, and complex performance (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).

It is clear that none of these perspectives alone provides a complete explanation for the relation between intrateam diff erences and team performance. Taken together, however, they suggest that intrateam diff erences can be both negative and positive for the functioning of teams (cf., Milliken & Martins, 1996). Specifi cally, the similarity-a raction/social identity perspective suggests that intrateam diff erences can result in problematic intrateam relations, whereas the information decision making perspective suggests that the same diff erences can also lead to a greater array of cognitive resources that promote team performance.

Research on the Link between Intrateam Diff erences and Team Performance

Having briefl y reviewed the theoretical underpinnings of research on intrateam diff erences, it is now possible to examine existing research on this topic. The emphasis of this investigation will lie on a summary of the specifi c a ributes studied, the operationalizations employed, the theoretical foundations used, and the results found. To obtain studies for inclusion, we consulted earlier reviews (including Jackson, May & Whitney, 1995; Jackson, Joshi & Erhardt, 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Riordan, 2000; Tsui & Gutek, 1999; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). In addition, we conducted an electronic search for the years up until 2006 using numerous relevant key terms. Given that the respective perspectives have received good empirical confi rmation in the laboratory (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), we limited ourselves to reviewing studies of “real” teams or work groups. Following Tsui and Gutek (1999), we focused on studies published

10

in refereed journals to make sure that only studies that had passed a rigorous review process were included. To get a complete view of the research concerning the infl uence of intrateam diff erences on the functioning of teams, our literature review concentrates on studies from both the compositional and the relational approach.

Review of Research Using the Compositional ApproachOur review of research using the compositional approach resulted in 42 empirical studies that focused on diversity’s eff ects on team behavior and performance. These studies are listed in Table 1.1.

A ributes studied. Most studies addressed the eff ects of easily observable demographic diff erences that are not necessarily task-related, such as age, race/ethnicity, and sex (86% of the studies). Specifi cally, age was studied in 33% of the studies, race/ethnicity in 14%, and sex in 20%. Other a ributes that have been addressed o en are the less easily detectable and more task-related traits (45%). That is, researchers o en reported the eff ects of educational background and level (31%), functional background (26%), and tenure (40%). Only a minority of studies investigated traits that are not readily visible and not always task-related either, such as a itudes (5% of the studies), personality (17%), and values (5%).

Operationalization. Researchers have most frequently operationalized and measured diversity with objective measurements. That is, in 95% of the studies researchers used objective information on team members’ diff erence-a ributes to employ indexes of dispersion such as Blau’s index (1977), Teachman’s index (1980) or the coeffi cient of variation (Allison, 1978). Only in 5% of the studies, researchers operationalized and measured diversity using perceptual measures.

Theoretical foundation. Most studies (55%) used theories of similarity-a raction, social identity or self-categorization. Only 11% of the studies used theories of information processing and decision making. Other studies used status-characteristics theory or did not make a clear choice for a specifi c theory.

Findings. Similar to earlier reviews on the subject, our review yields that for most diversity a ributes the relations with team performance are mixed. For example, the eff ects of surface-level diff erences such as sex and age on the performance of teams are sometimes positive (e.g., Jackson & Joshi, 2004), sometimes negative (e.g., Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004), and sometimes non-signifi cant (e.g., Simons et al., 1999). The eff ects of deep-level diff erences are equally inconclusive. For example, task-related diff erences such as functional or educational background have been found to be positively related with performance (e.g., Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996). Other research, however, has shown negative relations (e.g., Murray, 1989; Simons et al., 1999). In addition, studies on eff ects of diversity on the Big Five personality

11

Cha

pter

1

Table

1.1

Summary of

Studies

Investigating the

Influenc

e of

Diversity

on

Team

Perform

ance

Using

Organ

izationa

l Sa

mples

Authors

Diver

sity

a r

ibutes

Theoretical

foun

dation

SA/S

IT/S

CT

IDO

ther

Anc

ona

& C

aldw

ell (

1992

)1.

Ed

ucat

ion,

Fun

ctio

nal b

ackg

roun

d, T

enur

eX

Bant

el &

Jack

son

(198

9)2.

A

ge, E

duca

tion,

Fun

ctio

n, T

enur

eX

XBa

rric

k, S

tew

art,

Neu

bert

& M

ount

(199

8)3.

Bi

g 5

Pers

onal

ity d

imen

sion

sX

Barr

y &

Ste

war

t (19

97)

4.

Big

5 Pe

rson

ality

dim

ensi

ons

XBa

rsad

e, W

ard,

Tur

ner &

Son

nenf

eld

(200

0)5.

Po

sitiv

e aff

ect

XBa

yazi

t & M

anni

x (2

003)

6.

Age

, Nat

iona

lity

XBu

nder

son

& S

utcl

iff e

(200

2)7.

Fu

nctio

nal b

ackg

roun

dX

Brie

f, U

mph

ress

, Die

tz, B

utz,

Bur

row

s &

S o

lten

(200

5)8.

Et

hnic

ity, R

ace

XC

hatm

an &

Fly

nn (2

001)

9.

Nat

iona

lity,

Rac

e, S

ex,

XC

hatm

an &

O’R

eilly

(200

4)10

. Se

xX

XD

ahlin

& W

eing

art &

Hin

ds (2

005)

11.

Educ

atio

n, N

atio

nalit

yX

XH

arri

son,

Pri

ce &

Bel

l (19

98)

12.

Age

, A it

udes

, Eth

nici

ty, S

ex,

XHarri

son,

Pri

ce, Gav

in &

Flore

y (2

002)

13.

Age

, A it

udes

, Eth

nici

ty, M

arita

l sta

tus,

Per

sona

lity,

Sex

, Val

ues

XH

ambr

ick,

Cho

& C

hen

(199

6)14

. Ed

ucat

ion,

Ten

ure

XH

off m

an &

Mai

er (1

961)

15.

Pers

onal

ityX

Jack

son,

Bre

, Se

ssa,

Coo

per,

Julin

& P

eyro

nnin

(199

1)16

. A

ge, E

duca

tion,

Indu

stry

, Ten

ure

XJa

ckso

n &

Josh

i (20

04)

17.

Ethn

icity

, Gen

der,

Tenu

reX

XJe

hn &

Bez

ruko

va (2

004)

18.

Age

, Edu

catio

n, F

unct

iona

l bac

kgro

und,

Gen

der,

Race

, Ten

ure

XJehn

, North

cra

& Nea

le (1

999)

19.

Educ

atio

n, In

form

atio

n, R

ank,

Ten

ure,

Val

ues

XX

Josh

i, Li

ao &

Jack

son

(200

6)20

. G

ende

r, Ra

ce

XX

Kel

ler (

2001

)21

. Fu

nctio

nal b

ackg

roun

dX

Kni

ght,

Pear

ce, S

mith

, Olia

n &

Sim

s (1

999)

22.

Age

, Edu

catio

n, E

mpl

oym

ent t

enur

e, F

unct

iona

l bac

kgro

und

XM

artin

s, M

illik

en, W

iese

nfel

d &

Sal

gado

23.

Race

XM

agju

ka &

Bal

dwin

(199

1)24

. Fu

nctio

nal b

ackg

roun

dX

Moh

amm

ed &

Ang

ell (

2003

)25

. Pe

rson

ality

X

Not

e: A

utho

rs in

bol

d ha

ve u

sed

perc

eptu

al m

easu

res

of d

iver

sity

SA =

Sim

ilari

ty-A

rac

tion

para

digm

; SIT

= S

ocia

l Ide

ntity

The

ory;

SC

T =

Self-

Cat

egor

izat

ion

Theo

ry; I

D =

Info

rmat

ion

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g pe

rspe

ctiv

e; O

ther

= O

ther

theo

ry o

r em

ploy

ed

no c

lear

spe

cifi c

theo

ry

12

TABL

E 1.

1 co

ntinued

Authors

Diver

sity

a r

ibutes

Theoretical

foun

dation

SA/S

IT/S

CT

IDO

ther

Moh

amm

ed &

Ang

ell (

2004

)1.

Et

hnic

ity, E

xtra

vers

ion,

Sex

, Tim

e ur

genc

y,

XM

urra

y (1

989)

2.

Age

, Ten

ure

XN

eum

an, W

agne

r & C

hris

tians

en (1

999)

3.

Pers

onal

ityX

Neu

man

& W

righ

t (19

99)

4.

Pers

onal

ityX

O’R

eilly

, Cal

dwel

l & B

arne

(19

89)

5.

Age

, Ten

ure

XPe

lled,

Eis

enha

rdt &

Xin

(199

9)6.

Fu

nctio

nal b

ackg

roun

d, O

rgan

izat

iona

l ten

ure,

Rac

e X

XRa

ndel

(200

2)7.

Se

xX

Rand

el &

Jaus

si (2

003)

8.

Func

tiona

l bac

kgro

und

XRe

agan

s &

Zuc

kerm

an (2

001)

9.

Org

aniz

atio

nal t

enur

eX

Schi

pper

s, D

en H

arto

g, K

oopm

an &

Wie

nk (2

003)

10.

Age

, Edu

catio

n, S

ex, T

eam

tenu

reX

Sim

ons,

Pel

led

& S

mith

(199

9)11

. A

ge,

Educ

atio

n, F

unct

iona

l ba

ckgr

ound

, O

rgan

izat

iona

l te

nure

, Pe

r-ce

ived

env

iron

men

tal u

ncer

tain

tyX

Smith

, Sm

ith, O

lian,

Sim

s, O

’Ban

non

& S

cully

(199

4)12

. Ed

ucat

ion,

Fun

ctio

n, T

enur

e in

indu

stry

and

gro

up

XVa

n de

r Veg

t & B

unde

rson

(200

5)13

. Ed

ucat

iona

l bac

kgro

und

XVa

n de

r Veg

t & Ja

nsse

n (2

003)

14.

Age

, Eth

nici

ty ,

Perc

eive

d co

gniti

ve d

iver

sity

, Sex

X

Wag

ner,

Pfeff

er,

& O

’Rei

lly (1

984)

15.

Age

, Ten

ure

XW

iers

ema

& B

ante

l (19

92)

16.

Educ

atio

nX

XW

iers

ema

& B

ird

(199

3)17

. A

ge, P

rest

ige

of u

nive

rsity

, Ten

ure

X

SA =

Sim

ilari

ty-A

rac

tion

para

digm

; SIT

= S

ocia

l Ide

ntity

The

ory;

SC

T =

Self-

Cat

egor

izat

ion

Theo

ry; I

D =

Info

rmat

ion

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g pe

rspe

ctiv

e; O

ther

= O

ther

theo

ry o

r em

ploy

ed

no c

lear

spe

cifi c

theo

ry

13

Cha

pter

1

dimensions reported positive relations with performance for diversity in extraversion and emotional stability, but no relations with diversity on the other three dimensions (Neuman et al., 1999).

Review of Research Using the Relational ApproachOur review of research using the relational approach resulted in 21 empirical studies that focused on the eff ects of team members’ dissimilarity on individual-level outcomes. These studies are listed in Table 1.2.

A ributes studied. Most studies addressed the eff ects of easily detectable less task-related diff erences (86% of the studies). Specifi cally, the diff erences that researchers most o en included were age (52%) and sex (38%). Of the less easily detectable more task-related diff erences, researchers most o en reported the eff ects of diff erences in education (together 38%) and organizational tenure (42%).

Operationalization. Just as with studies using the compositional approach, studies using the relational approach mostly used objective information to gauge team members’ dissimilarity from the rest of the team (86%). All these studies used the Euclidean distance measure to operationalize dissimilarity (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). Only three studies (14%) used perceptual measures to investigate how team members’ dissimilarity was related to individual-level outcomes.

Theoretical foundation. All studies used theories of similarity-a raction, social identity, or self-categorization.

Findings. Research using the relational approach is also characterized by mixed and contradictory results. For example, some studies have suggested that sex dissimilarity has a positive eff ect on outcomes for teams (e.g., Pelled, 1996), whereas others did not fi nd a relationship with team member behavior (e.g., Cha ophadyay, 1999). The eff ects of deep-level diff erences are equally inconclusive. For example, dissimilarity in education has been found to be sometimes positively related with individual performance (e.g., Riordan & Weatherly, 1999), sometimes negatively (e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2003) and sometimes not at all (e.g., Tsui et al, 1992).

ConclusionOur review has shown that a considerable body of empirical research exists on the eff ects of intrateam diff erences on the performance of teams. Despite years of research, fi eld studies from both the compositional and relational approach still remain equivocal in that they have not produced a clear and consistent pa ern of results across all diff erence a ributes that supports the idea that intrateam diff erences either positively or negatively aff ect team member behavior and team performance. We propose that insight into the relation between intrateam diff erences and the

14

TABL

E 1.

2

Summary of

Studies

Investigating the

Influenc

e of

Team

Mem

bers

’ Dissimilar

ity on

Team

Perform

ance

Using

Organ

izationa

l Sa

mples

Authors

Dis

sim

ilarity

a r

ibutes

Theoretical

foun

dation

SA/S

IT/S

CT

IDO

ther

Cha

oph

adya

y (1

999)

1.

Age

, Rac

e, S

exX

Cha

oph

adya

y &

Geo

rge

(200

1)2.

W

ork

stat

usX

Elfe

nbei

n &

O’R

eilly

(200

6)3.

Et

hnic

ity, S

ex, S

ES (E

duca

tion,

Inco

me)

XX

Hob

man

, Bor

dia

& Gal

lois

(200

3)4.

In

form

atio

nal a

rib

utes

, Val

ues,

Vis

ible

a r

ibut

es

XX

Hob

man

, Bor

dia

& Gal

lois

(200

4)5.

In

form

atio

nal a

rib

utes

, Val

ues,

Vis

ible

a r

ibut

esX

XIv

erso

n &

Bu

igie

g (1

997)

6.

Age

, Edu

catio

n, S

ex, T

enur

e X

Jack

son

et a

l. (1

991)

7.

Age

, Col

lege

a e

nded

, Edu

catio

n, In

dust

ry, M

ilita

ry e

xper

ienc

e, T

enur

eX

Jehn

, Cha

dwic

k &

Tha

tche

r (19

97)

8.

Age

, Sex

, Edu

catio

n, N

atio

nalit

y, V

alue

sX

Kir

chm

eyer

(199

5)9.

A

ge, E

duca

tion,

Eth

nici

ty, L

ifest

yle,

Sex

, Rel

igio

nX

O’R

eilly

, Cal

dwel

l & B

arne

(19

89)

10.

Age

, Ten

ure

XPe

lled

(199

6)11

. Ra

ce, S

ex, T

enur

eX

Peet

ers,

Ru

e, v

an T

uij l

& R

eym

en (2

006)

12.

Pers

onal

ityX

XRa

ndel

& Ja

ussi

(200

3)13

. Fu

nctio

nal b

ackg

roun

d X

Rior

dan

& S

hore

(199

7)14

. Ra

ce, S

ex, T

enur

eX

Tsui

, Ega

n &

O’R

eilly

(199

2)15

. A

ge, E

duca

tion,

Rac

e, S

ex, T

enur

eX

Van

der Vegt &

Van

de

Vliert

(200

5)16

. Sk

ills

XVa

n de

r Veg

t, Va

n de

Vlie

rt &

Oos

terh

of (2

003)

17.

Educ

atio

nal b

ackg

roun

d, E

duca

tiona

l lev

el,

XW

agne

r, Pf

eff e

r & O

’Rei

lly (1

984)

18.

Age

, Ten

ure

XX

Wes

tpha

l & Z

ajac

19.

Age

, Edu

catio

n le

vel,

Func

tiona

l bac

kgro

und

XW

iers

ema

& B

ird

(199

3)20

. A

ge, O

rgan

izat

iona

l ten

ure,

Tea

m te

nure

, Uni

vers

ity p

rest

ige

XZe

nger

& L

awre

nce

(198

9)21

. A

ge, T

enur

eX

Not

e: A

utho

rs in

bol

d ha

ve u

sed

perc

eptu

al m

easu

res

of d

issi

mila

rity

SA =

Sim

ilari

ty-A

rac

tion

para

digm

; SIT

= S

ocia

l Ide

ntity

The

ory;

SC

T =

Self-

Cat

egor

izat

ion

Theo

ry; I

D =

Info

rmat

ion

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g pe

rspe

ctiv

e; O

ther

= O

ther

theo

ry o

r em

ploy

ed

no c

lear

spe

cifi c

theo

ry

15

Cha

pter

1

functioning of teams is obscured by three issues: (1) the level of conceptualization and measurement of intrateam diff erences, (2) the operationalization of intrateam diff erences, and (3) the preponderance of existing research to use the similarity/a raction paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1971) or the social identity/self-categorization perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) for explaining team behavior and performance. Below, we discuss each of these issues in this order.

Issues Regarding Previous Research on Intrateam Diff erences

Level of Conceptualization and MeasurementA key explanation for the mixed results of previous research into team eff ectiveness may be that researchers have generally conceptualized intrateam diff erences at either the team or the individual level of analysis (e.g., Jehn et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1994; Randel & Jaussi, 2003; Van der Vegt et. al., 2003). That is, adopting the compositional approach researchers have conceptualized intrateam diff erences at the team level of analysis referring to the variability in the team as a whole. Adopting the relational approach, researchers have conceptualized intrateam diff erences at the individual level of analysis referring to the extent to which a specifi c individual team member diff ers from the rest of the team. Even though neither conceptualization is inappropriate, conceptualizing diff erences at the team or individual level of analysis overlooks that team members can diff er more from some team members than from others. For example, consider a team that consists of four members who all have a diff erent age (see Table 1.3 below). At the team level of analysis, the diversity in age is similar for all team members, although, for example, team member A diff ers more from D than from B. Similarly, at the individual level of analysis, the dissimilarity of team members A and D from the rest of the team is similar, notwithstanding that both team members diff er more for some team members than from others. Consequently, by conceptualizing intrateam diff erences as a team level or individual level construct, researchers may fail to notice variance due to the diff erence between pairs of team members (cf., Bonito, 2002).

A foreshadowing of this critique of either team or individual levels of analysis was Weick’s (1969: 8) argument that processes within “pairs of people are at the root of most processes observed in much larger aggregations”. Against this background we propose that conceptualizing and measuring intrateam diff erences at the dyadic level may be helpful for understanding the eff ects of intrateam diff erences. In particular, because intrateam diff erences originate within pairs of individuals, we trust that measuring diff erences within this smallest social unit of analysis may provide insight in whether and to what extent an individual’s diff erence from specifi c

16

other team members infl uences his or her behavior and performance.Even though scholars have acknowledged the importance of studying dyadic

diff erences, to date these processes have rarely been investigated (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Two reasons make it necessary to employ and explore this relatively neglected level of analysis. First, from an analytical perspective, measuring diff erences at the smallest social unit of analysis is in accordance with Kozlowski and Klein’s (2000) recommendation. That is, given that the fundamental unit of analysis regarding intrateam diff erences is the dyad (Tsui & Gutek, 1999), collecting data at this level acknowledges the dyadic nature of intrateam diff erences.

In addition, from a theoretical perspective, gathering dyadic-level data regarding diff erences enables researchers to examine whether diff erence-related variance culminates at the individual, dyadic, or team level (cf., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Specifi cally, researchers can investigate to what extent team member behavior or team performance is a result of dyad-level factors (team members A and B seeing each other as diff erent), individual-level factors (a team member seeing everybody in the team as diff erent or is being seen by everybody as diff erent), or team-level factors (team members A and B are members of a team that is very diverse) (Kenny, 1994).

Operationalization of Intrateam Diff erences Another reason for why diversity research and relational demography research have produced mixed results may be that most studies have primarily used objective measurements of intrateam diff erences (cf., Riordan, 2000; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Although objective indicators of interpersonal diff erences have the advantage that they are not contaminated by response bias, a major disadvantage is that they

TABLE 1.3

Diversity and Individual Dissimilarity Scores in a Team of Four Members who Differ in Age

Team members and their age Diversity

in the teama

Individual’s dissimilarity

from the rest of the teamb

Member A, age 20

Member B, age 30

Member C, age 40

Member D, age 50

12.91 Member A’s dissimilarity = 18.71

Member B’s dissimilarity = 12.25

Member C’s dissimilarity = 12.25

Member D’s dissimilarity = 18.71

a Diversity in the team was measured using the standard deviation (cf., Bedeian & Mossholder, 2000)b Individuals’ dissimilarity from the rest of the team was measured using the Euclidean distance measure: sqrt[Σ(S i-Sj)2/

(n)] (cf., Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992)

17

Cha

pter

1

do not acknowledge that team members can diff er dramatically in their recognition and evaluation of diff erences “out there” (cf., Swann, Kwan, Polzer, & Milton, 2003). For example, imagine that the above mentioned team is composed of four African-American women with highly diff erent functional backgrounds, including an accountant, a physician, an engineer, and a psychologist. Whereas a perceiver who a ends only to race or only to sex would conclude that the team members are similar, a perceiver who a ends to occupational background would conclude that the team members are quite dissimilar. Indeed, research suggests that objective diff erences can fail to incorporate all components of diff erence and fall short in capturing that certain characteristics can be more or less salient to an individual (Lawrence, 1997; Randel & Jaussi, 2003).

On these grounds we argue that it is important to focus on team members’ perceptions or experience of intrateam diff erences. This focus acknowledges that “perceptions [of diff erences] refl ect the psychological importance of, and, carry the substantive impact of actual [diff erences]” on team member behavior and performance (Harrison et al., 2002: 1033). Moreover, concentrating on team members’ experience of intrateam diff erences enables testing the implicit theoretical assumption that perceptions of diff erences are a major cause for diff erences in team members’ behavior and performance (cf., Lawrence, 1997; Riordan, 2000).

The importance of investigating perceptions of intrateam diff erences has been supported in recent studies of team diversity and relational demography. For example, Harrison et al. (2000) found that objective and perceived diversity were not strongly related but that perceived diversity mediated the impact of objective diversity upon social integration. In addition, Randel (2000) demonstrated the importance of perceptions by showing that the more salient gender diff erences were to group members, the more relational confl ict was reported in the group. Finally, Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2005) found that above and beyond objective skill dissimilarity, perceived skill diff erences impacted team members’ helping behavior. All in all, these studies underscore that perceived dissimilarity is important for understanding how objective dissimilarity can impact team member behavior and team performance.

Team Member’s Appreciation of Intrateam Diff erencesA third lead to making sense of the mixed results of research into the infl uence of intrateam diff erences may be that in many accounts of the eff ects of diversity or dissimilarity, the view that people prefer to work with similar others in homogeneous teams is the dominant paradigm (cf., Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Specifi cally, on the basis of the similarity/a raction paradigm (e.g.,

18

Byrne, 1971) or the social identity/self-categorization perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) researchers o en assume that perceived similarity to other team members is most critical for an individual in a team. Diversity or dissimilarity, so they assume, undermines the basis for joint team membership and has a negative eff ect on the interaction and cooperation in teams (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).

These perspectives off er explanations for how intrateam diff erences can negatively infl uence the functioning of teams. Yet, they off er a limited view on the topic because they suggest that team members predominantly value mutual diff erences negatively. Based on other theoretical perspectives it is conceivable that team members may also positively value mutual diff erences. For example, self-expansion theory (Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, Mashek, Lewandowski, Wright, & Aron, 2004: 103) states that “a central human motivation is the desire to expand the self – to acquire complementary resources […] that enhance one’s ability to accomplish goals”. The desire to expand the self with resources includes not only material resources (e.g., possessions, support) and social resources (e.g., social status, friendship networks) but also knowledge resources such as complementary skills, abilities, and information (Aron et al., 2004). In addition, literature on person-person and person-group fi t implies that team members may positively value dissimilarities in values and personality when they experience that these characteristics “make whole” or complement their own characteristics (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).

These are only two examples of theories that off er an alternative view on the eff ects of diff erences in teams. Nonetheless, they give reason to suggest that intrateam diff erences are not uniformly negatively valued. More specifi cally, so viewing the eff ects of diff erences from divergent theoretical perspectives suggests that the inconclusive results of previous research may well be understood by focusing on team members’ evaluation of diff erences. As theories suggest that team members may have reasons to negatively as well as positively appreciate diff erences, the negative and positive eff ects in previous research may well be a ributable to team members’ negative or positive evaluation of their diff erences. Consequently, it is meaningful to investigate whether team members’ negative versus positive appreciation of diff erences infl uences negative versus positive eff ects of intrateam diff erences (cf., Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

The Present Dissertation

Years of research on the eff ects of intrateam diff erences in teams have still le some hiatuses. As specifi ed above, previous research has predominantly conceptualized and investigated intrateam diff erences as a structural property of a team or as a social

19

Cha

pter

1

relationship between an individual and the rest of the team. This has produced a valuable body of knowledge about how intrateam diff erences are related to behavior and performance at the team and individual levels of analysis. However, much less is known about how processes regarding intrateam diff erences operate at their fundamental unit of analysis, namely the dyad (cf., Tsui & Gutek, 1999). In addition, because previous research has mainly focused on investigating the infl uence of actual or objective diff erences on the functioning of teams (Riordan, 2000; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), it is unclear whether and to what extent team members actually perceive and react to these diff erences. In the following chapters, we will present three empirical studies designed to address these issues.

In the fi rst study, reported in Chapter 2, we argue that previous research has primarily adopted an ivory tower approach to examining individuals’ interpersonal diff erences in teams. That is, in all of the studies examining the role of interpersonal diff erences so far, the choice of the diff erence a ributes under examination depended on preferences and/or choices of the researcher(s). Therefore, our fi rst study, we adopted a grass root approach by examining what kinds of diff erences team members themselves experience in real-life work teams. This insider approach enabled us to tap salient diff erences between team members within a specifi c organization, and to explore the value that team members a ach to these perceived diff erences.

In Chapter 3, the insights gained in the study reported in the fi rst empirical chapter are used. In particular, we focused on investigating dyadic perceptions of expertise diff erences. By means of a cross-lagged panel design in a sample of student research teams, we investigated how both dyadic perceptions of expertise dissimilarity and expertise complementarity were related to dyadic helping, a process variable critical to team performance (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001).

Chapter 4 addresses the dyad-level antecedents and team-level consequences of perceptions of expertise dissimilarity and complementarity. By investigating the antecedents and consequences of these perceptions we were able to substantiate arguments for the distinction between both expertise dissimilarity and expertise complementarity. This study was conducted in teams at a large Dutch multinational organization operating in the fi eld of digital printing and document management.

Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes and integrates the most important fi ndings. A er discussing the studies’ limitations, the theoretical and practical implications of the entire project are pointed out and put into perspective.

20