Diversity_Social_Psychological_perspectives

3/17/10 3:44:51 PM
254 • Social Psychology and Organizations conventional wisdom that diversity is beneficial because people who are “different” will bring different perspectives to the table is challenged, and an alternative value of diversity focusing on the effects of diversity on all members of a group will be presented. The implications of this perspective for the changing demography of the workforce is readily apparent as the ability to effectively capture diversity’s benefits will be increasingly important for organizations.
So-Hyeon Shim
Northwestern University
What is the value of diversity? This is a profound question that has spawned a proliferation of scholarly research, popular books, and civic dialogue. The desire to develop a compelling answer to this question is warranted. Demographic changes in the workforce, changes in the way organizations structure themselves, and changes in the competitive and global landscape of business have all contributed to diversity becoming more prevalent in the modern workplace (Toossi, 2006; Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Despite its increasing pervasiveness, the ability of problem-solving groups (where the integration of unique perspectives is critical) to consistently reap measurable benefits from and avoid the negative consequences associated with diversity remains elusive (for reviews and meta-analyses see Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Kochan et al., 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Milliken & Martins, 1996; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). In this chapter we will review relevant social psychological and organizational research on diversity and present a model of the psychological processes underlying the effects of diversity. Our goal here is to develop a better understanding of how and why diversity integrating the apparently contradictory results from the literature on diversity in problem-solving teams and in organizations can be beneficial. The 253
11
The Value of Diversity in Organizations: A Social Psychological Perspective
Katherine W. Phillips
Northwestern University
Sun Young Kim-Jun
Northwestern University
The Concept of Diversity
As a precursor, it is imperative to develop a shared definition of diversity. In 1998, Williams and O’Reilly drew from the vast literature on self-categorization and social identity theories (Tajfel, 1972, 1974; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and defined diversity as resulting “from any attribute people use to tell themselves that another person is different” (Williams & O’Reilly, p. 81). This definition allowed researchers to encompass more under the umbrella of diversity than just the typical demographic characteristics such as race and gender. Researchers have thus examined the effects of many attributes on group functioning, including functional background, age, tenure in the organization, personality differences, and numerous naturally occurring social or minimal group distinctions (for examples, see Chen & Kenrick, 2002; Phillips, 2003; Phillips & Loyd, 2006). A more recent definition provided by van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) in their review of the diversity literature covers an even broader spectrum: “diversity may be seen as a characteristic of a social grouping (i.e., group, organization, society) that reflects the degree to which there are objective or subjective differences between people within the group (without presuming that group members are necessarily aware of objective differences or that subjective differences are strongly related to more objective differences)” (p. 519). Although there has been a proliferation of labels to distinguish different sources of diversity (e.g., Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pelled, 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), we adopt a distinction that we believe is consistent with the definitions provided here and more broadly encompasses both social psychological and organizational traditions.
Y101877.indb 254
3/17/10 3:44:51 PM
The Value of Diversity in Organizations • 255 We will use the term social category diversity to refer to distinctions that serve as a salient basis of categorization into in-group (people who are like me) and out-group (people who are not like me). This social category diversity may come from salient demographic characteristics such as race, gender, or nationality or any characteristic that may not be immediately visible yet can be rendered salient in the context and thus be used to categorize group members. Using this definition, characteristics such as functional background, geographic location, and political affiliation can be considered elements of social category diversity (e.g., Lount & Phillips, 2007; Phillips & Loyd, 2006). Furthermore, minimal distinctions such as ostensible preference for a type of painting or having a red shirt versus a blue shirt can also count as leading to social category diversity (e.g., Allen & Wilder, 1979). The critical feature here is that people use these social characteristics to tell themselves that some subset of the group of people is “like me” and that some of them are not (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Consistent with this typology, Harrison and colleagues adopted the term surface-level diversity, defined as salient characteristics that are more immediately apparent in groups (Harrison et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 1995; Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Riordan, 2000). Social category diversity exists alongside informational or opinion diversity in task groups. Informational diversity captures the differences in information, opinions, perspectives, and modes of thought and action that are relevant for the task at hand being completed by a group. When individuals are brought together to solve problems in groups, they often possess different information and perspectives that can be used to inform the group. In fact, for many problem-solving groups, which we concentrate on in this chapter, the very reason they are brought together is to garner the diverse knowledge and perspectives that are uniquely held by different group members (e.g., Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin, 2000; Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996; Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995). Much research on diversity in groups uses social category diversity such as functional background as a proxy for informational diversity. In our conceptualization the actual functional background differences themselves are considered social category diversity (e.g., marketing, engineering, finance), and the information, opinions and knowledge that these different individuals bring to the table is measured and conceptualized as informational diversity. Past organizational research on diversity has