Diversity and Workgroup Conflict
A large body of research is concerned with diversity in workgroups, and a major theme is diversity and conflict. Diversity is a common source of conflict in workgroups, and most reviews of diversity in teams make reference to conflict or potential conflict (e.g., Larkey,
1996).
In workgroup research, diversity has been conceptualized both in terms of observable characteristics such as gender, age, and race and also in terms of underlying characteristics such as beliefs, perspectives, values, functional specialty, profession, and experience (Oetzel, 2002). This review traces some of the literature that explores these characteristics, describes how identity might be related to group diversity, and, finally, considers how diversity can be practically managed.Several studies have considered the effects of different types of diversity on workgroup conflict. As previously mentioned, Eddleston et al. (2008) found that age diversity in the form of multiple generations of owners positively related to both task and relational conflict. Oosterhof, Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, Sanders, and Kiers (2009) examined how individual differences might lead to conflict and might be interpreted by members. Oosterhof et al. found that diversity in expertise was negatively related to both task and relational conflict, while diversity in extraversion was positively related to both types of conflict. Diversity in approach to work was positively related to task conflict only. Pelled et al. (1999; Pelled, 1996) found that functional diversity was related positively to task conflict and that task conflict was positively associated with group performance as rated by the team’s manager. Racial and job tenure diversity were associated positively with emotional conflict, while age diversity was related negatively to emotional conflict. There was no association between emotional conflict and performance.
Vodosek (2007) studied 76 chemistry research teams, typically consisting of a faculty supervisor, post docs, graduate and undergraduate students, visiting faculty members, and technicians, working as a team rather than in strictly hierarchical relationships. Vodosek operationalized diversity based on an omnibus calculation of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism and also measured task, relational, and process conflict (Jehn, 1995,
1997). He found that cultural diversity was positively related to all three types of conflict and that all three types of conflict were negatively related to both performance and satisfaction. However, Vodosek (2007) also found that conflict mediated the relationship between diversity and group outcomes. That is, the significant, negative effects of diversity on satisfaction and perceived performance became less significant or nonsignificant when any of the three types of conflict was included in a regression equation. Similarly, Choi and Sy (2010) found that task and relational conflict mediated the relationship between demographic diversity and group-level organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB). Choi and Sy measured conflict in 62 work groups from a variety of industries and developed a group measure of GOCB that included items such as “members of my group help others with their work when they have been absent even when they are not required to do so” and “members of my group willingly attend functions not required by management but which help our group’s overall image.” Although both types of conflict were negatively related to performance, task conflict was positively related to GOCB, while relational conflict was negatively related to it.
Two studies have examined diversity in terms of divisions within workgroups. Both studies identified how differences created subgroups and how those subgroups contributed to conflict in the larger team. Li and Hambrick (2005) studied 71 joint venture management groups looking at factions formed by membership in preexisting groups.
They found that group factions magnified demographic differences and led to more task and relational conflict and an increased risk of group disintegration. Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) also examined subdivisions within workgroups based on fault lines, which are divisions between members based on one or more characteristics (e.g., gender, race, organizational status, etc.). Jehn and Bezrukova found that, when “activated,” these fault lines led to increased conflict, decreased member satisfaction, and decreased performance. These connections were moderated by the degree to which members identified with the team.Several studies provide insights concerning how to manage conflicts effectively in diverse groups. Ayoko, Hartel, and Callan (2002) observed that more than 50% of the conflicts in participants’ workgroups were rooted in cultural differences. They found that the groups that handled conflict productively used discourse management strategies such as explanation and feedback, talking about differences, and focusing “on the problem and not the people.” Negative outcomes were related to “being loud, swearing, making threats, verbal aggression, domineering behaviors, criticism, lack of communication, and overtly paying attention to accent” (p. 177). Simons, Pelled, and Smith (1999) found that diversity in perceptions of environmental uncertainty and education level interacted with level of debate in the teams to affect performance of the teams positively. Debate led to comprehensive consideration of the issues, which in turn improved team performance. On the other hand, Von Glinow, Shapiro, and Brett (2004) argued that talk is not always appropriate for the management of conflict in diverse teams. Diversity of contextualization of comments and absence of word equivalents undermine effective communication, with the result that the conflict may be framed in ways that prevent constructive resolution. Moreover, cultures differ widely in their valuation of talk as a means of handling problems.
Trying to talk about conflicts or differences to members of cultures that do not value talk as a means of addressing conflict may be counterproductive. Von Glinow et al. suggested that substitutes for talk such as shared activities and the use of pictures or images may be more appropriate ways to address cultural differences.Overall, the studies on diversity and conflict suggest that diversity in terms of characteristics directly related to the work of the group, such as informational diversity and functional diversity, promotes task conflict and may increase group performance. On the other hand, diversity in terms of characteristics more distally related to the group’s work—racial, age, gender, value, and job tenure diversity—is associated with relational and emotional conflict and may have negative effects on performance if not managed effectively. The ultimate effects of diversity on performance, however, also depend on how the group deals with conflict. Diversity that results in coalitions seems to lead to more conflict although that may lead to positive outcomes. The framing of conflicts in terms of work rather than personal differences is associated with positive outcomes. Debate and confrontation of task-related aspects of conflicts are associated positively with performance and other outcomes. This, in turn, suggests that the nature of the group’s work will influence impacts of diversity on workgroup conflict. Pelled et al.’s (1999) finding on the interaction of task routineness with conflict provides an interesting suggestion that deserves further investigation.