Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

You-Ta Chuang Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

The authors
You-Ta Chuang is based at the School of Administrative Studies, Atkinson College,York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Robin Church and Jelena Zikic are both based at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The composition of the workforce has been changing continuously in past decades, resulting from an increase in immigration and the globalization of rms; these trends have fostered a greater degree of demographic diversity in organizations (e.g. Williams and OReilly, 1998). The term demographic diversity (hereafter, diversity) refers to the degree to which a social unit is heterogeneous with regards to its demographic attributes. Past research has suggested there are ve major individual demographic attributes which inuence organizational functioning; these include: (1) age; (2) gender; (3) race/ethnicity; (4) organizational tenure; and (5) functional background (Williams and OReilly, 1998). Much of this research examines the effects of those attributes on group outcomes and has reported mixed ndings (e.g. Cox et al., 1991; Murnighan and Conlon, 1991). Lawrence (1997) argues that it is important to open the black box to examine not only the direct link between diversity and group outcomes but also the group process variables. In addition to group process variables, Williams and OReilly (1998) suggest that it is necessary to investigate how contextual factors inuence the diversity of work group functioning. In response to these gaps in prior research, we theoretically examine how organizational culture affects the ways demographically diverse groups function. Instead of focusing on group outcomes, we put our emphasis on group processes, intragroup conict in particular. Without unfolding the underlying group processes, it is difcult for us to understand what factors contribute to diverse group functioning, which in turn inuences group outcomes. Organizational culture is considered here because it is one of the potential contextual factors that may inuence group processes (Tsui et al., 1995; Williams and OReilly, 1998). Since organizational culture is a social control system that shapes individuals behavior (OReilly and Chatman, 1996), organizational culture should have signicant inuence on the functioning of diverse groups. Chatman et al. (1998) reported that, compared to individualistic-oriented organizations, individuals in collectivistic-oriented organizations who were dissimilar to others, with regards to race, and gender, tended to have fewer
Parts of the early drafts of this paper were presented at the ASAC-IFSAM 2000 Conference in Montreal, Canada and the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management 2001, Washington DC, USA.

Keywords
Internal conict, Diversity management, Organizational culture

Abstract
Past research on group diversity tends to overlook organizational contextual and group process variables. Although recent studies have revealed the main effects of group diversity on intra-group conict, it is important to examine the contextual factors reducing or facilitating those effects on intra-group conict. This paper presents a conceptual analysis and research proposals that build on past research on intra-group conict and organizational culture to examine the relationships between organizational culture, intra-group conict, and group diversity. The paper proposes that organizational cultural intensity and content have direct impact on intra-group conict and moderate the relationship between group diversity and intra-group conict, depending on the degree of value congruence and the value content shared among group members.

Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 pp. 26-34 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 1352-7592 DOI 10.1108/13527590410527568

26

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

face-to-face interactions but more written communication, and more benecial conicts. They attributed these ndings to the mechanism of self-categorization in which collectivistic-oriented cultures tend to make organizational membership more salient than demographic attributes and encourage people to categorize one another as a unit. While Chatman et al. (1998) demonstrated the effect of organizational culture on diverse group functioning, they focused only on one of Hofstedes (1998) dimensions of culture (individualism-collectivism). To explore a more complete picture of the relationship between organizational culture and group diversity, we adopt one of the widely used cultural frameworks in the literature of organizational culture, the organizational culture prole (OCP) (OReilly et al., 1991) to articulate the impact of organizational culture on group processes. The process examined here is intra-group conict. While recent studies have shown that diverse groups tend to have high degree of taskrelated and relationship conict (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999), little is known about what factors may moderate the main effects of demographic diversity on these two types of conict. We argue that organizational culture plays an important role in shaping diverse group functioning. We propose that organizational culture not only has direct impact on intra-group conict but also moderates the relationship between group diversity and intra-group conict, depending on the degree of value congruence and the value content shared among group members. In doing so, our paper complements prior research in two important ways. First, only a few studies have examined effects of values on diverse group functioning (e.g. Jehn et al., 1997; Polzer et al., 2002); however the values in these studies are either at the individual or group level. In contrast, we relate organizational culture to the functioning of diverse groups. Since diverse groups are embedded within the umbrella of organizational culture, organizational culture shared among members in diverse groups may reinforce or suppress group or individual values to shape group processes. So far, prior research has provided little systematic examination of the relationship between organizational culture and values and group diversity functioning (but see Chatman et al. (1998) for exception). Second, our paper complements research on intra-group conict because we link organizational culture and group diversity to intra-group conict. Prior research has documented empirical evidence that group diversity can lead to high intra-group

conict (e.g. Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999). In contrast, we theoretically examine how the relationship between group diversity and intragroup conict can be moderated by the strength and the content of organizational culture. We begin with a discussion of past research on group diversity, organizational culture, and intragroup conict. It is followed by the development of propositions in which we articulate the relationships between diversity, intra-group conict, and organizational culture. We end this paper with the discussion of the direction of future research and the implications of our theory.

Theoretical background
Work group diversity Individual demographic attributes contribute to the diversity of a work group. Differences in individual attributes can be categorized as readily detectable or underlying (Jackson et al., 1995). Readily detectable attributes are those that can be determined quickly and with a high degree of consistency by others. Only brief exposure or interaction is required. Readily detectable attributes include age, race, sex, and organizational tenure. These readily detectable attributes are often referred to as visible or surfacelevel in demography research (hereafter visible) (e.g. Pelled, 1996a; Harrison et al., 2002). There are also underlying attributes that are not so easily or quickly determined by others, such as skills, abilities, knowledge, attitudes, and values. These attributes require more time and interaction to become known by others. These underlying attributes are often referred to as invisible or deeplevel. Differences in skills and knowledge are also categorized as functional diversity (e.g. Pelled, 1996a; Williams and OReilly, 1998). Historically, the conceptual foundation for research demographic research within organizations has been the social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1978), self-categorization theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) which is an extension of SIT, and the similarity/attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). According to SIT and selfcategorization theory people tend to classify and differentiate themselves from others on the basis of observable differences such as differences in age, race, and gender. Typically, individuals will pursue a positive identity by making between-category comparisons that favor his or her social category. This self-enhancement can be achieved within groups by making comparisons between the ingroup and relevant out-groups in ways that favor the in-group (Hogg and Abrams, 1993; Hogg et al., 1995). This may result in the stereotyping of and

27

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

the developing a hostile attitude toward members of other categories. The similarity/attraction paradigm (e.g. Byrne, 1971) states that individuals who possess similar individual characteristics and attitudes will perceive one another as similar and will be attracted to each other. Social identity and selfcategorization not only offer a partial explanation for the similarity/attraction paradigm in that reinforcement of ones attitudes and beliefs helps maintain a positive self-identity (Jackson et al., 1993) but these theories also provide insight into situations in which demographic effects may occur even without individuals engaging in interpersonal interactions (Tsui et al., 1992). In general, these three perspectives provide a similar prediction that demographic diversity, visible diversity in particular, generate negative effects such as hostility and anxiety, which in turn, may impede group processes and group functioning at the group level. In their recent review of 40 years of demographic research, Williams and OReilly (1998) conclude that heterogeneity in age, gender, tenure, and race/ethnicity generally leads to negative impacts on group process and outcomes such as low satisfaction, low commitment, and low social integration. On the other hand, heterogeneity in functional background and race/ ethnicity may improve group performance through the contribution of diverse information and skills. Intra-group conict Conict occurs when group members perceive discrepancies, incompatible wishes or desires among them (Boulding, 1963). Early research on conict tends to view conict as having detrimental effects on group or organizational functioning (March and Simon, 1958). Recent studies, however, have begun to unfold the role of conict in the group functioning. Two types of conict discussed in the recent conict research are especially relevant here: task-related and relationship conict (e.g. Amason, 1996; Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1997, 1995; Pelled, 1996a; Simons and Peterson, 2000). Taskrelated conict refers to disagreements among group members about task issues, including the nature and importance of task goals, key decision areas and procedures. Relationship conict refers to interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, including tension, animosity and annoyance (Jehn, 1995). These two types of conict have different impacts on group functioning and group outcomes. Task-related conict is more likely to have positive effects on group functioning (Jehn, 1995; Shah and Jehn, 1993). Task-related conict

may encourage group members to challenge various aspects of task issues, in turn, to enhance group outcomes. Jehn (1995) found that the relationship between task conict and group performance was moderated by task type, such that task conict was benecial to groups performing non-routine tasks, and harmful to those performing routine tasks. As a result, groups with non-routine tasks tend to benet more from task-related conict. In fact, both laboratory groups and top management teams that engaged in complex tasks were shown to make better decisions with more task conict (Amason, 1996; Shah and Jehn, 1993). On the other hand, relationship conict tends to have detrimental effects on group functioning because: . it limits the information processing ability of group members by directing their attention to each other instead of task-related issues (Evan, 1965); . it may increase members stress and anxiety levels, which in turn generate negative impact on members cognitive functioning (Staw et al., 1981); and . it can result in antagonistic and hostile interaction among group members, which in turn hinder group outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). As a result, relationship conict not only has direct negative impact on group outcomes but also moderates the relationship between task-related conict and group outcomes (e.g. Pelled, 1996b). Amason (1996) showed that relationship conict has negative effects on group decision quality, individual commitment to the decision, and individuals affective acceptance of the decision and task-related conict has positive effects on individuals understanding and affective acceptance of the decision in top management teams. There is a general agreement among researchers that relationship conict leads to negative effects on group outcomes. The impact of task conict has shown both positive (e.g. Jehn, 1995) and negative (Lovelace et al., 2001) results. Simons and Peterson (2000) reported that intragroup trust moderated the relationship between tasked-related conict and relationship conict. Jehn and Chatman (2000) showed that groups with high proportion of task-related conict and low proportion of relationship conict tended to have high group performance and group satisfaction. In terms of group diversity, recent studies have reported that the composition of groups has signicant impacts on intra-group conict that group members experienced, depending on the degree of diversity across demographic attributes

28

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

(Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996b; Pelled et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 2001). While prior studies have documented the main effects of group diversity on intra-group conict, it is important to unfold factors that may reduce or exacerbate those effects. Determining the role of moderators is critical for us to understand the diverse group functioning and to identify ways for practitioners to manage diversity. Organizational culture Organizational culture is a characteristic of an organization, not of individuals (Hofstede, 1998). It is the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members. Consistent with past research, we dene organizational culture as the pattern of shared values that dene appropriate attitudes and behaviors and establish what is important for organizational members (Hofstede, 1998; OReilly and Chatman, 1996; Ott, 1989; Schein, 1985). Shared values are essential for organizational functioning because they maintain the organization as a bounded unit and provide it with a distinct identity.

Propositions
Intra-group conict and organizational cultural congruence The members of a work group with different demographic backgrounds may have dissimilar belief structures (Wiersema, 1992). These divergences are likely to evoke conict among group members. The question is whether different types of diversity have differing inuences on particular types of conict. Pelled (1996a) suggested that visible demographic attributes, such as age, gender, race, and tenure, are positively associated with relationship conict because of the self-categorization mechanism. In terms of taskrelated conict, she proposed that job-related demographic attributes, such as functional background and tenure, are positively associated with task-related conict because of the divergence of job experience, knowledge, and task perceptions. Despite some inconsistencies, it seems that visible demographic attributes, including age, gender, and race, have positive effects on relationship conict and functional background has a positive effect on task-related conict. If there is no substantial agreement that a limited set of values is important in a social unit, a strong culture cannot be said to exist. It is also possible that members in organizations strongly share few organizational values while organizations

still experience a weak culture, since disagreements among other values diminish the strength of organizational culture. A strong culture is dened here as cultural value congruence that represents the pattern of a set of value agreements among members in an organization. Organizational cultural congruence has been found to be positively associated with organizational performance (e.g. Schein, 1985; Sorensen, 2002). Value congruence can inuence the degree of coordination, organizational commitment and satisfaction. When organizational members possess similar values they may have clearer role expectations of other members. Therefore, they can predict each others behavior more easily. In the case of group processes, organizational values are a guide for behavioral choices. Group members who share similar organizational values are more likely to agree on group actions such as goals, tasks, and procedures and have similar ways of interpreting group problems and events, consequently reducing task conict. Past research has provided indirect evidence to support the notion that value congruence among members in a social unit may have an impact on the interaction outcomes of that social unit. In their eld study, for example, Jehn et al. (1997) reported that value congruence of group members had negative effects both on task conict and relationship conict. Thus, values shared by the group seem to be a guide for individuals behavioral choices and these values may act as perceptual lters for interpreting goals, tasks and procedures similarly (Jehn et al., 1997). Polzer et al. (2002) showed the interpersonal value congruence led to low degree of relationship conict, high group identication and social integration. It is proposed here that organizational value congruence will also reduce conict by increasing the degree to which members identify with each other. Therefore: P1a. Organizational value congruence is negatively related to task-related conict. P1b. Organizational value congruence is negatively related to relationship conict. While the rst set of propositions focus the main effect of cultural value congruence on intra-group conict, the relationships between diversity and conict may be also moderated by cultural value congruence. Chatman et al. (1998) reported that students in collectivistic oriented organizations experienced more benecial conicts than those in individualistic oriented organizations. From social identity and self-categorization perspectives, people sharing similar values, norms, and beliefs tend to group or identify themselves as a unit (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Thus, the mechanism of social categorization may not operate with

29

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

demographic attributes per se but with organizational memberships (Chatman et al., 1998). The salience of organizational characteristics and demographic categories were inversely related. Both the extent to which a person is demographically similar or different from coworkers and an organizational cultural emphasis inuenced the social categorization process. Jehn et al. (1999) found that it was the diversity associated with values held by members that was crucial to both work performance and morale. Groups with little value diversity experienced enhanced group performance and less conict, while groups that had greater diversity in values suffered a signicant performance decrease and more of both types of conict. Tsui et al. (1995), on the other hand, examined diversity at the organizational level and proposed that an organization with consensus and consistent organizational culture as a social category provides a positive social identity for individuals and, as an attractive psychological group, it is likely to supersede other bases of an individuals social identity, such as age, race, gender, or functional background. Using the similarity-attraction paradigm, members in a value congruent organization may tend to view others more similarly than those in a value diverse organization do. Therefore, consistent with Jehn et al. (1999), the salience of demographic dissimilarity can be reduced by sharing a similar set of cultural values. People sharing similar values may tend to interpret incidents in the same way regardless of their visible diversity (Jehn et al., 1997). Thus, this mechanism related to value congruence at the organizational level as well may decrease conict among members. Therefore, the above reasoning and studies suggest the following propositions: P2a. Organizational culture value congruence will reduce the positive effects of visible diversity on tasked-related conict. P2b. Organizational culture value congruence will reduce the positive effect of functional background diversity on relationship conict.

which seven organizational cultural dimensions are assessed: innovativeness, stability, respect for people, outcome orientation, attention to detail, team orientation, and aggressiveness (for a detailed discussion of the development of this taxonomy, see OReilly et al. (1991)). The OCP assumes that an organization can be characterized in terms of its cultural values but only as a prole of these seven dimensions (Chatman and Jehn, 1994). The consistency of responses among organizational members to the OCP represents the congruence and strength of organizational culture of an organization. The seven dimensions are: (1) Innovativeness: this dimension includes the specic values of being innovative, open to new opportunities, risk taking, willing to experiment, less careful, and less rule oriented. (2) Stability: this dimension entails being rule oriented, valuing security, and stability. (3) Attention to detail: this dimension contains the specic values of being precise and analytical. (4) Respect for people: this dimension includes the values of emphasizing fairness, respecting people, and being tolerant. (5) Team orientation: this dimension comprises the values of being people oriented, collaborative, and team oriented. (6) Outcome orientation: this dimension encompasses the values of being achievement-, action-, and results-oriented. (7) Aggressiveness includes the values of being high in competitiveness and low in social responsibility. Rousseau (1990) suggests that these seven dimensions can be grouped into three categories: (1) the completion of work tasks (innovativeness, stability, and attention to detail); (2) interpersonal relationships (team orientation and respect for people); and (3) individual behavior (including outcome orientation and aggressiveness). Among these three categories, the completion of work tasks and individual behavior may moderate the relationship between functional diversity and task-related conict. Differences in educational background lead to an increase in task-related conict (Jehn et al., 1997) and diversity of educational background and functional areas in rms lead to content-related task conict in work groups (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999). As functionally diverse groups are composed of members with various information, skills, and knowledge and different interpretations of task issues, the values of these dimensions may highlight their functional diversity. Innovativeness, outcome orientation, and aggressiveness can

Intra-group conict and organizational cultural contents The focus of organizational culture value congruence is on the degree of value similarity among organizational members. Value congruence does not address the content of cultural values. The content of organizational cultural values and demographic composition may also inuence diverse groups in various ways. Building on past theoretical organizational culture research, OReilly et al. (1991) developed the (OCP) in

30

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

increase the positive effect of functional diversity on task-related conict in that they can encourage group members take advantage of their skills and knowledge to challenge status quo, to debate the task-related issues from their own perspectives, and to question about decision areas and task procedures. The attention to detail value may increase in the positive effect of functional diversity on taskrelated conict because this value promotes members propensities to make use of their information, skills, and knowledge to analyze various aspects of group tasks. Consequently, these values may increase the tendency toward task-related conict. In contrast, this relationship may be weaker in functionally homogeneous groups because the lack of functional differences to stimulate such task-related conict. Simons et al. (1999) showed that functional diversity interacted with debating activity to positively inuence the degree of decision comprehensiveness and rm performance. Jehn et al. (1997) showed that groups composed of individuals with detailoriented, outcome-oriented values had positive effects on objective performance and stability, decisiveness, and aggressiveness had positive effects on perception of performance. Therefore, this reasoning suggests the following proposition: P3a. The cultural dimensions of innovativeness, attention to detail, outcome orientation, and aggressiveness may foster the positive effects of functional diversity on task-related conict. The category of interpersonal relationship (i.e. team orientation and respect for people) may moderate the relationship between visible diversity and relationship conict. Relationship conict can arise from interpersonal clashes such as anger, distrust, and other forms of negative affect (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996a). Relationship conict can also result from misattributed task conict, especially when levels of interpersonal trust are low (Simons and Peterson, 2000). Research has demonstrated visible diversity is positively associated with relationship conict resulting from the process of categorization (e.g. Pelled et al., 1999). Categorization induced by members creates the conict over members preferences or disagreements about interpersonal interactions, typically about non-work issues such as gossip, social events, or religious preferences (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Such categorization further produces distrust and other forms of affects among individuals towards to different social categories or visible attributes which in turn, increases relationship conict. In organizations high in values category of interpersonal relationships, members tend to

respect each other and show tolerance for individual differences. The emphasis on interpersonal relationships generates emotional support for members in the groups, which in turn can lead to positive psychological outcomes. Jehn et al. (1997), for example, reported that the value of supportiveness had a positive effect on members satisfaction in teams. The feelings of hostility and anxiety derived from differences in visible attributes (e.g. Tsui et al., 1992) can be buffered by the interpersonal relationships values. Furthermore, the value of interpersonal relationships may diminish individuals propensity to process social categorization based on visible attributes and reduce the inter-group biases. Therefore, demographic differences among members in these organizations either become less salient compared to other organizations low in the category or may provide an environment that allows group members to express their individual differences leading to more effective groups (Polzer et al., 2002). In terms of demographically homogeneous groups, the positive effects of an interpersonal relationship culture may be less benecial because the demographic similarity among group members tends not to motivate the process of categorization. Thus, this reasoning suggests the following proposition: P3b. The dimensions of team orientation and respect for people will reduce the positive effects of visible diversity on relationship conict. Similar reasoning may apply to the moderating effects of individual behavior cultural values (i.e. outcome orientation and aggressiveness) on the relationship between visible diversity and relationship conict. As cultural values related to individual behavior emphasize competitiveness and action orientation, they may highlight individual differences among members such as visible demographic attributes. Being competitive and action oriented can not only direct individuals attention to the tasks themselves but also foster the competition among group members based on nontask related issues. The emphasis on individual behavior values can also promote individual categorization, which in turn, can create conict over members preferences or disagreements about interpersonal interactions (Jehn, 1995, 1997), which can lead to interpersonal clashes, distrust, and other forms of negative affect (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996a). Therefore, these values may increase the tendency toward interpersonal incompatibility leading to more interpersonal clashes and lower levels of trust among members. Lower levels of trust make misattribution of task conict for relationship conict more likely (Simons and

31

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

Peterson, 2000). High levels of competition and action orientation lead to greater interpersonal clashes and lower levels of trust; consequently, these values increase the degree of relationship conict within the groups. This positive effect may be less salient for homogeneous groups because they experience low levels of demographic differences. Therefore: P3c. The cultural values of outcome orientation and aggressiveness will foster the positive effects of visible diversity on relationship conict.

Discussion
Understanding the conditions under which organizations may benet from demographic diversity is theoretically and empirically important because of the popularity of this organizational practice and the inconsistent results of past studies. Past research has suggested that the effects of demographic diversity on group outcomes may be contingent on group process variables and group context (e.g. Lawrence, 1997; Williams and OReilly, 1998), which can affect the ability of diverse groups to overcome process loss (e.g. Milliken and Martins, 1996; Watson et al., 1993). Building on the OCP (OReilly et al., 1991), we examine the moderating effects of organizational culture on diverse work group processes. It is proposed that both organizational cultural value congruence and culture content moderate the relationships between diversity and intra-group conict. This paper contributes to the literature on group diversity in two signicant ways. First, little research has examined how organizational contextual factors inuence diverse group behavior (Williams and OReilly, 1998). This paper extends Chatman et al., (1998) study to theoretically examine how organizational culture moderates group diversity and intra-group conict. Most importantly, past research has tended to focus on the dark side of diversity, such as increased turnover (e.g. Wagner et al., 1984), less social integration (OReilly et al., 1989), low group commitment (Riordan and Shore, 1997), and low levels of organizational citizenship behavior (Chattopadhyay, 1999). Few studies have investigated how to promote the benets of diversity. This paper proposes that the benets of diversity may be facilitated by organizational culture. We argue that the effects of demographic diversity on intra-group conict are contingent on organizational culture and the

degree of cultural value congruence and cultural content shared among group members. A diverse group embedded within an organization with high cultural value congruence will be more likely to take advantage of the benets of diversity. In addition, a diverse group in an organization which emphasizes the values of respect for people and team orientation will be more likely to generate positive affect, and be low in relationship conict. This paper also contributes to the literature on organizational culture. Most organizational culture studies focus on how organizational culture impacts individual behavior such as job choice (e.g. Judge and Cable, 1997), commitment (e.g. Meglino et al., 1989), and employee retention (e.g. Sheridan, 1992). Little attention has been devoted to investigate the effect of organizational culture on group behavior. We argue that both organizational culture intensity and content have an impact on the work group functioning of diverse groups, depending on the degree of intensity and the cultural content embedded in the members in the workplace. In this paper, we articulate how organizational culture as a contextual variable inuences group functioning. There are other contextual and process variables that may inuence diverse group functioning in addition to culture. The nature of tasks, group composition, socio-political dynamics of a group, and group tenure are variables that can affect diverse group functioning (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; Hambrick, 1994; Tzabbar and Chuang, 2000). Thus, future research on the relationship between group diversity and group functioning can be advanced by investigating how contextual and process variables interact with diversity to inuence group outcomes. The implication of this paper is substantial for practitioners in that the framework of this paper provides an avenue for organizations to manage diversity through their culture. As suggested in this paper, the dark side of diversity can be counterbalanced by certain cultural values. Therefore, organizations can manage diversity by emphasizing those particular cultural values to decrease the negative effects of diversity on group functioning in organizations in hopes of improving overall group functioning.

References
Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48. Boulding, K. (1963), Conict and Defense, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

32

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY. Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), Assessing the relationship between industry between industry characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 522-53. Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S.G. and Neale, M.A. (1998), Being different yet feeling similar: the inuence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work process and outcomes, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 749-80. Chattopadhyay, P. (1999), Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the inuence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 273-87. Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991), Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 827-47. Evan, W. (1965), Conict and performance in R&D organizations, Industrial Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 37-46. Gladstein, D.L. (1984), Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 499-517. Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954), An analysis of conict in decision-making groups, Human Relations, Vol. 7, pp. 367-82. Hambrick, D.C. (1994), Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 171-213. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H. and Florey, A.T. (2002), Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1029-45. Hofstede, G. (1998), Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts, Organization Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 477-92. Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1993), Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups, in Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (Eds), Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 173-90. Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995), A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58, pp. 255-71. Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams, in Guzzo, R.A., Salas, E., et al. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision-Making Models in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 204-61. Jackson, S.E., Stone, V.K. and Alvarez, E.B. (1993), Socialization amidst diversity: the impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 45-109. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), How task and person conict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 117-41. Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multimethod examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup conict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 256-82. Jehn, K.A. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 530-57.

Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict on team performance, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11, pp. 56-73. Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997), To agree or not to agree: the effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conict on workgroup outcomes, The International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 8, pp. 287-305. Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), Why differences make a difference: a eld study of diversity, conict, and performance in workgroups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 741-63. Judge, T.A. and Cable, D.M. (1997), Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 359-94. Lawrence, B.S. (1997), The black box of organizational demography, Organization Science, Vol. 8, pp. 1-22. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), Maximizing cross-functional new product teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conict communications perspective, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 779-94. March, J.G. and Simon, H. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY. Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. and Adkins, C.L. (1989), A work values approach to corporate culture: a eld test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 424-32. Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 402-33. Murnighan, J.K. and Conlon, D.E. (1991), The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 165-86. OReilly, C.A. III, Caldwell, D.F. and Barnett, W.P. (1989), Work group demography, social integration, and turnover, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 21-37. OReilly, C.A. III and Chatman, J. (1996), Culture as social control: corporations, cults, and commitment, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 157-200. OReilly, C.A. III, Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), People and organizational culture: a prole comparison approach to assessing person-organization t, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516. Ott, S.J. (1989), The Organizational Culture Perspective, The Porsey Press, Chicago, IL. Pelled, L.H. (1996a), Demographic diversity, conict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory, Organization Science, Vol. 7, pp. 615-31. Pelled, L.H. (1996b), Relational demography and perceptions of group conict and performance: a eld investigation, The International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 7, pp. 230-46. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conict, and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 1-28. Pelled, L.H., Xin, K.R. and Weiss, A.M. (2001), No es como mi: relational demography and conict in a Mexican production facility, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 63-84. Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P. and Swann, W.B. Jr (2002), Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence in small work

33

Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conict

Team Performance Management Volume 10 Number 1/2 2004 26-34

You-Ta Chuang, Robin Church and Jelena Zikic

groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 296-325. 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. Rousseau, D.M. (1990), Assessing organizational culture: the case for multiple methods, in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 153-92. Schein, E. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Shah, P.P. and Jehn, K.A. (1993), Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conict, and task, Group Decisions & Negotiation, Vol. 2, pp. 149-65. Sheridan, J.E. (1992), Organizational culture and employee retention, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 1036-56. Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 662-74. Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), Task conict and relationship conict in top management teams. The pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 102-11. Sorensen, J.B. (2002), The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of rm performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 70-91. Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1981), Threatrigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 501-24. Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation between Social Groups, Academic Press, Oxford. 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. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and OReilly, C.A. III (1992), Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 549-79.

Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and Xin, K.R. (1995), Diversity in organizations: lessons from demography research, in Chemers, M.M., Oskamp, S. and Costanzo, M.A. (Eds), Diversity in Organizations: New Perspectives for a Changing Workplace, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 191-219. Tzabbar, D. and Chuang, Y.T. (2000), When does diversity matter? The roles of knowledge diversity and a groups socio-political structure in shaping TMTs decision to innovate, unpublished manuscript, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto. Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J. and OReilly, C.A. (1984), Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 74-92. 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. Wiersema, M.F. (1992), Top management team demography and corporate strategic change, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 91-122. 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.

Further reading
McGrath, J.E. (1997), Small group research, that once and future eld: an interpretation of the past with an eye to the future, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 7-27. Pfeffer, J. (1983), Organizational demography, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 299-357. Wiersema, M.F. and Bird, A. (1993), Organizational demography in Japanese rms: group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 996-1025.

34