Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group Property 6: Diversity
For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the properties of cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued at the initial tacit establishment of roles and norms—will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of differences in backgrounds? Let’s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first.
Group Property 5: Cohesiveness
Groups differ in their cohesiveness—the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some workgroups are cohesive because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small size or purpose facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together.
Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s performance-related norms.50 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsiders are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-4.
Exhibit 9-4
The Impact of Cohesiveness and Performance Norms on Productivity
What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness?
Make the group smaller.
Encourage agreement with group goals.
Increase the time members spend together.
Increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership.
Stimulate competition with other groups.
Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members.
Physically isolate the group.51
Group Property 6: Diversity
The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.
Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test, the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.52 Groups in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues.53 Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group, but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered.54
Types of Group Diversity
You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. Right or wrong, one researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.”55 Surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.56 For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness.
The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood. Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power (nPow; see Chapter 8) with those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase task performance.57
Challenges of Group Diversity
Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them to be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.”58 Yet, other researchers argue that we shouldn’t overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental.59
One possible negative effect of diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface-level characteristics—is faultlines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.
For example, let’s say Group A is composed of three men and three women. The three men have approximately the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in marketing. The three women have about the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three men and three women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of the men are experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two of the men and one woman in Group B have backgrounds in marketing, while the other man and the remaining two women have backgrounds in finance. It is thus likely that a faultline will result in the subgroups of males and females in Group A but not in Group B, based on the differentiating characteristics.
Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less creative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each other. Finally, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall group’s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present.60 However, faultlines regarding skill, knowledge, and expertise may be beneficial in a results-driven organizational culture.61 Furthermore, problems stemming from strong faultlines may be overcome when the group is given a common goal to strive for. Altogether, forced collaboration between members of subgroups and focus on accomplishing a goal may transcend the faultlines.62