Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management for Complex Work Environments
The Background
The phenomenon of globalization combined with demographic changes has created the necessity to investigate the conditions and the consequences of different team members working together (Harrison and Klein, 2007).
Due to the rapid increase in workforce diversity, academics and practitioners consider that diversity can be the key factor for gaining a competitive advantage through creative and innovative ideas (Bassett-Jones, 2005; Childs, 2005).
However, several studies have shown that diversity has negative effects on group dynamics since it causes conflicts as well as decreases group cohesiveness. As a result, diversity may lead to uncomfortable and unproductive situations such as derogation and discrimination.
So, what is the concept of diversity that has caused academics mixed feelings? Diversity is defined as “the differences between individuals that may lead to the perception that another person is different from the self” (Jackson, 1992; Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). These differences are referred to as demographic characteristics, informational/functional characteristics, personality traits, personal values as well as other types of diversity such as religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or mental health and abilities (Roberge and Van Dick, 2010).
From a group point of view, diversity is defined as “a mixture of people with different group identities within the same social system” (Nkomo and Cox, 1996). In addition, according to Harrison and Sin (2005), diversity is “the collective amount of differences among members within a social unit”.
There are three main key management diversity theories (Principles Management, 2024):
- •
The Cognitive Diversity Hypothesis: This theory suggests that cultural differences between the members of a working team can lead to innovative ideas as well as creative problem-solving.
- •
The similarity-attraction paradigm and social identity theory: These theories believe that people tend to interact with others like themselves. When diversity comes in the group then it has a negative impact on the group and organizational outcomes.
- •
The justification-suppression model: This theory explains under what conditions individuals act on their prejudices.
At this point, someone would be wondering: “Finally, diversity has a positive or a negative impact on the performance of a teamwork”?
As already mentioned, several studies examined the effect of diversity at an individual level. The results showed that when comparing similar individuals, the individuals who are different gain less attraction, trust and communication, lower group commitment, task contribution, and lower perceptions of organizational fairness and inclusiveness. These teams have reduced cohesiveness and more conflicts and misunderstandings (Chatopadhyay, 1999; Mor-Barak, Cherin & Berkman, 1998; Jehn, Chadwich and Thatcher, 1997).
On the contrary, there are studies that providing evidence that diversity increases group performance. More specifically, there are studies that seek to understand demographic indicators, personality, values, or attitudes that show that diversity could lead to positive outcomes (Jehn, Northcraft and Neal, 1999; Joshi, Liao and Jackson, 2006).
Therefore, this chapter aims to investigate the impact of diversity on the performance of teamwork. This chapter will examine, through the existing literature, studies that are in favor or against diversity in a group’s performance. The primary focus of this paper is to examine when and how diversity can lead to the development of group performance. In addition, this chapter aims to discover the factors that can make diversity more appreciated in the structure of a teamwork. The methodology of this chapter is a literature review which combines the existing theories on diversity and Group Dynamics with the latest publication regarding these topics. The data used in this chapter have been retrieved from online scientific databases such as Google Scholar, Elsevier Scopus, and Web of Science. It should be noted that the current literature is very limited; hence, there is a gap in empirical evidence which is the major limitation on this topic.