Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The globalization of business, increased presence of women and minorities in the workforce and the use of teamwork has instigated a significant interest in the effects of work team diversity for a variety of
outcomes (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Some outcomes that have been
examined include: conflict (Jehn, 1994; Jehn, Chadwick & Thatcher,
1997; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999; Pelled, 1996a; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999; Pelled, Xin & Weiss, 2001); communication (AnThe research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the Australian
Research Council held by V. Callan, C. Gallois, E. Jones, and P. Bordia, and an Australian
Postgraduate Award Scholarship held by the first author. This research was part of the
first authors dissertation research.
Address correspondence to Prashant Bordia, School of Psychology, University of
Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, 4067, Australia; prashant@psy.uq.edu.au.
301
0889-3268/03/0300-0301/0 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
302
cona & Caldwell, 1992; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989); and social cohesion
(OReilly, Caldwell & Barnett, 1998; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998). This
research has examined work team diversity at the group level of analysis
and/or the individual level of analysis (Pelled, 1996a). At the group level,
the term group diversity is used to refer to the amount of heterogeneity
within a group or unit on certain characteristics such as informational
(e.g., professional background), visible (e.g., age) or value (e.g., work motivation) differences. At the individual level, the term individual dissimilarity is used to refer to the amount of relative difference between an
individual and other team members on these same characteristics (Jackson, May & Whitney, 1995). Thus, individual dissimilarity is similar to
group diversity in that it measures differences on the same characteristics, but different in that it measures an individuals distance from other
group members, rather than the amount of diversity within the group.
Although individual level analysis offers more insight into an individuals experience of being different from team members, research on
individual dissimilarity in teams is still in an early and developing
stage (Riordan & Shore, 1997, p. 343) compared to research on group
diversity. For example, research has only recently examined the influence of individual dissimilarity on individual involvement in conflict
(Pelled, Xin & Weiss, 2001) despite findings showing that individual dissimilarity (e.g., Jehn, 1994; Jehn et al., 1997; Pelled, 1996a) and group
diversity (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999, Pelled et al., 1999) are strongly related
to perceived group conflict. Similarly, group diversity research has examined the impact of various moderators (e.g., task type, time, debate) on
the effects of diversity (e.g., Harrison et al., 1998; Jehn et al., 1999;
Pelled et al., 1999; Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999; Timmerman, 2000).
Meanwhile, individual dissimilarity research has neglected to examine
moderators (e.g., Jackson et al., 1991; Kirchmeyer, 1993, 1995; Riordan & Shore, 1997; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). Thus, it appears that the
research into individual dissimilarity has lagged behind the research
into group diversity. Consequently, the current study aimed to extend
the dissimilarity literature by examining the individual-level consequences (conflict and work group involvement) of perceived individual
dissimilarity in teams, and potential moderators of these relationships.
PERCEIVED DISSIMILARITY
Dissimilarity refers to the degree to which two individuals share
common attributes or the degree to which an individuals attributes are
shared by other team members (Jackson, Stone & Alvarez, 1992). In
the current study, we examined individual dissimilarity to the team on
the following dimensions: informational, visible and values. Informational dissimilarity refers to being different from other group members
303
on characteristics such as profession, tenure, and work experience; visible dissimilarity refers to being different on visible attributes such as
age, gender and ethnicity; and value dissimilarity refers to differences
in work ethic, work values and motivations when approaching tasks.
Researchers have examined the consequences of these three different
categories of dissimilarity (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Baugh & Graen,
1997; Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Harrison et al., 1998; Jehn, 1994; Jehn
et al., 1997, 1999; Pelled, 1996a; Pelled et al., 1999, 2001; Tsui et al.,
1992).
Recently, researchers have discussed the importance of perceived
dissimilarity in explaining diversity outcomes (Hartel & Fujimoto, 1999;
Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey, 2000). Perceived dissimilarity is a subjective measure of dissimilarity where individuals rate how different
they think they are from other team members, in terms of various characteristics. Research using objective measures of dissimilarity assumes
that differences are recognised by team members, and that these objective differences impact upon team processes (Harrison et al., 2000). However, objective assessments of dissimilarity can fail to incorporate all
components of difference and certain characteristics may be more or less
salient to an individual. Thus, using a subjective measure of dissimilarity ensures that all recognisable differences are included.
Support for examining perceptions of dissimilarity is obtained from
a recent study by Randel (2000). She proposed that although there are
numerous social categories and associated identities than can affect behaviour, the identity or group that is most salient has the strongest impact on behaviour. She examined the categories that individuals used to
describe their work group (e.g., I think of my work group in terms of
women and men) and found that the more salient gender was to a group
member, the more relationship conflict was reported in the group. Her
results suggest that diversity calculated in terms of objective measures
is not identical to what is perceived by group members.
The importance of perceived dissimilarity has been further articulated in a few studies of team diversity and supervisor/subordinate dyad
differences. Harrison et al. (2000) found that perceived diversity mediated the impact of objective diversity upon social integration. In addition,
in an earlier study, Harrison and colleagues (1998) found support for the
link between objective and perceived diversity measures. Research into
supervisor/subordinate dyad differences have also demonstrated the positive association between objective dissimilarity and perceived dissimilarity (Strauss, Barrick & Connerley, 2001; Wayne & Liden, 1995), and
that the effects of perceived dissimilarity are stronger than the effects of
objective dissimilarity (Orpen, 1984; Turban & Jones, 1988; Strauss et
al., 2001). Further, in classic studies of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses (Rosenbaum, 1986a, 1986b), Singh and
Tan (1992) and Hoyle (1993) confirmed the proposed mediating role of
304
305
306
307
less attractive (Tsui et al., 1992) which may result in their attempting
to leave the group psychologically or in terms of membership (Turner et
al., 1987). Also, other team members may have negative perceptions of
the dissimilar individual, and may ignore their contributions to the team
(Elsass & Graves, 1997).
Although researchers have identified work group involvement as an
important facet of successful diverse teams, there has been little empirical examination of it in the context of diversity. Three studies have examined work group involvement-related constructs in the context of
team diversity (Baugh & Graen, 1997; Kirchmeyer, 1995; Lichtenstein et
al., 1997). Lichtenstein et al. (1997) found that individuals within teams
diverse on age reported less participation in decision-making. Similarly,
Baugh and Graen (1997) found that individuals in teams heterogeneous
in gender reported less effective teamwork (which included items measuring willingness to share critical information and involvement in the
project among group members). Kirchmeyer (1995) also found that perceived age, education and lifestyle dissimilarity were associated with
poorer work group fita construct similar to work group involvement, as
it relates to an individuals integration with the work group, including
access to informal sources of information.
Research into other consequences of dissimilarity and minority status
also provides support for the negative relationship between dissimilarity
and work group involvement. Research has found that demographically
dissimilar or minority individuals have lower group or organisational
commitment (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992), lower task contributions (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992; Kirchmeyer, 1993), less frequent
communication (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), lower perceptions of organizational fairness and inclusiveness (Mor-Barak, Cherin & Berkman,
1998) and have fewer organizational contacts (Ibarra, 1995) than similar
or majority individuals. In terms of value (attitudes, cultural and work
values) differences, research has found that value differences are associated with lower group cohesiveness (Terborg, Castore & CeNinno, 1976;
Harrison et al., 1998), lower number of conversation exchanges (Oetzel,
1998), higher perceptions of discrimination (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994),
lower group and job satisfaction and performance, intent to remain in
the group, and commitment to the organisation and group (Jehn, 1994;
Jehn et al., 1997; Jehn et al., 1999; Meglino et al., 1989).
The research reviewed suggests that all types of dissimilarity are
associated with more negative attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
Even though previous research has identified team integration as an
important factor of successful diverse teams, there has been no specific
test of the relationship between dissimilarity and level of work group
involvement. Thus, in the current study, we directly tested the association between the three categories of dissimilarity and individuals work
308
309
310
ent services, corporate and executive services) and professional levels within
a large public sector organization were randomly selected and mailed a survey package. Participants were requested to fill them in and return them
within 1 week in a pre-paid envelope. A reminder letter was posted to all
potential participants a week later. One hundred and twenty-nine employees returned completed questionnaires leading to a 49% useable response
rate. The final sample consisted of 76 females and 53 males, with an average age of 38.74 years and 6.5 years working in the organization.
The public sector organization provided essential services to the
community and employed team-based work such that all employees worked
in a defined team on a daily or weekly basis. Teams were characterized
by a high degree of task interdependence, and moderate levels of distributed expertise (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). There
was little status difference among team members, and team members
had defined roles and different expertise. Tasks were divided based on
members roles yet members were required to interact with each other
to achieve a common goal (Baker & Salas, 1997; Salas et al., 1992), and
the teams final decision was made by the team leader (Phillips, 2001).
Measures
A survey was developed to measure all variables of interest. The
measures were extensively pilot-tested to ensure applicability to the organizations work environment and comprehensibility. This pilot testing
involved interviewing 20 employees from the organization and asking
them to complete various sections of the survey. Interviewees provided
feedback and offered suggestions for improvement.
Two items were developed for each type of perceived dissimilarity,
which were all measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). A factor analysis (principal components extraction with
varimax rotation) was conducted and supported the three factor structure of the scale (see Table 1). Cronbach alphas for perceived visible,
informational and value dissimilarity were .79, .80 and .87, respectively.
We also developed items to measure individual involvement in task and
relationship conflict. These were based on the Intragroup Conflict Scale
(Jehn, 1995) which measures perceived group conflict. All questions were
anchored by 1 (never) and 5 (a lot). A factor analysis (principal components extraction with varimax rotation) was conducted and supported
the two factor structure of the scale (see Table 2). Cronbach alphas for
task and relationship conflict were .78 and .82, respectively.
The items measuring perceived group openness to visible, informational and value diversity were adapted from an existing measure of
openness to diversity by Edison, Nora, Hagedorn and Terenzini (1996)
and were also based on Hartel and Fujimotos (1999) definition of open-
311
RESULTS
Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations between the variables. Means showed that levels of dissimilarity and conflict were at the midpoint of the scale, and levels of openness to diversity
and work group involvement were above the midpoint of the scale. Most
of the correlations were in the predicted direction.
Further testing of the hypothesized relationships between variables
was conducted using Multiple Regression. Main effects were entered in
the first step and interaction terms (to test the hypotheses on moderation) in the second step. Following Aiken and Wests (1991) procedures
for conducting moderated multiple regression, the variables were meancentered and the interactions that had significant effects were plotted.
312
Table 1
Factor Analysis of Perceived Dissimilarity Scale Items
IND
VSD
VLD
.85
.36
.16
.81
.36
.17
.78
.36
.27
.17
.89
.19
.43
.22
.80
.16
.25
.92
Note. IND = informational dissimilarity; VSD = visible dissimilarity; VLD = value dissimilarity. Italicized statistics represent the highest loadings on that factor.
p < .05, and task conflict, = .38, p < .001, supporting Hypothesis 3 and
4. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported.
When the interaction terms were added in step 2, the increase in
variance was significant for task conflict, R2change = .04, Fchange = 2.28, p =
.08, but not for relationship conflict, R2change = .02, Fchange = .96, ns. A significant interaction between value dissimilarity and perceived group openness to value diversity was found for task conflict, = .22, p < .05. Providing partial support for Hypothesis 8, this interaction showed that the
positive association between value dissimilarity and task conflict was
significant when individuals perceived low group openness to value diversity, t(54) = 4.08, p < .001, but not significant when individuals perceived
high group openness to value diversity, t(54) = 1.22, ns (see Figure 1).
Association Between Perceived Dissimilarity
and Work Group Involvement
Table 5 also shows the hierarchical regression analyses that tested
the associations between dissimilarity and work group involvement,
along with the moderating impact of perceived group openness. Dissimilarity and perceived group openness explained a significant amount of
variance in work group involvement, R2 = .37, F(6, 122) = 11.85, p < .001.
Perceived value dissimilarity was negatively related to work group
313
Table 2
Factor Analysis of Perceived Group Openness to Diversity Scale Items
Members . . .
enjoy doing jobs with people whose work values and/or motivations are different
make an extra effort to listen to people who hold different work
values and/or motivations
are keen to learn from people who have different work values
and/or motivations
enjoy doing jobs with people of different ethnicity, gender, and/or
age
make an extra effort to listen to people of different ethnicity, gender, and/or age
are keen to learn from people who are of different ethnicity, gender, and/or age
enjoy doing jobs with people from different professional backgrounds and/or work experiences
make an extra effort to listen to people who are from different professional backgrounds and/or work experiences
are keen to learn from people who are from different professional
backgrounds and/or work experiences
Eigenvalue
% variance explained
Cumulative % variance explained
.89
.19
.22
.74
.34
.45
.64
.31
.55
.16
.85
.26
.26
.85
.28
.28
.83
.33
.38
.32
.76
.31
.34
.82
.25
.30
.85
2.71
30.09
30.09
2.20
24.45
54.54
2.82
31.28
85.82
314
Table 3
Factor Analysis of Conflict Scale Items
Task
Relationship
Conflict
Conflict
I have been involved in disagreements over how to do tasks with
other group members
I have found that my ideas over task procedure are different
from those of other group members
I have been involved in task disagreements with other group
members
I have found that my task ideas are different from those of other
group members
I have been involved in interpersonal disagreements with other
group members
I have found that my personality conflicts with those of other
group members
Eigenvalue
% variance explained
Cumulative % variance explained
.63
.53
.76
.29
.77
.23
.77
.01
.26
.87
.09
.91
2.24
37.31
37.31
1.99
33.21
70.51
sity, t(54) = 2.41, p < .05, but was not significantly related to work group
involvement when individuals perceived low group openness to informational diversity, t(54) = .60, ns.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to extend the diversity literature by investigating
the impact of perceived dissimilarity upon involvement in conflict and
work group involvement, as well as the moderating role of perceived
group openness to diversity. Results provided support for the associations between dissimilarity and individual involvement in conflict and
group task processes. Further, we found some support for the moderating influence of perceived group openness to diversity. These results provide insight into how to improve the experiences of dissimilar employees.
Overall we found that: 1) the higher individuals dissimilarity in values,
the more involved they were with task and relationship conflict, and the
less involved they were in the group; 2) individuals dissimilarity in values interacted with openness to value diversity to predict task conflict;
and 3) individuals visible and informational dissimilarity both interacted with perceived group openness to diversity to predict work group
involvement. These associations are discussed in more detail below.
.80
.84
.87
.88
.74
.75
3.48
3.54
3.26
2.03
2.90
3.94
(.91)
.34*** .43***
.68*** (.92)
.30*** .40***
.64***
.78*** (.90)
.21*
.34*** .32*** .36*** .23**
(.82)
.17
.38*** .13
.28*** .17
.49*** (.78)
.40*** .48***
.45***
.51***
.47*** .39*** .25** (.87)
.21*
.17
.24**
.20*
.28**
.31*** .30***
.18*
(.87)
(.80)
.62***
(.79)a
.59***
.55***
1.12
1.14
1.07
2.38
2.68
2.70
1. Visible dissimilarity
2. Informational dissimilarity
3. Value dissimilarity
4. Perceived group openness to visible
diversity
5. Perceived group openness to informational
diversity
6. Perceived group openness to value diversity
7. Relationship conflict
8. Task conflict
9. Work group involvement
SD
Mean
Variable
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among the Study Variables
316
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Conflict
and Work Group Involvement
Task Conflict
Relationship
Conflict
Work Group
Involvement
Variable
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
PVSD
PIND
PVLD
OVSD
OIND
OVLD
.05
.13
.38***
.07
.31*
.14
.07
.16
.37**
.07
.30*
.21
.10
.10
.23*
.18
.31*
.20
.08
.10
.26*
.13
.35*
.17
.01
.12
.25*
.15
.19
.09
.04
.11
.29**
.06
.25*
.15
PVSD OVSD
PIND OIND
PVLD OVLD
R2
R2
Adjusted R2
.04
.17
.22*
.18***
.14
.04
.23***
.17
.14
.13
.07
.21***
.17
.02
.23***
.17
.21*
.22*
.09
.37***
.34
.04*
.41***
.37
Note. The values for the main effects and interaction terms are the standardised beta
() coefficients.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Figure 1
Regression Slopes for Value Dissimilarity Predicting Task Conflict
317
Figure 2a
Regression Slopes for Visible Dissimilarity Predicting Work Group Involvement
Figure 2b
Regression Slopes for Informational Dissimilarity Predicting
Work Group Involvement
318
319
320
conflicts as value similar individuals. In contrast, when individuals perceived that their group was not open to talking with people with different
values, dissimilar individuals were more likely to be engaged in task
conflict compared to similar members. Although the level of task conflict
experienced by these value dissimilar individuals was not high, the positive association between dissimilarity and conflict indicated a disproportionate amount of task debate arising from value dissimilar individuals.
Such a situation could be detrimental, as similar individuals did not discuss their own opinions, which could stifle creativity and lead to groupthink (Janis, 1972, 1982). When individuals perceived that the group
was open to value diversity, the amount of conflict experienced by dissimilar and similar individuals was equivalent. Thus, openness to value
diversity may help to create a climate of fairness and openness to task
discussion within a team.
The positive influence of perceived group openness on the associations between dissimilarity and work group involvement and conflict indicates that group openness to diversity has a strong impact on individuals in terms of their interactions within the group. These results support
previous discussions on the importance of developing supportive diversity climates. Groups with high openness to diversity facilitate communication that is more open, fair and explorative, and involve dissimilar
individuals in team processes, thereby effectively using the diversity
available in the team (Cox, 1991; Elsass & Graves, 1997; Ely & Thomas,
2001; Larkey, 1996).
Limitations and Future Research
This study included a sample of 129 participants. This is a relatively
small sample size compared to the number of variables estimated in our
model. A larger, more comprehensive study is warranted to confirm our
findings and explore other relationships between the variables. The
study also used an explicit self-reported openness to diversity measure.
Previous research on explicit and implicit measures of prejudicial attitudes has shown that social behavior often operates in an implicit or
unconscious fashion (for a review see Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). For
example, people who explicitly object to prejudice have been found to
display discrimination (e.g., Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983). In the current study, given the political nature of diversity, our explicit measure
of openness to diversity may have failed to capture the groups openness
to diversity adequately. Because we were asking individuals to rate their
group, it is likely that our measure was more accurate in its measurement of actual behavior, compared to measures that ask individuals to
rate their own behavior. Nevertheless, research in the area of social cognition has called for the increased use of indirect measures; thus, future
321
322
323
324
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups. Their performance and reactions
with constructive conflict. Group & Organization Management, 17(2), 153170.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kossek, E. E., Zonia, S. C., & Young, W. (1996). The limitations of organizational demography: Can diversity climate be enhanced in the absence of teamwork? In M. N. Ruderman, M. W. Hughes-James, and S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Selected research on work team
diversity (pp. 121152). Washington D. C., American Psychological Association.
Larkey, L. K. (1996). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 463491.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J. A., Jinnett, K., & Ullman, E. (1997). Embedded intergroup
relations in interdisciplinary teams. Effects on perceptions of level of team integration.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(4), 413434.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making
groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), 531552.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate
culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424432.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 402433.
Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding
of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in
Social Work, 22(1), 4764.
Mor-Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 82104.
Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and
heterogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human
Communication Research, 25(2), 202224.
OReilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 2137.
Orpen, C. (1984). Attitude similarity, attraction, and decision-making in the employment
interview. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 111120.
Pelled, L. H. (1996a). Relational demography and perception of group conflict and performance: A field investigation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(3),
230246.
Pelled, L. H. (1996b). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis
of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44, 128.
Pelled, L. H., Xin, K. R., & Weiss, A. M. (2001). No es como mi: Relational demography and
conflict in a Mexican production facility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 6384.
Phillips, J. M. (2001). The role of decision influence and team performance in member selfefficacy, withdrawal, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to return. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 122147.
Randel, A. E. (2000). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender
composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749766.
Riordan, C. M. & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An
empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(3), 342358.
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986a). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11561166.
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986b). Comment on a proposed two-stage theory of relationship formation: First, repulsion; then attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 11711172.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an under-
325
standing of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams:
Their training and performance (pp. 329). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In L. L.
Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 131).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schneider, S. K., & Northcraft, G. B. (1999). Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity
in organizations: A social identity perspective. Human Relations, 52 (11), 14451467.
Shaw, J. B., & Barrett-Power, E. (1998). The effects of diversity on small work group processes and performance. Human Relations, 51, 13071325.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate,
and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(6), 662673.
Singh, R., & Tan, L. S. C. (1992). Attitudes and attraction: A test of the similarity-attraction
and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 227238.
Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerly, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personality
similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role
of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
637657.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
7798). London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347).
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of
the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 784790.
Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592606.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & OReilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography
and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549579.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, Effects, and
Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228234.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 1540). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tafjel
(Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology: Vol. 2. (pp.
518538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., &Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis. A. R. (1994). Social identity maintenance prescriptions for
preventing groupthink: Reducing identity protection and enhancing intellectual conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 254270.
Vecchio, R. P., & Bullis, R. C. (2001). Moderators of the influence of supervisor-subordinate
similarity on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 885896.
Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & OReilly, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top-management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,7492.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590602.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance
ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal. 38(1), 232260.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group
heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy
of Management Journal, 36(5), 9961025.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353376.