Work group diversity and group performance:

It is a fact in organizational life that diversity of work groups playa a curtail part in making the
organization effective. This has been studied by various scholars numerous times over. Groups
have involved with the passages of time and this evolution has caused diversification in the
organization as a whole. The current concept of cross functional team took birth after
diversification of structures of organization and it introduce diversity in the functional level of
work groups. This has positive as well as negative impacts on the health of an organization
reference to. Organizations have been struggling to manage and control the major challenges
faced, while also keeping a check on diversity and the evolution of the organization.

Interestingly the research work which has been studied to work group diversity has been divided
into two parts. One is the positive and the other is the negative sight in which the beneficial and
the harmful effects of work group diversity have been studied. Unfortunately the compressive
explanation of role of diversity in group and its effects in the performance of group have been
ignored (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Williams & OReilly, 1998). The
current model given by scholar try to explain the beneficial and harmful effects of diversity butt
they failed to predict that when a change is going to take place. Resultantly, scholars have not
been successful in integrating diversity with the organizational performance (Bowers, Pharmer,
& Salas, 2000; Webber & Donahue, 2001; also see Wood, 1987). Consequently there is a need to
understand the effects of work group diversity on the performance of an organization and a
mechanism needs to be develop which can be accurately develop the positive and negative
effects of diversity. Once such a model has been developing the positive and negative trades of
diversity and work group performance can be accurately determine.

A brief review of work group diversity and performance:

Diversity is one of the most innate and decisive of the constituents of any work group as it causes
the group to enhance and evolve its working procedures. A common definition of diversity is,
any attribute which generates a perception of uniqueness in a person (e.g., Jackson, 1992;
Triandis et al., 1994; Williams & OReilly, 1998). Diversity exists in multiple forms and it
differentiates a person on the basis of age, nationality, religion, skills and even political loyalties.
In developed countries diversity has been taken even in the sexual preferences of the individuals.
However in research diversity primarily comprises of age, education, background, gender,
ethnicity and experience (Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & OReilly, 1998). Researchers
have argued that diversity exist mainly in the social categories such as the gender, ethnicity, age
and functional diversity. However diversity also exists in other job related attributes such as the
functional and the experience background (Jackson, 1992; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999;
Milliken & Martins, 1996; Tsui, Egan, & OReilly, 1992).
.

Williams and O reilly (1998) gave the topology of work group diversity and they categorized
diversity into two main categories which are, the social perceptive and the decision making
perceptive. The social perceptive of diversity gives the opinion that people categorized others
with the perception of having similarities with them. The categorization done within a persons
group and between different groups is done later on. People put their trust in those persons which
they think are more similar to them. Therefore, a member from the outside is generally ignored
or not given a favor like a group member (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg,
Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). This implies that people which form a group are more in
client towards each other instead of the people outside the group. Groups member perceive
themselves similar to each other and this leads to the production of unity and cohesion in a group
(Williams & OReilly, 1998). Moreover, when people within a group realize the differences they
have with each other this leads to the creation of sub groups. However, if categorization is not
done on healthy basis and it leads to increasing differentiation, the rise of inter group conflicts
and problems takes place. Therefore, the more there is unity and cohesion in a group the more
efficient and successful the group is (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992). Here the term
cohesion implies the strength of relation or bonds within a group (OReilly, Caldwell, & Barnett,
1989). As cohesion is inversely related to group conflicts, the more the cohesion in a group is,
the lesser the more the performance of the group will be (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999). This will also insure that group members do not leave the group (Wagner, Pfeffer, &
OReilly, 1984). So homogeneous which have more uniformity in there structure are more high
performance groups then heterogeneous once (for evidence, see Jehn et al., 1999; Murnighan &
Conlon, 1991; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999).

The second perspective given by Williams and O Rielly was the information perceptive in which
the basis of differentiation is quite different from the social perceptive. The information
perceptive implies that the diversity in a group is directly related to the performance of a group.
So by this notion, a heterogeneous out performance homogeneous group. This relates the
diversification of knowledge, capabilities and the skills of the members leading to higher group
performance. In such groups the redundancy and difference of opinion leads to positive
outcomes. In return this entire factor adds to the resources which a group possesses. The existing
conflict within the group leads to group members extensile discuss at hand and select the best
course of action. This leads to excessive debate and in the end a concuss is reached where the
best alternative is selected. As different mind put inhere opinion and the best opinion is selected
the resultant increase in the innovation and the potential of the group is quite beneficial. The
solutions are more likely to be most viable(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bantel & Jackson, 1989;
De Dreu & West, 2001). this argument is further strengthened by studies which have shown that
the group performance increases with the number of task conflict in a group (Jehn et al., 1999;
Pelled et al., 1999). Moreover, studies have also shown that the higher the performance of a
group is the higher the level of innovation is in that group(Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Cox, Lobel,
& McLeod, 1991; Jehn et al., 1999).

There exist a contradiction between the social perceptive and the information-decision making
perspective. The social perceptive mainly concentrate on the relationship in the group and
negatively relates diversity to the relations in that group. The information perceptive on the other
hand positively relates the diversity in the group to the group performance. Therefore, mainly
focusing on the tasks oriented aspects. So it can be concluded that the diversity is positively
related with the group performance but negatively related to the relations within that group
(Triandis et al., 1994). Despite the contradiction, it has been unanimously accepted that problems
within a group start from intra group relational conflicts which reduce the cohesiveness and thus
harm the group (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b; Jehn, 1995; Mullen & Copper, 1994). So if a
balance in not capped between the diversity and effects on group performance, Overwhelming
diversity can harm the relations as well as the performance of the group. Resultantly there is a
need to understand the types of diversity and there effects on the group as a whole. In the social
perceptive the research work has categorized group members on the basis of factors such as
gender and race which are readily declarable in a group (Fiske, 1998). These factors of
differentiation such as the gender and other relative perceptions are the same factors on which
people differentiate and align themselves in life (A. van Knippenberg & Dijksterhuis, 2000). So
it can be stated that the factors which are more visible for categorizing people in a group are
preferred on differentiating people and those factor which are not so prominent are not given due
attention. The healthy implication of diversity on a group has been related to the differences in
the expertise, skill, point of view and knowledge. Resultantly it has been argue that the positive
effects of diversity which affect the group performance should be positively related with
informational differences. The informational difference is a very broad term which also includes
demographic differences such as gender, age and ethnicity(Cox et al., 1991; Tsui & OReilly,
1989). In the scope of informational differences other factor which are more task or job oriented
such as the educational background, skills and the knowledge possessed by individuals are also
included (Pelled et al., 1999). This is why the information perceptive positively relates diversity
with the performance of the group as informational differences lead to innovation and diversity.

Despite the logic given in the arguments of social and informational perspective the evidence
which support the notion that diversity depends upon the type of perceptive that is social or
informational, is insufficient. There are few studies which have tried to explain diversity and
give evidence with this proposal. (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999). While some studies have related
diversity with the positive effect on group performance other studies have negated these concepts
and given a contradictory view (e.g., Simons et al., 1999). The latest meta- analysis conducted in
this regard has not been successful in giving evidence of the fact that diversity moderates and
regulates the performance of a group. Therefore this need to be further studied what effects
diversity actually has on group performance and how can diversity be attributed to job related
outcomes.
The catogerization-elebrotion model:

As previous studied had not given adequate given the positive and negative effects of the
diversity with the performance of a group, there has been a lack of integration in the social and
informational perceptive. Therefore too satisfactorily to address this issue a model for
categorization has been proposed named the elaboration model. The elaboration model was
further developed into the categorization elaboration model or CEM and it identified the causes
of inconsistency in studies related to diversity which has been extensively studies later on this
model.

The reasons for research gap in study of diversity are multiple. The primary reason is the
insufficient attention paid to how a group possessives the information within itself and what is
the significance of this information in moderating the activates of group and the positive effects
of diversity. Secondly the studies conducted so far have over simplified over compressively
explained and theorized social categorization. These studies have not paid the required attention
to how diversity plays of a moderator and how the relation between diversity can and the process
of social categorization can be moderated. Moreover, the social categorization and the positive
and the negative effects of diversity have also not been studied collectively in relation to one and
other. Third diversity studied has confirmed themselves to the information and social perceptive
separately. In contrast to this the CEM model suggests that these two perspectives are
interrelated and interact. Moreover, the studies conducted for diversities explanation have been
waist on the assumption that the two perspectives which are information and social
categorization are only related to particular aspects of diversity. This has lead to the need to
relate each aspect or dimension of diversity with both of the aspects of this study which are
information and social categorization. In this regard the study need to be conducted also require
the explanation for the mediator and moderators influencing the relation of diversity with the two
aspects which are social categorization and information. The contemporary research is been
conducted in this regard.

Based on the set objective the studies conducted for fondling the relation between diversity and a
group performance proposed that diversity is positively related with the expiration of task at
hand and the communication of information within a group. It implies that the extend to this the
group members are more enlightened with the information, specification and the needs of task to
be performed, the better performance can be given by such a group. Therefore, elaboration of
task at hand and its relevant prerequisites leads to creativity, innovation and critical thinking in
taking decision which affecting the quality of decision. However, this cannot be taken a rule of
thumb in which diversity will also be positively related to the elaboration of what need to be
performing and its relativist information. So in order to analyze the relation of diversity and the
elaboration of task related information there arises a need for identification moderating variables
in relation between diversity and elaboration. Before studding diversity and its relation with
elaboration, this should be taken into consideration that the information about the task and the
decision making is congruent with the quality of decision taken from that information. Thus a
group which is more motivated and task oriented in the execution of a task needs more accurate
and relevant information so that the group members efficiently perform the desired task.

The role of social categorization needs to be understood before studding the relation of diversity
with social categorization. The role of social categorization is to differentiate a group from others
as well as individual in a group based upon the difference of self and other subjective qualities.
So social categorization differentiate person on the extent of difference which exist between
them. This extensive of difference between the persons can be determine by these three factors
which are 1 cognitive accessibility 2 normative fit 3 comparative fit of the organization.

The cognitive accessibility in social categorization is the feasibility with which the process of
social categorization can take place while differentiation individuals on cognitive bases. The
second factor which is normative fit describes the extent to which the process of social
catogernzation is subjective to the sense of group members. The third factor which is the
comparative fit refers to degree to a group is categorize in sub group and the extend to which
these differences have been taken into consideration. Here the two terms which are social
categorization and inter group bases have not be related to each other as a positive response is
always received for categorization within a group rather than for categorization outside a group.
Therefore, the biases which exist within a group are different from social categorization and
disrupt the diversity within a group. There are certain circumstances in which business takes
birth in social categorization. This business leads to development of threat and challenges to the
process of categorization while damagining the identity of the group it selves.

It has been establish that information perceptive and social categorization perceptive is integrated
by the relation between elaboration and social categorization process. When the relation between
the social categorization and elaboration is effected by biases within a group it leads to disruption
of the elaboration of task relevant information in that group thus effecting the performance of
that group. Finally the studies which have attempted to relate the effects of diversity with
specific types of the same have propose that all the aspect of this term relate and elicit two
factors which are elaboration of task related information and the process of social categorization.

Therefore future research is been conducted to studied relation between elaboration and the
diversity. Next the effects diversity on social categorization and the extent to which inter group
biase can harm a group is been studied. Last the disruption caused by business and the
interruption in the elaboration in the task related information is been researched upon, in relation
to the integration of social categorization and information perceptive. This proposition needs to
be clarifying and its implication needs to be determining so that the roles of elaboration and the
existing business can be better understood.

Diversity and the elaboration of task relevant information:

Diversity has its advantages in generating information which might enable a heterogeneous to be
more efficient then a homogeneous group. The information relevant to the task and the inclusion
of versatile expertise in a heterogeneous group leads to more efficient dissemination of
information and the quality of decision taken on that information is thus, of the highest standard
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). However, the primary focus of this research is not on the diversity
of the information but how the processes which are related to the use of that information made
more efficient. The availability of require information is useful but how that information is
managed lies at the base of the performance of diverse groups.

With relation to the process which enshrines diversity, there are two problems which need to be
address. First the problem of the processes which are thought to be positively relate to the
diversity have been confined to the conceptualization of diversity and conflict, but this has not
been sufficiently supported by the evidence and thus a positive relation between the two term has
not been confirmed (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b). Secondly, the nature of performance in
essence which is expected to take benefit from the advantages of diversity has not been defined
clearly.

Those processes with regard to information to decision making that are thought to be positively
related to diversity are confined only to the operational effect of diversity in a group (e.g., Jehn et
al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999). When contraductrary information exists in a group for a task, this
contradictory leads to conflict. When conflicts take place in a group a need for reconciliation
arises in which a group member try to sort out the differences. To sort out the differences the
group celebrates each of the proposal and tries to find the best possible solution on which
contradictory proposals exist. Therefore, a contradiction which leads to conflict may be helpful
to bring creativity in group performance (e.g., De Dreu, Harinck, & van Vianen, 1999; Tjosvold,
1998). Despite the fact that this has been widely propagated by scholars, there are a number of
research studies which suggest that the existence of the conflict is precursor to the solution of
that conflict which is the actual factor positively related to diversity and group performance.

A Meta analysis of recent literature shown that the existence of conflict is very much negatively
related to the performance of a group for given task (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b). Secondly, the
existence of conflict or the absence of conflict does not influence the way management of
conflict is done. Therefore, the management of conflict seems to be the aspect which is directly
related to the performance (33). In a scenario where group members are conflict with each other
they try to confront this conflict by given there perspective opinions and these opinions has
potential to bring diversity in that group. Therefore the most significant effect does not come
from conflict but the management of conflict and the performance also benefit from the
management. Any decent that exist leads to its removal which is the prime beneficial factor for a
group this is the seat of creativity and innovation in a group.

When this debate is taken further it is realize that the presence of a conflict is not absolutely
necessarily for its management. Even for groups which have been assigned task which require
versatility, each member can put in his point of view regardless with any conflict with other
members. Disruption does lead to elaboration but elaboration does not depend upon disruption
alone. Therefore, concussively it can be detected that when a decent exist it may have potential
benefit but all of its effect are not conducive for a group.

Relation of elaboration of group performance:

When task relevant information is elaborated by group members for execution of a given task the
resultant effect is quite healthy for that task. When this concept is further built upon, the
elaboration can be describe as the dissemination of the information, the processing of the
disseminated information, taking feedback after dissemination of information and then
concluding that argument to find the best possible solution and determining its implications
(Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). So it is the elaboration which comprises of diversity related
activities which result in diversification in homogeneous groups. In a scenario where a group
needs to perform task versatile in nature such as information technology related task, cross
functional team are needed. These team which comprise of people coming from versatile
backgrounds such as sales, designing and programming sit together to develop software as per
the need of client. Sto insure that the highest quality standard are met, the members of team need
to put in their share of information on different issues. Therefore in such a scenario it is not
necessary that there needs to be a conflict or decent to bring out creativity and diversity in a
group. It is when the individual opinions are integrated into one that the best solution is found.

Such a study was conducted recent in which diverse groups from different background were
given a task of making decisions on the basis of information provided by the members of that
group (Van Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2003). In that study it was found that the shared
information in a group was processed and viewed as per the instruction of the task. These
instructions given to the group members manipulated the discussion in that group and thus
effected the results of that groups performance directly. So when mental capacities which are
imprecise by models are brought together, the instructions given to those capacities to work on
effect the group performance. So it is held that in such a scenario the representation of group
members is regulated and effectively managed.

Performance of a group and moderators between diversity and elaboration:

The study of task related information and its determination are considered as a primary process
which is responsible generating the beneficial of effects of diversity. This study has pointed
towards a number of moderators which moderate the relation between the task and relevant
information. These moderators do not come from conflict or decent but from other reasons which
pertain information making information-decision making process. As studied before the idea that
more diversified groups perform better then homogeneous or structurally stringent groups. This
is due to the elaboration of information portents to the task which generates better results. Hen
such information is been decremented it leads to the creation of innovative processes which are
aimed at solving problems and viable decisions. So when diversity takes birth in an operation
conducted by a group, the extent to which the performance is elevated is determined by how the
information is processed, the extent of innovation involved in the idea generation and the
selection of most viable solution for a problem. This also depends upon the nature of the task as a
group which is aligned to find solution of versatile problem it needs a versatile solution with non
routine information. When non routine information is been received there arise many task which
need to be executed primarily just to define the terms of performance and the operating
procedures. Later, the quality of the information been obtained and the answers which need to
found are shifted to that information. This requires and elaborates information processing
capacity the first place (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976). this
approach sets the stage for a certaning the positive effects diversity has in respect of the
determinate information.

It is also reality when information related to a task is elaborated beyond a particular extend, the
routine or conventional procedures to performed the task are abundant. This might result in
counter productivity (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003b; Schwenk, 1990). Therefore, the processing of
relevant information and the decision which is taken upon that information is taken as a key
moderator to determine what effects diversity has on work group and its performance.

Though the diversity research has not address the issues of a biding by task requirements, there is
some considerable evidence in its support (Jehn et al. 1999). It was found later that the
performance of an organization is positively related with the diversity in a scenario with the
complexity of the task at hand is high instead of being low. Bowers ithal (2000) performed Meta
analysis of diverse group intends to find out whether a hogeneous group out performs a
heterogeneous group. He found that on simple task homogeneous groups were better suited to
outperform the heterogeneous groups while it was vice versa in complex task.

The categorization elaboration model stress upon a point that when elaboration encourages
motivation, it has positives effects on the ability being core moderator, while increasing diversity.
This factor, motivation, has been neglected as a variable in research conducted on diversity.
However, other moderators which pertain processing of information at a deep and extended level
in the social phsycological aspect have been mentioned. These moderators are pertinent to the
perception of social categorization and judgment (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). It is a proposition
that both motivation as well as the ability of conduction of information is generated from deep
level processing of relevant information. This has been supported by relevant research across
wide spectrum of domains which include persuasive communication(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
other research conducted in this regard has been in person perception, group decision making
(Kruglanski & Webster, 1991), and negotiation (De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003). Therefore, it is
consider that motivation has the ability to influence and moderate the relation of performance-
diversity.

A recent experiment conducted in this regard has also given supporting evidence which proposes
a role played by motivation in moderating the relation between diversity and performance
(Scholten, van Knippenberg, Nijstad, and De Dreu, 2003). It was scholten who research that how
informational diverse and versatile groups were affected by accountability. Here accountability
refers to the appraisal of decision taken after processing the relevant information (Lerner &
Tetlock, 1999). So where there is accountability it effects motivation which in turn the effects of
performance of group. Scholten also scrutinize that how did accountability effect groups ability
of groups making qualitative decisions in a scenario where the task at hand needed a decision
chosen from many alternatives, by successful identification through the process of relevant
information. This information was acquire individual members of group (Stasser, 1999). As
envisioned it was congruent with the proposed idea that motivation was effected by
accountability. Those groups which were taken accountable performed deeper analysis of
information and processed that information more efficiently while generating better quality
decisions.

Diversity, social categorization and intergroup biase:

The two rams of work group diversity which are social categorization and the decision making
perspective, have been developed along different line. Though, there exists theoretical data on
how diversity is created and how social categorization effects it. However, there is lack of
empirical data which can prove a direct connection between social categorization and elaboration
process. As this question carries significance an argument needed which can elaborate that how
the social categorization creates disturbance in the elaboration and discrimination of information
relevant to a task. To address this issue, it is needed how the relationship between diversity,
intergroup biase and social categorization behave. Since it is significant to differentiate the core
factors which determine social categorization and the core factors which define intergroup biase,
a research in this direction is imperative.

Social categorization and its effects on diversity performance:

The research conducted today carries insufficient empirical data which can determine the social
categorization paradigm and its effect on diversity. It has been deducted that there exist a
functional relation between social categorization and the degree of uniqueness between group
members. This digress of uniqueness is the extent of dissimilarities which exist between group
members. Moreover, the studies conducted so far have followed an independent effects approach
which puts forth the assumption that diversity in only one dimension is predicted when social
categorization process is independent from diversity in other perspectives (e.g., age; Pelled et al.,
1999). resultantly, it is also taken as an implicit assumption in the operations of social
categorization that this process creates inters group biases which can lead to less positive or
harmful effects. As the dissimilarities in a group increase the positive relations inversely
diminish. In contrast to this as similarities in a group increase so does the bounding in that group
search. In such a scenario the business decreases (cf. Williams & OReilly, 1998). Studies
conducted so far have tried to gage the diversity to determine the degree of similarity in the
constituent member of a group in only one dimension. When this relates to the results which the
group produces the performance of the group, the assessment is a mediated process e.g., Riordan
& Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992). Similarly, experimental studies which have tried to explain
how manipulation of a group occurs when versatile or diverse groups are transformed or
effective by diversity (e.g., Cox et al., 1991). Therefore when the group members of a group
interact with each other the diversity is not tested rather a perception is taken depending upon the
different dimensions a group has in this respect (Pelled et al., 1999; Williams & OReilly, 1998).

The most common and run of the mill practices have not been fruitful in determining the viable
results of research therefore the theory has not been tested on the process of social
categorization, development of the identity in social paradigm and the relations existing within
the group to a more complex degree. As the relations in a group become more complex with the
advent and increase of diversity, the categorization and the intercategorization leads to inter
group biases (e.g., Brewer & Brown, 1998; Brown & Gaertner, 2001; D. van Knippenberg,
2003). The given insight which has been taken by studying the nature and dimension of diversity
has lead to an improvement in explanatory methods of how models of work group diversity
explained these phenomena.