Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
multinational workgroups
National
diversity and
conflict
181
Received 29 May 2006
Accepted 22 December 2006
Abstract
Purpose To develop a theory to explain how national diversity within a workgroup can lead to
intra-group conflict, and how this effect may be exacerbated in the presence of nationalistic attitudes.
Design/methodology/approach Defines and discusses what national diversity is and why it is
relevant to multinational organizations. Then constructs a multi-level, theoretical framework to
propose the conditions under which national diversity may lead to high levels of conflict. Describes
and explains the role of nationalism (i.e. individuals attitude towards their and others nationalities) in
diverse workgroups and explore the moderating effect of nationalism on the relationship between
national diversity and intra-group conflict.
Findings Proposes that in nationally diverse workgroups the presence of workgroup members
with strong nationalistic attitudes (e.g. ingroup favoritism and outgroup rejection) will exacerbate the
likelihood that national diversity may lead to relationship conflict and process conflict, and that it will
weaken the likelihood that national diversity leads to task conflict.
Originality/value The model demonstrates the necessity of examining national diversity and the
factors and conditions, such as the presence of nationalistic attitudes that may hinder the potential of a
nationally diverse workgroup.
Keywords National cultures, Conflict, Group work
Paper type Research paper
When organizations strive to create the most effective workgroups, they bring together
individuals with relevant skills and capacities. The search for skilled employees may
often result in the construction of nationally diverse workgroups. In addition, since
workgroups are increasingly operating in multinational contexts (Earley and
Mosakowski, 2000; Milliken and Martins, 1996), it is important to understand how
national diversity may affect groups and group outcomes.
Research on diversity, in general, has found that diverse groups often prove
ineffective at capitalizing on the potential benefits of their diversity for a variety of
reasons such as lack of social integration and high turnover (Jackson et al., 1991;
OReilly et al., 1989), conflict (Jehn et al., 1999), competition (Reagans, 2005), and
demographic differences (Alexander et al., 1995). Despite the growing importance of
national diversity in workgroups, little research has specifically theorized about the
relationship between national diversity and conflict. Additionally, little research has
focused on the attitudes or biases towards specific forms of diversity and how these
may influence the effect of diversity on group processes. In this article, we thus extend
the theory on diversity and conflict by specifically examining the relationship between
national diversity and intragroup conflict. Additionally, we introduce the concept of
IJCMA
17,3
182
nationalism into the small group literature and discuss the possible ways in which
members nationalism may accentuate or diminish the relationship between national
diversity and intragroup conflict.
In examining how diversity may help or hinder organizations, researchers have
proposed that the type of diversity can determine whether or not diversity will be
useful or harmful (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999a). To
figure out how to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits, we need to understand
all dimensions and types of diversity. One type of diversity often understudied in the
organizational literature, but identified as salient and important in organizational
workgroups, is national diversity (Earley and Mosakowski, 2000; Hofstede, 1980;
Laurent, 1983). We define national diversity as represented by the number and
distribution of different national backgrounds of the workgroup members (Dahlin et al.,
2005).
We propose that national diversity is likely to be an especially salient and
influential form of diversity, particularly in modern workgroups, for several reasons.
First of all, past research has shown that some diversity characteristics have a larger
impact than others (Miles, 1964; Tsui et al., 1992). For example, when placed in a
multinational organization, Laurent (1983) noted that Germans become more German;
Americans become more American, and so on. This reaffirmation effect (Bakker, 2005;
Kozmitski, 1996) explains why some identity characteristics become more salient in
certain contexts (e.g. nationality in a multinational workgroup). Rivenburgh (1997) also
noted that national identities are context dependent, situational, and dynamic.
Therefore, when members are placed in multinational workgroups, they are likely to
perceive the national differences and differentiate workgroup members into national
categories (Jenkins, 1997).
A second reason why national diversity may be particularly salient in workgroups
is its relevance to global political events. As workgroups become more nationally
diverse (Paletz et al., 2004), national differences become even more pronounced due to
the international history and current events of the nations involved. Li and Brewer
(2004) sampled the American public after the September 11 incident and studied
national attitudes and the tolerance of diversity. They observed that priming
conditions of events like September 11 influenced identification, loyalty, and cohesion
towards ones national ingroup and reduced tolerance of cultural diversity which
reinforced negative attitudes towards other national groups. Li and Brewer (2004)
noted that there are restricted identification criteria (e.g. belonging to the same nation)
that reinforce the negative attitudes towards other nationalities. Devos and Banaji
(2005) also observed how stereotypes, based on nationalistic identification, guide
responses such as exclusion of dissimilar others and inclusion of similar others. Brief
et al. (2005) noted that bringing whites closer to blacks increased the perception of
interethnic conflict in whites as they developed negative responses to diversity. This
means that when diverse members are brought together in a workgroup, they may
experience conflict due to individual attitudes that already exist and that may be
reinforced by the interdependent workgroup conditions.
A third reason that national diversity is likely to be particularly salient in
multinational workgroups is the associated histories and tradition that nationality
carries with it, making it often used in categorization processes. For example,
workgroup members often refer to the social and political histories, and the cultural
National
diversity and
conflict
183
Figure 1.
A model of the
relationship between
national diversity and
conflict types moderated
by nationalism
IJCMA
17,3
184
describe how individual members of a workgroup will perceive national diversity and
how this may lead them to engage in national categorization and the processes of
inclusion and exclusion (Spencer and Wollman, 2002). The perception of national
diversity is thus expected to lead to conflict among the group members. This
relationship between national diversity and conflict will be further exacerbated when
members hold strong nationalistic attitudes (national favoritism and nationalistic
derogation). To continue with our earlier example of a nationally diverse group, if the
multinational workgroup of Americans and Arabs has members with strong feelings
of national favoritism and outgroup derogation (that is, nationalism) the likelihood and
escalation of conflict will be greater than in a workgroup with the same composition,
but where the members do not hold strong nationalistic feelings and attitudes. We
elaborate on the theoretical rationale behind this example below.
National diversity and conflict
While diversity has generally been found to have mixed effects on group outcomes (see
Williams and OReilly, 1998), diversity specific to certain attributes like gender, age,
race, and nationality (Cummings et al., 1993) has been found to lead to negative
workplace processes such as conflict and communication (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al.,
1999b) and performance outcomes (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996). Williams
and OReilly (1998) suggest that researchers examine a more complex framework of the
nature of diversity in order to understand the findings in the diversity literature. They
stressed the importance of moderating factors and intervening variables to explain the
effects of diversity. Additionally, conflict has been found to be a key intervening
variable between diversity and group outcomes, yet the effects of diversity on conflict
are not clear-cut (Bayazit and Mannix, 2003; Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996). Therefore,
to reconcile these discrepancies in past research, add to the understanding of diversity
in workgroups, we propose that national diversity in particular is an important factor
that will have a major impact as a predictor of conflict specifically in multinational
workgroups since nationality has been found to have a distinct and often a more
significant influence than other demographic characteristics (Miles, 1964; Tsui et al.,
1992). Additionally, we discuss nationalism as a new attitudinal moderating factor to
explain the specific relationship of national diversity and conflict in multinational
workgroups.
Conflict has been broadly defined as perceived interpersonal incompatibilities or
discrepant views (Deutsch, 1973). Jehn (1997) identified three main types of conflict.
The first type is relationship conflict, which is, by definition, conflict about
interpersonal incompatibilities among group members. The second type of conflict is
task conflict which may develop in workgroups due to disagreements among group
members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in
viewpoints, ideas, and opinions. The third type of conflict, process conflict, is defined
as disagreements about logistical issues, such as the assignments of responsibilities or
resources, or the setting of an agenda. Many early theories focused on the negative
aspects of conflict and suggested that conflict is detrimental to organizational
functioning (e.g. Blake and Mouton, 1984; Wall and Nolan, 1986). In fact, recent studies
such as De Dreu and Weingarts (2003) meta-analysis continue to stress the negative
effects of conflict on group performance and satisfaction. However, some research has
found that conflicts, such as task conflicts, can be beneficial under certain
circumstances (Amason, 1996; see Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). These contradictory
findings suggest that the debate of whether conflict is beneficial or detrimental in
diverse workgroups is still ongoing and that conflict may have negative or positive
consequences for different task types and group compositions. Therefore, we propose a
model of national diversity and individual member attitudes suggesting that some
types of conflict are detrimental in multinational teams (e.g. relationship conflict) while
other types may be beneficial in a multinational group setting (e.g. task conflict).
Research continues to attempt to identify types of diversity that may lead to either
advantageous or deleterious conflict as well as investigating how to maximize the
benefits of conflict (e.g. Hinds and Mortensen, 2005; Jehn et al., 1999; Yang and
Mossholder, 2004). We provide a detailed view of national diversity in workgroups and
the individual attitudes that influence intragroup conflict. National diversity has been
identified as an important diversity type and has also been found to influence
relationship conflict (Bayazit and Mannix, 2003). Bayazit and Mannix (2003) were
mainly interested in relationship conflict as a mediator of the relationship between
nationality diversity and intent to remain in the team. For a more complete theoretical
understanding of how national diversity may affect the group members overall
experience of conflict and whether national diversity can lead to positive conflict or
negative conflict, we propose a model of national diversity and relationship conflict,
task conflict, and process conflict moderated by member attitudes (i.e. nationalism).
National diversity and relationship conflict
First, based on past demographic diversity research, we propose that national diversity
will lead to relationship conflict for three reasons: decreased relationship quality,
decreased group integration, and increased categorization processes. The quality of
interpersonal relationships is lowered as diversity increases in groups (Riordan and
Shore, 1997). Brief et al. (2005) found lower quality work relationships in racially
diverse organizations as compared to less racially diverse organizations. Similarly,
different nationalities in a workgroup can trigger intergroup discrimination just by the
awareness that other nationalities are present since nationalities are often made
stereotypically salient, for example, through media portrayals (Rivenburgh, 1997).
Consider a group composed of Americans working together with Arabs or Chinese. We
suggest that in such a group, the national diversity may be associated with
relationship conflict due to national category differences and stereotypes stimulated by
members perception of national diversity.
Research has also shown that group integration (the degree of connectedness or
cohesion among group members (Shaw, 1981)) and member communication also suffer
when diversity increases (OReilly et al., 1989; Smith et al., 1994; Triandis, 1994). The
categorization processes associated with diversity may also lead to heightened levels of
intragroup conflict (Thatcher and Jehn, 1998). Hinds and Bailey (2003) noted that
international teams engage in group dynamics that use an us-versus-them attitude.
This is consistent with the self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985) which states that
dissimilarity impedes work-unit friendships as a function of perceived differences
among the members. The differences are likely to trigger categorization and
stereotyping (Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Thatcher and Jehn, 1998; Tsui et al., 1992). Jehn
et al. (1999) found that social category diversity resulted in increased relationship
conflict (also OReilly et al., 1989; Pelled, 1996; Pelled et al., 1999b), and based their
National
diversity and
conflict
185
IJCMA
17,3
186
The more nationally diverse a workgroup is, the more likely the members are
to experience relationship conflict than the members of a workgroup with low
national diversity.
The more nationally diverse a workgroup is, the more likely the members are
to experience task conflict than the members of a workgroup with low
national diversity.
The more nationally diverse a workgroup is, the more likely the members are
to experience process conflict than the members of a workgroup with low
national diversity.
National
diversity and
conflict
187
IJCMA
17,3
188
Ethnocentrism is when an individual views his or hers own specific group (formed on
the basis of any group identifying criteria, e.g. national group) as the pivotal focus,
which is used as the reference point to rate all other groups and is considered to be the
right and the superior group (Sumner, 1906). Past research has defined nationalism as a
form of ethnocentrism that combines positive feelings towards ones own national
group and bias towards other national groups (Federico et al., 2005; Schatz and Staub,
1997). Although nationalism has yet to be explored within an organizational context,
we can anticipate its presence among the workers and make predictions about its
influence on group processes such as conflict on the basis of cultural and racioethnic
research findings (Cramton and Hinds, 2005; Shaffer et al., 2006). Nationalism is
context-specific as are other attitudes and thus has the potential to become more
manifest in a multinational environment where the workgroups are diverse and likely
comparisons with members from other nations are made. This can lead to biased
attitudes and perceived discrimination that influences the relationship of diversity to
conflict within the group. Correspondingly, we propose that, if members of a nationally
diverse workgroup hold strong nationalistic attitudes, then the relationship between
national diversity and conflict will be moderated by the level of members nationalism.
A presence of one or more nationalistic members in a nationally diverse workgroup
will influence the group processes, such as the group members experience of conflict.
We presume that nationalism will exacerbate negative group interactions in a
nationally diverse group. Nationalistic members will find the means to defend their
own nationality and they will seek different ways to derogate other nations (Aberson
et al., 2000). We propose that when group members are highly nationalistic, national
diversity is more likely to lead to destructive conflict forms such as relationship and
process conflict, but less likely to lead to task conflict.
Nationalism and relationship conflict
We propose that nationalism can aggravate potential relationship conflict situations in
nationally diverse workgroups. It can incite emotions such as discomfort, irritation,
and hatred (Peterson, 2002; Scheff, 1994). Nationalism can also be highly influential in
how group members communicate with members of other nations in their group.
Nationalistic attitudes have been found to be associated with negative attitudes such as
hostility towards outgroups (Adorno et al., 1950; LeVine and Campbell, 1972; Perreault
and Bourhis, 1999). In our earlier example of the diverse workgroup with Arab and
American members, we would suggest that if the members have strong nationalistic
attitudes, that is, if they believe that their own country is far superior to the other
nation represented in the group, any relationship conflict will be exacerbated by the
feelings of superiority and outgroup hostility. The same conflict in a similarly diverse
group where members do not have such strong nationalistic attitudes will not be
loaded with such potential underlying biases that could further escalate conflicts. The
presence of nationalistic group members will increase the likelihood that relationship
conflict will occur in multinational groups.
Strongly nationalistic people are inclined to maintain distance and to avoid contact
(Ibarra, 1995) with people from other nations. However, in an interdependent
multinational workgroup, this is not entirely possible. Therefore, any contact which
may be necessary can bring anxiety (Stephan and Stephan, 1985). The tension will
increase as nationalistic individuals work in a group with members from other nations
National
diversity and
conflict
189
IJCMA
17,3
190
and their attitudes motivate negative national comparisons, outgroup hostility, and
derogation. Earley and Mosakowski (2000) observed that international teams
differentiate across differences and thus experience interpersonal conflict. They
suggested that relationship conflict can be exaggerated due to different beliefs and
attitudes that can be held by international team members. We specify these attitudinal
differences as those of nationalism and propose that when a nationally diverse
workgroup has members with strong nationalistic attitudes, there will be amplified
relationship conflict. Specifically, we propose that nationalism will intensify the
relationship conflict experienced in a nationally diverse group as shown in Figure 1.
P4.
good ideas are a threat to his/her nationalistic identification of being superior. As such,
this will decrease the value that the group members find in communicating with
diverse others about the task at hand.
Individuals make an effort to keep their belief system intact and find means and
methods to reinforce them, with the help of self-serving biases (Zuckerman, 1979).
Instead of facilitating each other in a group, nationalistic members will remain aloof
from dissimilar others in order to preserve their pride and superiority, or the
distinctiveness, of their ingroup. Contact will be avoided as much as possible and this
will, in turn, reinforce distances and boundaries (Hewstone and Greenland, 2000;
Mullick and Hraba, 2001). Knowledge or expertise cannot lead to performance
improvements when it is not applied or shared. Nationalism, thus, negatively
influences interaction and cooperation by denying any positive debate or
information-exchange among members in diverse groups. We, therefore, propose
that nationalism will moderate the positive relationship between national diversity and
task conflict such that any task conflict possible due to national diversity will be
lowered in the presence of nationalism (see Figure 1).
P5.
National
diversity and
conflict
191
IJCMA
17,3
conflict due to national diversity, as proposed earlier, will be worsened in groups with
high levels of nationalism. We, thus, propose that the positive relationship between
national diversity and process conflict will be strengthened in the presence of
nationalistic group members as shown in Figure 1.
P6.
192
Discussion
In this paper, we have identified national diversity and nationalism as important
factors in multinational workgroups due to the strong attributes and attitudes that are
associated with them. We propose that national diversity may lead to increased
relationship, task, and process conflicts. Nationalism was introduced as a specific type
of attitude which was proposed to exacerbate the effect of national diversity on
relationship and process conflict. Any beneficial task conflict was proposed to be
diminished in the presence of nationalism.
Our model opposes the commonly argued optimistic value-in-diversity hypothesis
(see Mannix and Neale, 2005) because we speculate that national diversity leads to
destructive conflict. While we agree that national diversity brings a richness of various
qualities that can lead to constructive task debates, it may also create differences and
doubts which can lead to more negative processes, such as relationship or process
conflicts. In addition, we introduced nationalism in our model as an attitude that may not
only hinder the effectiveness of a nationally diverse group, but may also cause members
to distance themselves from one another, thus limiting any opportunity for positive
contact or learning (work-related or interpersonal learning) from other group members.
In sum, we proposed a model about the relationship between national diversity and
relationship, task, and process conflict. We described nationalism as a main
moderating factor of this relationship and proposed that when a nationally diverse
workgroup is composed of strongly nationalistic members, the relationship between
national diversity and both relationship conflict and process conflict will be
strengthened. Task conflict, however, was proposed to decrease in nationally diverse
groups that contain strongly nationalistic members. In order to manage conflict in
nationally diverse groups, the role of nationalism is important in understanding how
group member attitudes and biases are reinforced in contexts such as multinational
groups where they are likely to lead to problematic behaviors.
We hope this model provides interesting pathways for future research on diversity
and conflict. For example, empirical research should consider different forms and
views of diversity composition (Harrison and Klein, in press) regarding nationality to
examine how national diversity is related to conflict types. Research has generally
tended to study national diversity or nationality as social category diversity (e.g.
Bayazit and Mannix, 2003; Hinds and Bailey, 2003), leading to negative group
processes or outcomes. However, positive group processes might be expected if
national diversity is considered as knowledge diversity. We have, for that reason,
proposed that national diversity can lead to task conflict; that is, if the knowledge
National
diversity and
conflict
193
IJCMA
17,3
194
National
diversity and
conflict
195
IJCMA
17,3
196
References
Aberson, C.L., Healy, M. and Romero, V. (2000), Ingroup bias and self-esteem: a meta analysis,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 157-73.
Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South-Western
Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH.
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. and Sanford, N. (1950), The Authoritarian
Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alexander, J., Nuchols, B., Bloom, J. and Lee, S. (1995), Organizational demography and
turnover: an examination of multiform and nonlinear heterogeneity, Human Relations,
Vol. 48, pp. 1455-80.
Allport, G. (1935), Attitudes, in Murchison, C. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology,
Clark University Press, Worcester, MA, pp. 798-844.
Allport, G. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
Alter, P. (1985), Nationalism, 2nd ed., Edward Arnold, London.
Amason, A. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48.
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), Demography and design: predictors of new product
team performance, Organization Science, Vol. 5, pp. 321-41.
Armstrong, D.J. and Cole, P. (1995), Managing distances and differences in geographically
distributed work groups, in Jackson, S.E. and Rudderman, M.N. (Eds), Diversity in Work
Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 187-216.
Bakker, W. (2005), Emigration and well-being: the role of personality and cultural identity in
acculturation, PhD Dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden.
Bantel, K. and Jackson, S.E. (1989), Top management and innovation in banking: does the
composition of the top team make a difference?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 107-24.
Bayazit, M. and Mannix, E.A. (2003), Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members
intent to remain in the team, Small Group Research, Vol. 34, pp. 290-321.
Billiet, J., Maddens, B. and Beerten, R. (2003), National identity and attitude toward foreigners in
a multinational state: a replication, Political Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 241-57.
Blake, R. and Mouton, J. (1984), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Blank, T. and Schmidt, P. (2003), National identity in a united Germany: nationalism or
patriotism? An empirical test with representative data, Political Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 289-312.
Bogardus, E.S. (1967), Measuring social distances, in Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Readings in Attitude
Theory and Measurement, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 71-6.
Brewer, M.B. (1999), The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or outgroup hate?, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 429-44.
Brewer, M.B. (2000), Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: effects of multiple social
identities, in Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, The Claremont
Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 165-83.
Brewer, M.B. (2001), Social identity theory and change in intergroup relations, in Capozza, D.
and Brown, R. (Eds), Social Identity Processes: Trends in Theory and Research, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 117-31.
Brief, A.P., Umphress, E.E., Dietz, J., Burrows, J.W., Butz, R.M. and Scholten, L. (2005),
Community matters: realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 830-44.
Calhoun, C. (1997), Nationalism, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Cramton, C.D. and Hinds, P.J. (2005), Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams:
ethnocentrism or cross-national learning?, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26,
pp. 231-63.
Cummings, A., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (1993), Demographic differences and employees work
outcomes: effects of multiple comparison groups, paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Cummings, J.N. (2004), Workgroups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 352-64.
Dahlin, K.B., Weingart, L.R. and Hinds, P.A. (2005), Team diversity and information use,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1107-23.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88
No. 4, pp. 741-9.
Dekker, H. (2001), Nationalism, its conceptualisation and operationalisation, in Phalet, K. and
Orkeny, A. (Eds), Ethnic Minorities and Interethnic Relations in Context, Ashgate
Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
Dekker, H., Malova, D. and Hoogendoorn, S. (2003), Nationalism and its explanations, Political
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 345-76.
Dennen, J.M.G. (1987), Ethnocentrism and in-group/out-group differentiation: a review and
interpretation of the literature, in Reynolds, V., Falger, V. and Vine, I. (Eds),
The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia,
Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism, Croom Helm, London, pp. 1-47.
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Devos, T. and Banaji, M.R. (2005), American White?, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 447-66.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
San Diego, CA.
Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
transnational team functioning, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
Elsass, P.M. and Graves, L.M. (1997), Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the
experience of women and people of color, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22,
pp. 946-73.
Federico, C.M., Golec, A. and Dial, J.L. (2005), The relationship between the need for closure and
support for military action against Iraq: moderating effects of national attachment,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 621-32.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E. and Schneider, S.C. (2003), Experiencing diversity, conflict, and
emotions in teams, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 413-40.
National
diversity and
conflict
197
IJCMA
17,3
198
Gellner, E. (1983), Nations and Nationalism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Green, D.P. and Seher, R.L. (2003), What role does prejudice play in ethnic conflict?, Annual
Review of Political Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 509-31.
Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (2005), Demographic faultlines and token splits:
effects on conflict and performance, paper presented at the Scientific Association of Work
and Organization Psychology (WAOP), Rotterdam.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (in press), Whats the difference? Dispersion constructs as
separation, variety, or disparity in organizations, Academy of Management Review.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), Beyond relational demography: time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Hewstone, M. and Greenland, K. (2000), Intergroup conflict, International Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 136-44.
Hinds, P. and Bailey, D. (2003), Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed
teams, Organization Science, Vol. 14, pp. 615-32.
Hinds, P.J. and Mortensen, M. (2005), Understanding conflict in geographically distributed
teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous
communication, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 290-307.
Hobsbawm, E. (1990), Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Hoffman, L.R. (1978), Group problem solving, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Group Processes,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage Publishers, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1983), National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural
differences among nations, International Studies of Management and Organization,
Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 46-74.
Ibarra, H. (1995), Race, opportunity and diversity of social circles in managerial managers
networks, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 673-703.
Jackson, S., Brett, J., Sesa, V., Cooper, D., Julin, J. and Peyronnin, K. (1991), Some differences
make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of
recruitment, promotions, and turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 675-89.
Jehn, K. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57.
Jehn, K. and Mannix, E. (2001), The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intergroup conflict and group performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44,
pp. 238-51.
Jehn, K., Greer, L., Rispens, S., Barreto, M. and Rink, F. (2006), The roots and effects of
asymmetric conflict perceptions, Academy of Management Meetings, Atlanta, GA.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship, Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25, pp. 187-242.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance, The International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), Why differences make a difference: a field
study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-63.
Jehn, K.A., Rupert, J. and Nauta, A. (2006), The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation
outcomes: satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 96-109.
Jenkins, R. (1997), Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, Sage Publications, London.
Kamenka, E. (1973), Nationalism: The Nature and Evaluation of an Idea, William Clowes and
Sons, Ltd, London.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1993), Multicultural task groups: an account of the low contribution level of
minorities, Small Group Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 127-48.
Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with
constructive conflict, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17, pp. 153-70.
Kohn, H. (1955), Nationalism: Its Meaning and History, D. Van Nostrand, New York, NY.
Kozmitski, C. (1996), The reaffirmation of cultural identity in cross-cultural encounters,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 238-48.
Lalonde, R.N. (2002), Testing the social identity-intergroup differentiation hypothesis: Were
not American eh!, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 611-30.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998), Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
groups, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 325-40.
Laurent, A. (1983), The cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management, International
Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 75-96.
LeVine, R.A. and Campbell, D.T. (1972), Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes,
and Group Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY.
Li, Q. and Brewer, M.B. (2004), What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, nationalism,
and American identity after 9/11, Political Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 727-38.
Mannix, E. and Neale, M.A. (2005), What differences make a difference? The promise and reality
of diverse teams in organizations, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 31-55.
Maznevski, M.L. (1994), Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups
with diverse members, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 531-52.
Miles, R.E. (1964), Attitudes toward management theory as a factor in managers relationships
with their superiors, Academy of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 303-13.
Milliken, F. and Martins, L. (1996), Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 402-33.
Mor-Barak, M.E. and Cherin, D. (1998), A tool to expand organizational understanding of
workforce diversity, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22, pp. 47-64.
Mor-Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998), Organizational and personal dimensions
in diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Mullick, R. and Hraba, J. (2001), Ethnic attitudes in Pakistan, International Journal of Cultural
Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 165-79.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A. and Brown, R. (2001), Nationalism and patriotism: national
identification and out-group rejection, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40,
pp. 159-72.
National
diversity and
conflict
199
IJCMA
17,3
200
OReilly, C., Caldwell, D. and Barnett, W. (1989), Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 21-37.
Paletz, S.B.F., Peng, K., Erez, M. and Maslach, C. (2004), Ethnic composition and its differential
impact on group processes in diverse teams, Small Group Research, Vol. 35, pp. 128-57.
Parillo, V.N. and Donoghue, C. (2005), Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: a new
national survey, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 257-71.
Pelled, L. (1996), Demographic, diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-31.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999a), Exploring the black box: an analysis of
work group diversity conflict and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44,
pp. 1-28.
Pelled, L.H., Ledford, G.E. Jr and Mohrman, S.A. (1999b), Demographic dissimilarity and
workplace inclusion, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1013-31.
Perreault, S. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1999), Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 92-103.
Peterson, R.D. (2002), Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in
Twentieth-century Eastern Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2000), Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent
meta-analytic findings, in Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 93-114.
Phillips, K.W. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (forthcoming), Garnering the benefits of conflict: the role
of diversity and status distance in groups, in Thompson, L. and Behfar, K. (Eds), Conflict
in Teams, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Punnett, B.J. and Clemens, J. (1999), Cross-national diversity: implications for international
expansion decisions, Journal of World Business, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 128-38.
Reagans, R. (2005), Preferences, identity, and competition: predicting tie strength from
demographic data, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 9, pp. 1374-83.
Riordan, C.M. and Shore, L.M. (1997), Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: an
empirical examination of relational demography within work units, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 342-58.
Rispens, S., Jehn, K.A. and Thatcher, S. (2005), Asymmetric conflict in workgroups: effects on
group processes and performance, paper presented at the Work and Organizational
Psychology Conference, Rotterdam.
Rivenburgh, N. (1997), Social identification and media coverage of foreign relations, in Malek,
A. (Ed.), News Media and Foreign Relations, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 79-91.
Schatz, R.T. and Staub, E. (1997), Manifestations of blind and constructive patriotism,
in Bar-Tal, D. and Staub, E. (Eds), Patriotism in the Lives of Individuals and Nations,
Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL.
Scheff, T.J. (1994), Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism, and War, Westview Press, Boulder,
CO.
Sears, D.O. (1981), Life stage effects upon attitude change, especially among the elderly,
in Kiesler, S.B., Morgan, J.N. and Oppenheimer, V.K. (Eds), Aging: Social Change,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 183-204.
Sears, D.O. (1983), The persistence of early political predispositions: the roles of attitude object
and life stage, in Wheeler, L. and Shaver, P. (Eds), Review of Personality and Social
Psychology, Sage Publishers, Beverly Hills, CA.
Sears, D.O. (1988), Symbolic racism, in Katz, P.A. and Taylor, D.A. (Eds), Eliminating Racism:
Profiles in Controversy, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 53-84.
Sears, D.O. and Funk, C.L. (1999), Evidence of long term persistence of adults political
predispositions, Journal of Politics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., Black, J.S. and Ferzandi, L.A. (2006), You can take
it with you: individual differences and expatriate effectiveness, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 109-25.
Shaw, M.E. (1981), Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY.
Smith, A. (1983), Theories of Nationalism, Duckworth, London.
Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., OBannon, D. and Scully, J. (1994), Top management
team demography and process: the role of social integration and communication,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 412-38.
Spencer, P. and Wollman, H. (2002), Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, Sage Publications,
London.
Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W. (1985), Intergroup anxiety, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 157-75.
Sumner, W.G. (1906), Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners,
Customs, Mores and Morals, Ginn & Bo, Boston, MA.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1986), The social identity of intergroup behavior, in Worchel, S. and
Austin, W. (Eds), Psychology and Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
Thatcher, S.M.B. and Jehn, K.A. (1998), A model of group diversity profiles and categorization
processes in bicultural organizational teams, Research on Managing Groups and Teams,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Triandis, H. (1994), Culture and Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tsui, A., Egan, T. and OReilly, C. (1992), Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 549-79.
Turner, J.C. (1985), Social categorization and self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group
behavior, in Lawler, E. (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CN, pp. 77-122.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the
Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
Wall, V. and Nolan, L. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented
groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39, pp. 1033-52.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), Cultural diversitys impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 590-602.
Weiss, H. (2003), A cross-national comparison of nationalism in Austria, the Czech and Slovac
Republics, Hungary, and Poland, Political Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 377-401.
Williams, K.Y. and OReilly, C.A. (1998), Demography and diversity in organizations: a review
of 40 years of research, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Yang, J. and Mossholder, K.W. (2004), Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of
intragroup emotional processing, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 589-605.
Zenger, T.D. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), Organizational demography: the differential effects of
age and tenure distributions on technical communication, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 353-76.
National
diversity and
conflict
201
IJCMA
17,3
Zuckerman, M. (1979), Attribution of success and failure revisited: the motivational bias is alive
and well in attribution theory, Journal of Personality, Vol. 47, pp. 245-87.
Further reading
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1986), Executive Achievement, Gulf Coast Publishing, Houston, TX.
202