human relations 1 –29

© The Author(s) 2016Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0018726716679246

hum.sagepub.com

human relations

A metatheoretical framework of diversity in teams

Margarita MayoIE Business School, Spain

Maria KakarikaNEOMA Business School, France

Charalampos MainemelisALBA Graduate Business School, The American College of Greece, Greece

Nicolas Till DeuschelIE Business School, Spain

AbstractIn the last 22 years, research on diversity in teams has been propelled by information processing and social categorization theories, and more recently, by theories of disparity/(in)justice and access to external networks. These theories stress different diversity processes, treating team diversity respectively as variety of information, as separation, as disparity, and as variety of access. We appraise this literature by identifying major problems in the way these four foundational theories are used either alone or in combination, arguing that the related theoretical models are inherently incomplete and static. In an attempt to resolve these problems, we introduce a metatheoretical framework that relates these four foundational theories according to the metadimensions of group boundary and diversity mindset. We also propose a metatheoretical model that identifies interactions among the four diversity processes and specifies diversity response patterns to team success or failure over time. Our metatheoretical approach resolves significant omissions in the literature and penetrates into the dynamic nature of team diversity in more complex, temporally sensitive and synthetic ways.

Corresponding author:Margarita Mayo, IE Business School, Alvarez de Baena 4, Madrid 28006, Spain. Email: margarita.mayo@ie.edu

679246 HUM0010.1177/0018726716679246Human RelationsMayo et al.research-article2016

2 Human Relations

Keywordsdiversity, external networks teams, information processing, justice, social categorization

Diversity is a highly complex phenomenon that can both enhance and disrupt team per-formance. Consider a hypothetical product development team at a leading manufacturer of industrial and medical products. This four-member team is composed of one mid-level female accountant, one newly hired female biomedical engineer, one established male executive vice-president (VP) of marketing and one male mid-level production manager with a degree in industrial engineering. The biomedical engineer is passionate about biomedical innovation, while the production manager is equally committed to incremen-tally improving the company’s existing products for the gas and oil industry. Team mem-bers have a variety of in-house connections: the biomedical engineer meets regularly with other medical staff to discuss new products, the production manager meets weekly with other industrial engineers from the manufacturing department to coordinate work-flow and the VP of marketing has executive meetings to plan marketing strategies. During lunchtime, the two females get together in the office and the two males join their old-time group of friends. Top management considers medical marketing core to busi-ness growth, whereas accounting and engineering on the industrial side are perceived as less competitive functions. How can one predict the ‘effects of diversity’ in this team?

On the benefits versus the challenges of working with people different from oneself, scholars are generally divided. Attempts to organize this fragmented and contradictory literature and to explain the positive and negative effects of team diversity mainly cluster around two dominant theoretical perspectives: information processing and social catego-rization (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Srikanth et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Diversity may be an asset as ‘variety’ or an informational resource, but also a liability as ‘separation’ or a source of interpersonal conflict and intergroup biases (Harrison and Klein, 2007; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Beyond these two approaches, Harrison and Klein (2007) described ‘disparity’ in terms of justice/injustice, while other researchers have focused on differences in access to external networks (e.g. Li, 2013; Oh et al., 2004; Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). These four theories are (or at least claim to be) internally consistent; however, none of them can account for the full range of team diversity effects. Empirical research reflects this silo conceptualization (see meta-analysis by Van Dijk et al., 2012). But Harrison and Klein (2007: 1220) suggested that diversity types ‘are likely to co-occur within units’ and ‘may well have joint consequences for unit outcomes.’

The risk of focusing exclusively on either the benefits or the challenges of diversity is that we fail to answer the crucial question of what enables some diverse teams to use their differences to enhance team performance whereas others do not (Van Knippenberg et al., 2013). To understand diversity, we need to pay attention to interrelationships and interdependent effects on team processes and outcomes (Harrison and Klein, 2007). Unfortunately, the literature is missing guidance on how the various theoretical views may be brought together (Joshi and Roh, 2009) and lacks a metatheoretical foundation that can propel the development of a new wave of more integrated and nuanced studies.

Mayo et al. 3

Our purpose in this article is to address this gap by developing a metatheoretical frame-work of diversity in teams.

Metatheoretical approaches are particularly suitable to situations where a social phe-nomenon is complex and where two or more theories of it exist but their accumulated knowledge bases remain fragmented (Tsoukas, 1994). Metatheory ‘is primarily the study of theory, including the development of overarching combinations of theory’ (Wallis, 2010: 78). Metatheories clarify the assumptions, conditions, limitations, implications and contradictions associated with a set of theories (Abrams and Hogg, 2004; Wallis, 2010); or/and they unify knowledge by supplying:

. . . a conceptual scaffolding that is sufficiently broad to encompass all of the specific knowledge domains distinctly pertinent to the field under consideration, that can serve as a coherent framework for systematically interrelating the essential knowledge elements within and among those domains. (Anchin, 2008: 325)

Unlike mere literature reviews, metatheoretical frameworks use ‘metadimensions’ to integrate and differentiate a set of theories under a common conceptual umbrella (Wallis, 2010). For example, Tsoukas (1994) used four metadimensions (management functions, task characteristics, management roles and management control) to integrate various theories of management; Chao and Moon (2005) used three metacategories (demo-graphic, geographic and associative) to integrate theories of culture; King et al. (2010) used two metadimensions (external attribution and intentionality) to integrate theories of organizations as social actors; and Crossan and Apaydin (2010) used three metadimen-sions (leadership, managerial levers and business processes) to integrate theories of innovation. In this article, we use two metadimensions, group boundary and diversity mindset, to integrate four theories of diversity in teams.

Our article is structured as follows. First, we appraise the theoretical patterns in the team diversity literature over the last two decades, arguing that the theoretical models that under-pin it are inherently incomplete and static. Here, we move beyond the predominant two-theory framework of information processing and social categorization (see the catego-rization-elaboration model [CEM]; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, 2013) by considering two additional theoretical perspectives, disparity/(in)justice and access to external networks. Taken together, these four foundational theories serve as conceptual building blocks to explain diversity effects on team process and performance. Second, we propose a metatheo-retical framework consisting of two metadimensions – group boundary and diversity mind-sets – that clarifies the similarities and differences among the four foundational theories. Third, we argue that diversity entails all the processes that these four theories describe, propose novel ways to integrate them and articulate conditions under which one theory is likely to be more fruitful than the other three, based on our analysis of group boundary types and diversity-related mindsets. Finally, we develop a metatheoretical model that integrates the four foundational theories and considers diversity response patterns to team success or failure over time. We also encourage scholars to pay more attention to status disparities in social categorization and to the role of external networks in information processing within teams – in short, to think of diversity in a more complete and dynamic way.

The fourfold framework that we propose contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it identifies the domain within which a given diversity theory is likely to account for

4 Human Relations

group processes and outcomes. Specifying a theory’s scope of reference provides useful standards against which to evaluate the assumptions underlying specific empirical studies. Furthermore, our fourfold framework points out how each of the four theoretical approaches is inherently incomplete, thus clarifying conceptual ambiguities. Second, the dominant theories in the extant team diversity literature are also too static in temporal terms. Our fully-embracing model entails temporal dimensions that encourage scholars to focus on the dynamic nature of diversity and consider various response patterns of diverse teams to positive or negative feedback over time. Third, our framework integrates different perspec-tives in the disconnected but increasingly important literature addressing the issue of what diverse teams are capable of achieving. By shedding light on where and when team diver-sity increases performance, our integrative model encourages future research to think of diversity not in a ‘one-liner’ but rather in a ‘multifaceted’ unifying way. Our pluralistic framework may sharpen researchers’ predictions and insight by providing a systematic and dynamic way to compare, integrate and empirically test alternative theories.

We define diversity as the degree to which there are differences among people within a work-team (Jackson, 1992; Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Van Knippenberg et al., 2013). Work-teams are groups that:

(a) are composed of two or more individuals, (b) exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, (c) share one or more common goals, (d) interact socially, (e) exhibit task interdependencies (i.e. workflow, goals), (f) maintain and manage boundaries, and (g) are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, and constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity. (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003: 6)

We focus on teams that conduct rather complex tasks (such as project and manage-ment teams), because such teams exhibit the characteristics listed above and need to be examined pluralistically.

Four theories of diversity in teams

For our critical appraisal of theoretical patterns in the team diversity literature we first identified studies on diversity within teams published in the organizational behavior litera-ture between 1991 and 2014. These articles were all published in leading journals in man-agement, sociology and psychology and used ‘diversity’ and ‘diverse’ as keywords. We also used snowball sampling, adding empirical articles cited in the initial group of articles and those cited in recent meta-analyses by Joshi and Roh (2009) and Van Dijk and col-leagues (2012). Our objective was not to compile an exhaustive literature review, but rather to identify (a) the foundational theories in the field, (b) empirical articles that draw on two or more of these foundational theories and (c) the resulting problems of integration. In Table 1, we summarize the four foundational theories.1 Below, we critically discuss first the two more established theories, social categorization and information processing, and then the two emerging theoretical approaches, disparity/(in)justice and external networks.

Social categorization (diversity as separation)

A substantial amount of team diversity research is based on social categorization and social-identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987). These theories assume that individuals

Mayo et al. 5

define themselves against others (Barinaga, 2007) using easily observable ‘primitive generic social categories’ such as sex and race (Randel, 2002; Stangor et al., 1992). This view approaches groups as open systems, since group members identify primarily not with the work team but with a larger social group outside it. Tajfel (1981) and his associ-ates showed that the mere cognition of belonging to a psychological group resulted in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination (e.g. Brewer, 1979), socio-emotional

Table 1. Theories of diversity in teams.

Theory Main assumptions, conditions and tenets

Social categorization

•• At least two psychological groups exist that oppose one another within the work team in terms of values and beliefs, and represent larger social groups (e.g. male vs. female).

•• These two subgroups confront each other and engage in intergroup conflict via the allocation of resources. The motive is self-esteem via positive identification with a social group.

•• The outcome of interest is affect. Loyalties to the subgroup rather than the group diminish feelings of trust and cooperation.

•• Limitations: selective and limited focus on sex, race and age as key drivers of conflict between subgroups; lack of attention to deep-level attributes, salience specificity and temporal dynamics of diversity.

Information processing

•• The group is relatively isolated from a larger social context.•• Team members differ in knowledge, skills and abilities, and these

differences are relevant to the task at hand. Team members are aware of these differences (transactive memory) and are motivated to accomplish the task at hand.

•• The outcome of interest is the performance on the task. Synergy among team members’ differences results in positive performance.

•• Limitations: selective and limited focus on top management and cross-functional teams; lack of attention to faultlines and temporal dynamics of diversity.

Disparity-In(justice)

•• At least two subgroups exist within the work team whose members differ in their hierarchy and power.Team members are aware of these ‘status’ differences and experience them as inequities. The motive is getting legitimacy.

•• The outcome of interest is individual members’ legitimacy and power to reduce feelings of injustice.

•• Limitations: lack of attention to group norms and temporal dynamics of diversity.

External networks

•• At least another physical group exists as part of a larger social entity.Team members actively participate with the external environment via communication with non-team members. The motive is task completion as well as selling the accomplishment to the rest of the social system (e.g. product development teams).

•• The outcome of interest is the quality of the final product as well as its fit within the entire system.

•• Limitations: lack of attention to external group processes related to variety of access and to temporal dynamics of diversity.

6 Human Relations

and behavioral biases that create ‘separation.’ This stream of research mostly examines differences in attitudes and beliefs derived from differences in category membership. Maximum diversity as separation refers to perfect disagreement between subgroups with different beliefs, values or attitudes (see Harrison and Klein, 2007), which significantly impair group functioning and performance. For example, the product development team described above may be polarized on whether to produce a new medical product line for patient emergency monitoring or improve the existing industrial side of the business by offering a line of products to power and water utilities.

Empirical studies typically examine diversity in race or ethnicity and sex and explain its negative effects in terms of social identification and conflicting attitudes (e.g. Ely, 1994; Tsui et al., 1992; Van der Zee et al., 2004). For example, Tsui and colleagues (1992) found that increasing demographic dissimilarity was associated with lower psy-chological commitment. Similarly, Jackson and colleagues (1991) found that age hetero-geneity in the workgroup decreased social integration, in turn increasing the proportion of group members leaving the organization.

Information processing (diversity as variety of information)

In contrast, the information processing approach emphasizes that a diverse configuration of individuals provides the group with a variety of skills, perspectives and knowledge that can make it more productive (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Homan et al., 2007; Kilduff et al., 2000; Tadmor et al., 2012; Van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; see also meta-analyses by Bell et al., 2011 and Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). Maximum variety of information is present when each member has unique expertise (as in our product devel-opment team) (Harrison and Klein, 2007). The key idea is that a team that conducts complex tasks needs a large pool of cognitive resources for effective information pro-cessing, debate, problem solving and group performance (Simons et al., 1999).

Results from empirical studies generally confirm these effects. For instance, Thornburg (1991) found that educational heterogeneity increased group creativity, Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013) found that functional heterogeneity increased group creativity, and Joshi and Roh’s (2009) meta-analysis confirmed that educational and functional diversity improved team performance. Kilduff and colleagues (2000) found that cognitive diversity differentiated successful from unsuccessful top management teams, while Olson and colleagues (2007) found that it improved decision-making indi-rectly through task conflict.

Disparity/(in)justice (diversity as disparity)

The disparity and (in)justice view predicts that increasing heterogeneity in power, status and prestige harms the team and its members. Maximum disparity occurs when one team member significantly outranks all other members in terms of a socially valued asset or desired resource (as our VP of marketing substantially outranks the others in pay and status). The resulting comparisons among team members lead to ‘internal competition, suppression of voice, reduced (quality of) communication, and interpersonal undermin-ing’ (Harrison and Klein, 2007: 1201). Perceptions of ‘nonlegitimate’ asymmetry may

Mayo et al. 7

cause feelings of injustice that distract members from key tasks and impair team cohe-sion and performance (Greenberg, 1987).

The empirical literature confirms that status or power disparity induces a sense of relative deprivation (e.g. Deutsch, 1985) that in turn reduces collaboration and results in deviance (e.g. Siegel and Hambrick, 2005). Eisenhardt and Bourgeois’s (1988: 743) study of Top Management Team (TMT) decision-making provides a relevant example: when the CEO’s power far exceeded that of other TMT members, the CEO was likely to engage in ‘tactics for controlling and withholding information,’ while other executives in the team were likely to engage in ‘alliance and insurgency behaviors.’ More recently, Groysberg et al. (2011) found that too many Wall Street stars in a group that also had lower status members decreased its effectiveness.

External networks (diversity as variety of access)

Group members may differ not only in knowledge and skills (individual human capi-tal) but also in social connections to actors outside the group, both within and outside the organization (social capital) (Oh et al., 2004). The ‘variety of access’ approach to diversity thus treats groups as open systems. Maximum variety of access is present when each member’s social network is unique (see Burt, 1992). A broad distribution of external ties can enhance team effectiveness (Burt, 1992; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and creativity (Perry-Smith and Mannucci, 2015), especially for teams subject to strong external demands (e.g. boards of directors, or our product development team). Such ties provide instrumental resources (e.g. technical support, money, partnerships, projects); socio-emotional resources (e.g. social support; see Swann et al., 2009); and legitimacy (i.e. political support), because having diverse external connections, as opposed to having just lots of external connections, makes it easier to lobby, manage impressions and appear legitimate and credible to outsiders (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a; Perry-Smith and Mannucci, 2015).

The first empirical study that approached diversity in an ‘external’ manner found that tenure similarity exerted stronger influence than age similarity on technical communica-tion outside the group in situations where skills develop slowly (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). More recently, in a representative study that followed the structuralist network theoretical tradition, Oh and colleagues (2004) found that teams with more relationships with leaders of other groups were more effective. Similarly, Li (2013) found that TMT diversity in social capital improved strategic behavior. Also, Venkataramani et al. (2014) recently found that teams were more likely to develop radical creative ideas when team members and team leaders had network connections to different sources of information within and outside the team.

A critique of the foundational diversity theories

Each of the above four theories is inherently incomplete and presents a static view of diversity in teams for several reasons. To begin with, diversity research on social catego-rization (separation) has a tendency to pre-select sex and/or race as the key drivers of conflict between subgroups and thus of team failure. Such a limited view ignores other

8 Human Relations

equally important deep-level diversity attributes such as personal attitudes (Harrison and Klein, 2007; Mayo et al., 2016). For example, Baer et al. (2008) found that demographic diversity was negatively related to team creativity in an initial task but not in a subse-quent task, whereas diversity in deep-level personality traits showed complex patterns of significant effects on team creativity in the subsequent task.

The information processing (variety of information) approach, on the other hand, tends to pre-select educational or functional differences as key attributes, and therefore often fails to explicitly consider the underlying cognitive differences that improve the team’s information processing, as well as ignoring demographic characteristics. In addi-tion, such an approach overlooks that multiple diversity attributes may coincide to form faultlines (Mayo et al., 2016) that in turn affect team performance over time. In our example, team productivity may be weakened by value differences between the rela-tively younger biomedical engineer and the more established industrial engineer.

Further, while the relatively new disparity/(in)justice approach is useful to account for diversity of status that is often found in teams, it fails to consider the extent to which team members accept those status differentials as legitimate or not. For example, in some cultures age may confer higher status, and this disparity may not have negative effects. Yet, status dif-ferentials do seem likely to influence team failure when they are not in line with group norms.

Finally, the external networks (variety of access) approach remains largely underex-plored, as most studies have examined internal group processes such as communication patterns rather than external processes that provide resources, legitimacy and advice. To illustrate the latter with the product development team example, the marketing VP’s con-nections to members of the executive committee are essential to get legitimation and funding, while the engineers’ connections to other organizational members can bring critical intangible resources to the team, such as medical and industrial expertise.

A metatheoretical integration of four diversity theories

Awareness of these critiques, and in particular their incompleteness and static nature is evidenced by researchers’ attempts to build and test models that combine theories together. Yet, even these combined models have their limitations. Our critical examina-tion of the extant literature revealed that any single theory is incomplete, as are existing combined theories (Table 1). There are four major problems: selection attribute bias, single attribute bias, de-contextualization of teams and neglect of change over time. First, there is a selection attribute bias especially in the way ‘separation’ and ‘variety of information’ are treated. Scholars have mainly examined gender, race and age as attrib-utes inviting social categorization processes, or education and functional expertise in cross-functional and top management teams as attributes related to information elabora-tion. Second, because diversity is based on multiple attributes, understanding diversity effects requires consideration of the relative salience of social categories – the extent to which a social attribute is psychologically prominent in the minds of team members (Turner, 1987; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Yet, team diversity research faces prob-lems when it comes to studying faultlines or multiple dimensions in combination (Mayo et al., 2016). Third, teams do not operate in a vacuum but rather in an organizational space where they interact to different degrees depending on the permeability of their

Mayo et al. 9

boundaries. Therefore, the relative importance of each theory in explaining diversity may often depend on whether the team has open or closed boundaries (external networks are important in groups with open boundaries). Yet, diversity scholars have not explicitly acknowledged this major condition. Fourth, scholars have not treated the early success or failure of a diverse team as a condition that further shapes its outcomes by leading members to think of their differences as beneficial or harmful.

We observed in the existing literature that each of the four theories (a) focuses on a different underlying diversity attribute (beliefs, information, status and external ties); (b) assumes that members share a particular diversity-related mindset, which varies from cooperative to adversarial; and (c) applies to teams with a particular boundary type, which can vary from open to closed. As Figure 1 shows, juxtaposing the two metadimen-sions of mindset and boundary type generates a metatheoretical framework with four quadrants. Theories in quadrants 2 and 3 view diversity as facilitating team performance through process gains, such as increased ideas and external resources, while theories in quadrants 1 and 4 view diversity as inhibiting team effectiveness through process losses such as interpersonal competition and in-/out-group conflict.

Group boundary type

Groups vary in the extent to which they are connected with their external environment (Marrone, 2010). Theories in quadrants 3 and 4 assume open-boundary groups. The socio-logical network view emphasizes that team members gain resources through external com-munication networks with outsiders. Social categorization theory assumes that each team member behaves as an ‘agent’ or ambassador of a larger social group. For example, a female team member with a strong gender identification could behave on behalf of other women in the organization, keeping the boundary of the work team psychologically open to them. In contrast, theories in quadrants 1 and 2 assume closed-boundary groups. Information pro-cessing theory explains the positive effects of diversity as a result of elaboration of informa-tion processes inside the team, and justice theory explains the negative effects of diversity as a function of injustice and potential conflicts of interests within the team.

The metatheoretical implication of the framework that we propose is that when the group is cognitively isolated from the outside and/or its members have high disparity in status, one can examine the effects of diversity on team effectiveness by considering information and justice theories. However, if the team is embedded in a larger social unit and/or its members have strong identifications with other social groups, then researchers also need to consider external ties and social categorization theories.

Diversity-related mindsets

Diversity mindsets are team members’ mental representations of their diversity and its effects on the group’s performance (see Van Knippenberg et al., 2013). Cooperative mindsets are typically associated with setting ideal goals (Ely and Thomas, 2001), with exploring new ideas (March, 1991) and with group norms of knowledge-sharing based on who knows what (transactive memory). In contrast, adversarial mindsets are associ-ated with setting practical goals of preventing damage by exploiting existing knowledge

10 Human Relations

Fig

ure

1. A

met

athe

oret

ical

fram

ewor

k of

div

ersi

ty c

onfig

urat

ions

.

Mayo et al. 11

and protecting privileged knowledge, resulting in poor transactive memory. Cooperative mindsets harvest the benefits of diversity by creating synergy, rendering the whole greater than the sum of its parts and fostering information processing and access to exter-nal ties (see quadrants 2 and 3), whereas adversarial mindsets favor the rise of social categorization and injustice processes, feeding interpersonal tensions and intragroup conflict (see quadrants 1 and 4). Cooperative mindsets are likely to stimulate perfor-mance and creativity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), especially when team performance depends on the integration of diverse perspectives into a single final creative product (Harvey, 2013, 2014; Mainemelis et al., 2015), whereas adversarial mindsets are likely to disrupt team processes and performance (Van Knippenberg et al., 2013).

As is often the case in social science, empirical reality tends to relax the ideal condi-tions of team diversity theories, rendering any single theory largely incomplete. Most teams in organizations are not completely open or completely closed and do not have purely cooperative or purely adversarial mindsets – they may occupy a multitude of dif-ferent positions in the conceptual space shown in Figure 1. Reflecting this, researchers have sought to integrate two or more theoretical perspectives in order to increase the descriptive and predictive validity of their studies. However, these studies are them-selves subject to critique, as the discussion below demonstrates.

Composite models of diversity

The Appendix presents a table that shows 15 possible conceptual models that may explain the effects of diversity in teams. The first four sets are single-focus models. Alternatives 12 through 34, the dual-focus models, represent cases in which only two of the four theories are brought to bear on a given team. Alternatives 123 through 234 rep-resent the four possible tri-focus models; alternative 1234, the quad-focus model. The left column of the table lists exemplary studies for some of the theoretical combinations, while the right column graphically illustrates the generic conceptual model of each com-posite possibility. The question marks (?) indicate theoretical combinations for which we could not find an empirical study in the literature, and thus signify additional opportuni-ties for future research. Space limitations prevent us from providing an extensive discus-sion of each theoretical possibility. Instead, we present several examples of how complex models can be constructed by integrating the foundational theories of diversity, thus advancing our understanding of team diversity processes. However, dual- and tri-focus models have also limitations, which we shortly discuss in the next section before we build our quad-focus model that highlights the full range of relationships.

Separation-information models: Interplay of social categorization and information processing theories

The most common integration of two theoretical approaches in the team diversity litera-ture uses both social categorization and information processing theories (e.g. Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002; Kirkman et al., 2013; Pelled et al., 1999; Srikanth et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg et al., 2013; see also meta-analysis by Van Dijk et al., 2012), thus approach-ing groups as entities with varied group boundaries and diversity mindsets. For example,

12 Human Relations

Jehn et al. (1999) found that social category diversity increased relationship conflict, while informational diversity increased task conflict. Studies of diversity faultlines – simultaneous differences in several attributes (e.g. Barkema and Shvyrkov, 2007; Homan et al., 2007; Pearsall et al., 2008; Rico et al., 2007, 2012; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011) – also inevitably examine both diversity as separation and diversity as variety of infor-mation (see the meta-analysis by Thatcher and Patel, 2011). The more sophisticated categorization-elaboration model (CEM) of diversity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, 2013) proposes that variety of information improves team outcomes such as innovation and decision-making, and this relationship is moderated by separation (see Appendix). That is, intergroup biases derived from social categorization and adversarial diversity mindsets disrupt the team’s in-depth elaboration of task-relevant information.

The CEM has been very useful in uncovering the conditions that moderate negative team outcomes of social categorization and foster positive effects of cognitive resources (Ely, 2004; Jackson and Joshi, 2004; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2004; Kearney and Gebert, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2011; Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Polzer et al., 2002; Van Dick et al., 2008; Wegge et al., 2008). For example, studies have found that members of diverse teams benefit more from variety of information under various specific condi-tions, such as common goals (Schippers et al., 2003), psychological safety (Polzer et al., 2002), need for cognition (Kearney et al., 2009), national diversity (Kirkman et al., 2013), collective team identification (Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005) and structural disconnections between team members (Balkundi et al., 2007). Also, managerial strate-gies that encourage individuals to classify others in new overarching ways may reduce categorization biases and allow better use of varied information (Rico et al., 2012).

However, the CEM has rarely explored how positive informational and negative social categorization effects may change over time (Barkema and Shvyrkov, 2007). Exceptions include Molleman et al. (2010), who studied medical teams over time, integrating social categorization and information processing theories; Watson and colleagues (1993), who found that with sufficient time to resolve group process issues, culturally diverse groups improved their cognitive performance; Baer and colleagues (2008), who found that the effect of demographic diversity on team creativity became non-significant over time; and Pelled and colleagues (1999), who found that the positive effects of functional diversity on task conflict weakened over time as members developed a common understanding of tasks. More recently, Srikanth and colleagues (2016) introduced a ‘dynamic coordination-based’ model that focuses on the timing and flow of separation and information diversity processes, as well as on the role of intervening processes such as representation gaps and coordination failures. Nevertheless, to date the dual-focus separation-information models (CEM) do not explicitly consider how over the long run, interpersonal conflicts may be resolved and common frameworks and shared task understandings may arise, so that cog-nitive resources and cooperative mindsets can come into play.

Separation-disparity models: Interplay of social categorization and disparity/(in)justice theories

Separation-disparity models have approached groups as entities with adversarial mind-sets. For example, relational demography research illustrates how disparity can moderate

Mayo et al. 13

separation effects on team outcomes, as social categorization varies according to the sta-tus of team members in demographically diverse teams (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004, 2010; Tsui et al., 1992). Chattopadhyay and colleagues (2010) found that (high-status) surgeons working with high proportions of (lower-status) nurses reported fewer accusations of incompetence and displayed less negative emotion than nurses working with high proportions of surgeons. These findings are explained by expec-tation states theory (Berger et al., 1977), which suggests that demographic characteristics such as gender and age are associated with status beliefs ‘imported’ from the broader society. The resulting separation can be mitigated when the relationship between the leader and team members emphasizes inclusion rather than status (Nishii and Mayer, 2009). These findings suggest that the negative effects of social categorization are likely to be intensified by injustice. However, the dual-focus separation-disparity models ignore the documented potential of diverse groups to develop cooperative mindsets over time.

Separation-access models: Interplay of social categorization and external-networks theories

Approaching groups as entities with open boundaries and varied diversity mindsets, the separation-access models largely ignore information processing and disparity dynamics. Keller (2001) found that functional diversity (in job and technical expertise) enhanced project performance by increasing external communication, but it also decreased social cohesion, as group members with different functional goals, norms and values had to work together under pressure, resulting in high job stress. Reagans and Zuckerman (2001) and Reagans et al. (2004), who used demographic diversity to signify both separation and access, found that diversity as separation reduced internal network density (group cohe-sion), thus reducing team performance. In contrast, increased external network range (variety of access) improved team performance. These results suggest that the positive effects of external network processes and cooperative mindsets are likely to be under-mined by social categorization and its related adversarial mindsets. What is missing from the dual-focus separation-access models, however, is the effect of status on the salience of social categories. These models assume equal distribution of status within the team, and thus are unable to account for ‘real world’ processes in which status differentials may alter which social categories become salient in the minds of team members.

Information-disparity models: Interplay of information processing and disparity/(in)justice theories

Three studies have examined the interplay of information processing and disparity/(in)justice. De Dreu and West (2001) found that team innovation was linked to minority dis-sent, moderated by participation in decision-making. Minorities acted as the devil’s advocate, stimulating creative thinking. Groysberg and colleagues (2011) found that too many high-status individuals with overly similar expertise impaired a team’s perfor-mance. And Buyl et al. (2011) found that TMT functional diversity (indicating high vari-ety of information) increased firm performance more when the CEO was not the founder of the firm (indicating high disparity). That is, how disparity interacts with variety of

14 Human Relations

information depends on whether the disparity involves task-related expertise (De Dreu and West, 2001; Groysberg et al., 2011) or political power (Buyl et al., 2011), giving rise to cooperative versus adversarial mindsets, respectively. The focus remains yet on the internal dynamics of the group and therefore the dual-focus information-disparity mod-els discount external influences of social categorization and outside access. However, in groups with open boundaries such as TMTs, important external networks may influence team performance (e.g. Oh et al., 2004).

Information-access models: Interplay of information processing and external networks theories

The information-access models we examined in the literature focus exclusively on diver-sity’s positive effects on cooperative mindsets, typically ignoring the group’s potential to develop adversarial mindsets. Jointly, access to others outside the team and elaboration on varied information within the team may improve team outcomes (see Appendix). As Ancona and Caldwell (1992b) found, demographic diversity increases supervisors’ ratings of innovation by (a) improving the clarity of information and (b) increasing exter-nal communication with other groups. More recently, Miller and del Carmen Triana (2009) found that board racial diversity was positively related to both innovation and firm reputation, which in turn increased performance. The mediating effect via innova-tion suggests that racial diversity increases variety of information, ‘resulting in more diverse ideas, which influence innovation’ (Miller and del Carmen Triana, 2009: 778). The mediating effect via reputation suggests that racial diversity increases access to external networks, because ‘diverse board members . . . signal . . . [that they] are well equipped to understand the diverse environment in which the firm operates’ (Miller and del Carmen Triana, 2009: 775). Variety of functional backgrounds can enhance external networks, while variety of access can elicit further information, so the two kinds of team diversity influence each other directly and may strengthen cooperative mindsets. The dual-focus information-access models nevertheless overlook the potential that social cat-egorization and disparity – both particularly prevalent in work teams – may jointly gen-erate adversarial mindsets.

Separation-information-disparity models: Interplay of social categorization, information processing and disparity/(in)justice theories

To our knowledge, the only authors who have attempted to integrate separation, informa-tion and disparity perspectives are Brodbeck et al. (2011), who explain how the benefits of cooperative mindsets derived from variety of information within the team may be influenced by an interaction of separation and disparity (see Appendix), and thus adver-sarial mindsets. In their multilevel model, the authors propose a three-way interaction: ethnic group diversity is a source of varied information that both increases and decreases the outcome of learning, depending on individual ethnic dissimilarity and ethnic societal status. They found that the positive effects of variety of perspectives could be realized when the dysfunctional effects of social categorization and status differences were jointly overcome. The learning benefits of variety of information materialized mainly

Mayo et al. 15

for low-status members in high-status-dominated groups, who considered high-status members as valid sources of information. While the tri-focus separation-information-disparity models account for several team diversity processes, they remain incomplete as they do not consider the importance of the group’s access to external networks that might strengthen cooperation by bringing resources and political support.

Information-disparity-access models: Interplay of information processing, disparity/(in)justice and external-networks theories

Studies that integrate theories emphasizing information processing, disparity/(in)justice within the team and access to external networks are missing from the literature. The first attempt to develop such a model was a qualitative study by Ely and Thomas (2001), which identified three cultural diversity perspectives that influence how groups realize the benefits of cooperative mindsets. The integration and learning perspective, which corresponds to information processing, describes how varied information can enhance core work processes, such as learning and change. The discrimination and fairness per-spective, which is related to disparity/(in)justice, supports an increased representation of traditionally underrepresented groups to ensure equality and eliminate discrimination. The access perspective focuses on how to bridge the group with its broader context, pro-viding critical information about markets and clients. The authors found that only the integration and learning perspective could provide sustainable benefits, suggesting that the positive effects of cooperative mindsets derived from variety of information and access may be moderated by disparity and adversarial mindsets. For example, in our product development team, the established marketing EVP outranks the rest of the mem-bers and can potentially force his views on them, while lower-status members may cov-ertly withhold their information and external-network resources. These two possibilities may of course be action and reaction, but they may also occur independently. Finally, the tri-focus information-disparity-access models neglect social-categorization effects. Based on social identification, in-group members in a work team may be biased against out-group members raising intra-group conflict.

All in all, the above-described combined models tend to be incomplete and static as each of them misses at least one fundamentally important diversity process. Thus, the incompleteness of these combined models paves the way for a more comprehensive, all-embracing model.

Towards a quad-focus metatheoretical model of diversity in teams

Figure 2 depicts a metatheoretical model that represents the interplay of all four theories and can be used as a general conceptual springboard for developing a larger set of more specific investigations. While this model captures all four theories, it is inevitably com-plex and it presents significant empirical challenges. We encourage scholars to consider all four theories in unison and to tackle the associated empirical defies in an attempt to help the four theories transcend their inherently incomplete and static nature.

16 Human Relations

Fig

ure

2. A

dyn

amic

met

athe

oret

ical

mod

el o

f div

ersi

ty in

org

aniz

atio

nal t

eam

s.

Mayo et al. 17

Separation-information-disparity-access model: The full composite model

Within our full four-theory model there will be two three-way interactions in which the positive effects of diversity of information and/or access on team outcomes will be jointly moderated by diversity separation and disparity. We have argued so far that dif-ferences in values, beliefs or attitudes and associated conflicts reduce the positive influ-ence of cooperative diversity mindsets derived from variety of information or access on team outcomes. Scholars may extend this work and explicitly consider how these reduc-tions may intensify when members have strongly adversarial mindsets derived from a concentration of power and status in one or few members. That is, polarized values and beliefs within the team, coupled with status or power differences, may block the benefi-cial effects of the team’s human and social capital. In sum, our metatheoretical frame-work proposes complex nested inter-relationships within a single quad-focus model, in which the positive and negative effects of the diversity dimensions interact, thus enhanc-ing theory building regarding team diversity effects over time.

Responses of diverse teams to success or failure over time

Integrating all four theoretical approaches to diversity implies a developmental approach that considers reciprocal effects over time, a critical characteristic of work-teams (McGrath, 1991). The complex temporal dynamics in teams are not only linear but also cyclical (Kozlowski et al., 1996). Even though temporal considerations have received some attention in the categorization-elaboration model (e.g. Srikanth et al., 2016), they are largely missing from disparity and external network approaches. Table 2 highlights the temporal dynamics of team diversity. This is important because over a longer period of time disparities may smooth out, and with familiarity, the group may become ready to use its extended social capital as motivation to complete the task increases.

As Figure 2 shows, at any given initial time (t1) the four basic diversity processes interact to influence future team outcomes at the subsequent time point (t2). The experi-ence of success or failure, coupled with the diversity mindset and the type of team bound-ary at the time the group processes its success or failure, is likely to initiate different response patterns at the subsequent time point (t3), which may have lasting effects over longer periods of time (see Table 2).

Information/network upward spiral. As a group with a cooperative mindset receives signals of success, it attributes this success to its own ability and effort (Weiner, 1992), and its efficacy grows. Increased efficacy is likely to spark upward spirals between performance and process that amplify deviations (Lindsley et al., 1995) and foster ‘constructive engagement with team diversity’ (Van Knippenberg et al., 2013: 189). That is, as suc-cessful groups reflect jointly on how to maintain this success (Edmonson, 1999), they are likely to discuss each other’s diversity mindsets and reinforce their mental representation of teamwork (see Van Ginkel and Van Knippenberg, 2009). They will also likely facili-tate the creative use of each other’s cognitive and social resources, and the initial success will attract more external connections. Thus, we may expect information upward spirals in relatively closed-boundary teams and network upward spirals in open-boundary

18 Human Relations

teams, bridging vertical and horizontal organizational lines (Oh et al., 2004; see top left quadrant of Table 2).

Guideline 1. Diversity theorists should explicitly consider how teams with cooperative mindsets respond to positive performance feedback over time. Teams with closed boundaries will likely initiate an information upward spiral and suppress disparities, while those with open boundaries will likely initiate a network upward spiral and suppress separation.

Disparity/categorization downward spiral. In contrast, early task difficulties and exposure to negative feedback can spark downward spirals in groups with adversarial mindsets (see Hackman, 1990). An initial failure may foster interpersonal dislike and feelings of injus-tice as members blame each other and view their diversity as a cause of their poor perfor-mance). Publicly expressing these feelings prevents learning and can eventually discourage group members from trying to perform well. Research has shown that diversity may dis-rupt team reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2003), which is key for learning from experience. Once a team is labeled a ‘poor performer’ it can be very difficult to develop further infor-mation, and outsiders are likely to cut their ties with a failing team. In an effort to restore high performance the most dissimilar members may decide – or be driven – to leave (Tsui et al., 1992). It is thus likely that performance failures will alter the team’s understanding of teamwork (Hackman and Wageman, 2005) and ultimately its actual composition. In closed-boundary teams, status differentials are magnified; in open-boundary teams with strong emphasis on social categorization, competition and distrust will likely increase, reducing diversity over time (see bottom right quadrant of Table 2).

Guideline 2. Diversity theorists should explicitly consider how teams with adversarial mindsets respond to negative performance feedback over time. Teams with closed boundaries will likely initiate a disparity downward spiral, suppressing variety of information, while teams with open boundaries will likely initiate a categorization downward spiral, suppressing variety of access.

Table 2. Diversity response patterns to team success and failure.

Team success(positive feedback)

Closed boundary team:Information upward spiral(suppress disparity)

Closed boundary team:Disparity blindness(suppress variety of information)

Open boundary team:Network upward spiral(suppress separation)(G1)

Open boundary team:Categorization blindness(suppress variety of access)(G4)

Team failure(negative feedback)

Closed Boundary Team:Information diversity mindfulness(suppress disparity)

Closed Boundary Team:Disparity downward spiral(suppress variety of information)

Open Boundary Team:Network diversity mindfulness(suppress separation)(G3)

Open Boundary Team:Categorization downward spiral(suppress variety of access)(G2)

Cooperative diversity mindset Adversarial diversity mindset

Mayo et al. 19

Information/network diversity mindfulness. When team failure is coupled with cooperative diversity mindsets, the team can reflect and learn from its failures (Van Knippenberg et al., 2013). Negative performance feedback encourages members to discuss their opportunities for change, revising their team processes and correcting past errors. In this process they will eventually become mindful about their human and social capital, with closed-boundary groups emphasizing information elaboration and open-boundary groups emphasizing access to external networks. Longitudinal studies on diverse teams show that after a period of negative outcomes, some teams recover to even outperform homo-geneous teams (e.g. Watson et al., 1993; see bottom left quadrant of Table 2).

Guideline 3. Diversity theorists should explicitly consider how teams with cooperative diversity mindsets respond to negative performance feedback over time. Teams with closed boundaries will likely become mindful of their informational resources, suppressing diversity as disparity, while teams with open boundaries will likely become mindful of their network resources, suppressing diversity as separation.

Disparity/categorization diversity blindness. When a diverse team with an adversarial mind-set receives signals of team success, members may begin to question their assumptions about the negative consequences of status and social category differences. The positive affect associated with unexpected success may increase cohesion in the team and make such teams blind to their differences. Closed-boundary groups may become blind to disparities, while open-boundary groups may become blind to diverse categorizations. But this blindness also occludes the advantages of their varied human and social capital. Thus, positive feedback may not be enough to help them reap the benefits of information and network variety (see top right quadrant of Table 2).

Guideline 4. Diversity theorists should explicitly consider how teams with adversarial mindsets respond to positive performance feedback over time. Teams with closed boundaries will likely become blind to their own disparities, suppressing variety of information, while teams with open boundaries will likely become blind to their own social categories, suppressing variety of access.

Conclusion

Our metatheoretical framework (Figure 1) provides a common conceptual space that high-lights rather than suppresses the theoretical differences in assumptions, conditions and foci of research on work group diversity, providing useful standards against which to evaluate the assumptions underlying empirical studies. It identifies specific theoretical possibilities that have rarely been explored to date, stimulating the design of more conceptually robust studies that employ less univocal and more complex theoretical foundations.

The integrative model that we propose (Figure 2) serves as a guide for future research on the types of relationships that might hold between the four basic diversity process theories over time. Diversity scholars are increasingly including longitudinal designs, and we see real promise in research that examines nonlinear dynamic models and feed-back loops from performance outcomes to team processes and composition. It may well be that these feedback loops, and the cycles they imply, differ depending on the kinds of diversity involved and on the kinds of theoretical processes or mechanisms invoked.

20 Human Relations

Accordingly, we highlight the need to treat team diversity as an outcome and identify how it gets reshaped by team performance through the development of diversity mindsets. When the feedback fits the mindset, the response to diversity is a reinforcing spiral – posi-tive or negative. In contrast, when there is a misfit between the feedback and the mindset, the group is likely to engage in reflexive learning, which may be either blind or mindful.

Can all team diversity processes be explained by just four theories and their inter-plays? Turning this hypothetical question on its head, we note that our metatheoretical framework and the associated model that we propose can also stimulate more theoretical and empirical research on the limits of the explanatory power of the four theories com-bined. In the end, the ultimate determinant of our metatheoretical framework’s value will be researchers’ efforts to move away from single and dual toward more complex expla-nations, using novel moderators and mediators, and focusing on feedback loops. We hope that our parsimonious metatheoretical framework will help these scholars extend and enrich the ways they think about diversity and how diversity processes can translate into high-performance work teams.

Funding

This research was supported by funding from Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant number ECO2012-33081).

Note

1 A list of empirical articles that draw on two or more of these four single-focus theories is available from the first author.

References

Abrams D and Hogg MA (2004) Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(2): 98–106.

Ancona DG and Caldwell DF (1992a) Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 634–665.

Ancona DG and Caldwell DF (1992b) Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science 3(3): 321–341.

Anchin JC (2008) Pursuing a unifying paradigm for psychotherapy: Tasks, dialectical considera-tions, and biopsychosocial systems metatheory. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 18(3): 310–349.

Baer M, Oldham GR, Jacobsohn GC, et al. (2008) The personality composition of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior 42(4): 255–282.

Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Barsness ZI, et al. (2007) Demographic antecedents and performance consequences of structural holes in work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(2): 241–260.

Bantel KA and Jackson SE (1989) Top management and innovations in banking: Does the com-position of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal 10(S1): 107–124.

Barinaga E (2007) ‘Cultural diversity’ at work: ‘National culture’ as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations 60(2): 315–340.

Barkema HG and Shvyrkov O (2007) Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal 28(7): 663–680.

Mayo et al. 21

Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, et al. (2011) Getting specific about demographic diversity vari-able and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 37(3): 709–743.

Berger JM, Fisek H, Norman RZ, et al. (1977) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. New York: Elsevier.

Brewer MB (1979) Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive–motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86(2): 307–324.

Brodbeck FC, Guillaume YF and Lee N (2011) Ethnic diversity as a multilevel construct: The combined effects of dissimilarity, group diversity, and societal status on learning perfor-mance in work groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(7): 1198–1218.

Bunderson JS and Sutcliffe KM (2002) Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal 45(5): 875–893.

Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buyl T, Boone C, Hendriks W, et al. (2011) Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management Studies 48(1): 151–177.

Chao GT and Moon H (2005) The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6): 1128–1140.

Chattopadhyay P (1999) Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 42(3): 273–287.

Chattopadhyay P, Finn CP and Ashkanasy NM (2010) Affective responses to professional dissimi-larity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal 53(4): 808–826.

Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M and George E (2004) Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review 29(2): 180–202.

Crossan MM and Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innova-tion: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies 47(6): 1154–1191.

De Dreu CKW and West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1191–1201.

Deutsch M (1985) Distributive Justice, a Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350–383.

Eisenhardt KM and Bourgeois LJ (1988) Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 737–770.

Ely RJ (1994) The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2): 203–238.

Ely RJ (2004) A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(6): 755–780.

Ely RJ and Thomas DA (2001) Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 229–273.

Greenberg J (1987) A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review 12(1): 9–22.

Groysberg B, Polzer JT and Elfenbein HA (2011) Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science 22(3): 722–737.

Hackman JR (1990) Groups that Work and those that Don’t. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22 Human Relations

Hackman JR and Wageman R (2005) A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review 30(2): 269–287.

Harrison DA and Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, vari-ety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1199–1228.

Harvey S (2013) A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49(5): 822–832.

Harvey S (2014) Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review 39(3): 324–343.

Horwitz SK and Horwitz IB (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management 33(6): 987–1015.

Homan AC, Van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, et al. (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diver-sity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1189–1199.

Jackson SE (1992) Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resources Initiatives. New York: Guilford Press.

Jackson SE and Joshi A (2004) Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multi-level anal-ysis of team diversity and performance in a sales organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(6): 675–702.

Jackson SE, Brett JR, Sessa VI, et al. (1991) Some differences make a difference: Individual dis-similarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(5): 675–689.

Jehn KA and Bezrukova K (2004) A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and perfor-mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(6): 703–729.

Jehn KA, Northcraft GB and Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 741–763.

Joshi A and Roh H (2009) The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 599–627.

Kearney E and Gebert D (2009) Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1): 77–89.

Kearney E, Gebert D and Voelpel SC (2009) When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 581–598.

Keller RT (2001) Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 44(3): 547–555.

Kilduff M, Angelmar R and Mehra A (2000) Top management-team diversity and firm perfor-mance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science 11(1): 21–34.

King BG, Felin T and Whetten DA (2010) Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organization Science 21(1): 290–305.

Kirkman BL, Cordery JL, Mathiue J, et al. (2013) Global organizations communities of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community performance. Human Relations 66(3): 333–362.

Kozlowski SW and Bell BS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley.

Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, McHugh PP, et al. (1996) A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingency leader roles. In: Ferris GR (ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 14. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 253–305.

Mayo et al. 23

Li D (2013) Multilateral R&D alliances by new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 28(2): 241–260.

Lindsley DH, Brass DJ and Thomas JB (1995) Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel per-spective. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 645–678.

McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research 22(2): 147–174.

Mainemelis C, Kark R and Epitropaki O (2015) Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptual-ization. Academy of Management Annals 9(1): 393–482.

March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1): 71–87.

Marrone JA (2010) Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management 36(4): 911–940.

Mayo M, Van Knippenberg D, Guillén L, et al. (2016) Team diversity and categorization salience: Capturing diversity-blind, intergroup-biased, and multicultural perceptions. Organizational Research Methods 19(3): 433–474.

Miller T and del Carmen Triana M (2009) Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies 46(5): 755–786.

Milliken FJ and Martins L (1996) Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 31(2): 402–433.

Mitchell RJ, Parker V and Giles M (2011) When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human Relations 64(10): 1321–1343.

Mohammed S and Angell LC (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(8): 1015–1039.

Molleman E, Broekhuis M, Stoffels R, et al. (2010) Complexity of health-care needs and inter-actions in multidisciplinary medical teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(1): 55–76.

Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–266.

Nishii LH and Mayer DM (2009) Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1412–1426.

Oh H, Chung M-H and Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal 47(6): 860–875.

Olson BJ, Parayitam S and Bao Y (2007) Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management 33(2): 196–222.

Pearsall MJ, Ellis APJ and Evans JM (2008) Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1): 225–234.

Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM and Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 1–28.

Perry-Smith J and Mannucci P (2015) Social networks, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In: Shalley C, Hitt MA and Zhou J (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. New York: Oxford University Press, 205–224.

Polzer JT, Milton LP and Swann WB Jr (2002) Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 47(2): 296–324.

Randel AE (2002) Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender com-position and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(6): 749–766.

24 Human Relations

Reagans R and Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12(4): 502–517.

Reagans RE, Zuckerman EW and McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 49(1): 101–133.

Rico R, Molleman E, Sánchez-Manzanares M, et al. (2007) The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management 33(1): 111–132.

Rico RN, Sanchez-Manzanares M, Antino M, et al. (2012) Bridging team faultlines by combin-ing task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2): 407–420.

Schippers MC, Den Hartog DN, Koopman PL, et al. (2003) Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(6): 779–802.

Siegel PA and Hambrick DC (2005) Pay disparities within top management groups: Evidence of harmful effects on performance of high-technology firms. Organization Science 16(3): 259–274.

Simons T, Pelled LH and Smith KA (1999) Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and deci-sion comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal 42(6): 662–673.

Somech A and Drach-Zahavy A (2013) Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management 39(3): 684–708.

Srikanth K, Harvey S and Peterson R (2016) A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: Moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team perfor-mance. Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 453–493.

Stangor C, Lynch L, Duan C, et al. (1992) Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(2): 207–218.

Swann WB Jr, Johnson RE and Bosson J (2009) Identity negotiation at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 29: 81–109.

Tadmor CT, Satterstrom P, Jang S, et al. (2012) Beyond individual creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(3): 384–392.

Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Thatcher SMB and Patel PC (2011) Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology 96(6): 1119–1139.Thornburg TH (1991) Group size & member diversity influence on creative performance. The

Journal of Creative Behavior 25(4): 324–333.Tsui AS, Egan TD and O’Reilly CA (1992) Being different: Relational demography and organiza-

tional attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 549–579.Tsoukas H (1994) What is management? An outline of a metatheory. British Journal of

Management 5(4): 289–301.Turner JC (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. New York: Basil

Blackwell.Van Der Vegt GS and Bunderson JS (2005) Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:

The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal 48(3): 532–547.

Van der Zee K, Atsma N and Brodbeck F (2004) The influence of social identity and personal-ity on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(3): 283–303.

Mayo et al. 25

Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D, Hägele S, et al. (2008) Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations 61(10): 1463–1492.

Van Dijk H, Van Engen ML and Van Knippenberg D (2012) Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diver-sity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119(1): 38–53.

Van Ginkel WP and Van Knippenberg D (2009) Knowledge about the distribution of informa-tion and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108(2): 218–229.

Van Knippenberg D and Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 515–541.

Van Knippenberg D, Dawson JF, West MA, et al. (2011) Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations 64(3): 307–336.

Van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW and Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group per-formance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(6): 1008–1022.

Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP and Homan AC (2013) Diversity mindsets and the perfor-mance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121(2): 183–193.

Venkataramani V, Richter A and Clarke R (2014) Creative benefits from well-connected leaders? Leader social network ties as facilitators of employee radical creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(5): 966–975.

Wallis SE (2010) Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review 6(3): 73–120.Watson WE, Kumar K and Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction

process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 590–602.

Wegge JR, Roth C, Neubach B, et al. (2008) Age and gender diversity as determinants of per-formance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(6): 1301–1313.

Weiner B (1992) Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Wiersema MF and Bantel KA (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal 35(1): 91–121.

Williams KY and O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations. In: Staw BM and Sutton RM (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior 20. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 77–140.

Zenger TR and Lawrence BS (1989) Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal 32(2): 353–376.

Margarita Mayo is Professor of Organizational Behavior at IE Business School and a Fulbright Alumni of Harvard University, USA. Her research interests revolve around leadership, diversity and identity processes in organizations. Her upcoming book focuses on new approaches to authen-tic leadership. Her publications have appeared in the leading academic journals – including Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Organizational Research Methods, The Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Vocational Behavior and Human Resource Management. Her work has also appeared in international media, such as Harvard Business Review, Financial Times, Forbes, The Times of India and The Globe and Mail. A research award winner at the Center for Creative Leadership, INFORMS and the Emerald

26 Human Relations

Group, she was selected as one of the world’s next generation thought leaders in the The Next Generation Business Handbook. Margarita has been recognized as October 2016 Thinker of the Month by Thinkers50 global management list. [Email: margarita.mayo@ie.edu]

Maria Kakarika is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at NEOMA Business School in France. Her research focuses on leadership and team diversity. Her work has been published in Human Resource Management, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, and cited in Financial Times. Maria teaches at both the MBA and the executive levels, employing innovative methods such as art workshops. She has also received several best reviewer awards from the Organizational Behavior and Diversity Divisions of the Academy of Management. [Email: maria.kakarika@neoma-bs.fr]

Charalampos (Babis) Mainemelis is Professor of Organizational Behavior at ALBA Graduate Business School at The American College of Greece. His research focuses on creativity. His con-tributions to creativity research include three original theories of creativity and timelessness, crea-tivity and play, and creative deviance, and a recent metatheory of creative leadership. His work has appeared in Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Annals, Research in Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Management Inquiry, Creativity Research Journal and Journal of Organizational Change Management. He is the recipient of Academy of Management Review’s 2010 Best Article Award and finalist of Academy of Management Annals’s 2015 Best Article Award. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Academy of Management Review and recipient of its Outstanding Reviewer award in 2009 and 2014. [Email: bmainemelis@alba.edu.gr]

Nicolas Till Deuschel is a PhD Candidate at IE Business School in Madrid, Spain. His research focuses on workplace creativity of individuals, team diversity and its interactions on individual processes and regulatory focus theory adapted to the group context. With his corporate experience as a consultant at McKinsey and Company, Roland Berger and as a Vice President Group HR at Swiss Re he is especially concerned to bridge academic research to effective management prac-tices for executives. He taught as an adjunct professor at the Grande Ecole Rennes ECS in France and frequently advises in workshops with executives and C-suites at Fortune 500 companies. [Email: tndeuschel.phd2015@student.ie.edu]

Mayo et al. 27A

ppen

dix.

A m

atri

x of

con

cept

ual i

nter

actio

ns a

mon

g di

vers

ity t

heor

ies.

Soci

al

cate

gori

zatio

n (C

AT

)

Info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ng(IN

FO)

Dis

pari

ty /

in(ju

stic

e)

(DIS

P)

Exte

rnal

ne

twor

ks

(NET

)

Con

cept

ual m

odel

s(F

igur

es)

Sing

le-f

ocus

the

orie

s

1. S

epar

atio

n m

odel

s(T

sui e

t al

., 19

92)

Yes

No

No

No

-

2. In

form

atio

n m

odel

s(W

iers

ema

and

Bant

el, 1

992)

No

Yes

No

No

-

3. D

ispa

rity

mod

els

(Eis

enha

rdt

and

Bour

geoi

s, 1

988)

No

No

Yes

No

-

4. A

cces

s m

odel

s(O

h, C

hung

and

Lab

ianc

a, 2

006)

No

No

No

Yes

-

Dua

l-fo

cus

theo

ries

12

. Sep

arat

ion-

info

rmat

ion

mod

els

(Jehn

et

al.,

1999

)Y

esY

esN

oN

o

13. S

epar

atio

n-di

spar

ity m

odel

s(C

hatt

opad

hyay

et

al.,

2010

)Y

esN

oY

esN

o

14. S

epar

atio

n-ac

cess

mod

els

(Kel

ler,

200

1)Y

esN

oN

oY

es

(Con

tinue

d)

28 Human Relations

Soci

al

cate

gori

zatio

n (C

AT

)

Info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ng(IN

FO)

Dis

pari

ty /

in(ju

stic

e)

(DIS

P)

Exte

rnal

ne

twor

ks

(NET

)

Con

cept

ual m

odel

s(F

igur

es)

23. I

nfor

mat

ion-

disp

arity

mod

els

(De

Dre

u an

d W

est,

2001

)N

oY

esY

esN

o

24. I

nfor

mat

ion-

acce

ss m

odel

s(M

iller

and

Tri

ana,

200

9)N

oY

esN

oY

es

34. D

ispa

rity

-acc

ess

mod

els

(?)

No

No

Yes

Yes

Tri

-foc

us t

heor

ies

12

3. S

epar

atio

n-in

form

atio

n-di

spar

ity m

odel

s(B

rodb

eck,

Gui

llaum

e,an

d Le

e, 2

011)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

124.

Sep

arat

ion-

info

rmat

ion-

acce

ss m

odel

s(?

)Y

esY

esN

oY

es

App

endi

x. (

Con

tinue

d)

(Con

tinue

d)

Mayo et al. 29

Soci

al

cate

gori

zatio

n (C

AT

)

Info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ng(IN

FO)

Dis

pari

ty /

in(ju

stic

e)

(DIS

P)

Exte

rnal

ne

twor

ks

(NET

)

Con

cept

ual m

odel

s(F

igur

es)

134.

Sep

arat

ion-

disp

arity

-acc

ess

mod

els

(?)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

234.

Info

rmat

ion-

disp

arity

-acc

ess

mod

els

(Ely

and

Tho

mas

, 200

1)N

oY

esY

esY

es

Qua

d-fo

cus

theo

ries

12

34. S

epar

atio

n-in

form

atio

n-di

spar

ity-a

cces

s m

odel

s(?

)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

T

ime

App

endi

x. (

Con

tinue

d)