Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment

Diversity in goal orientation, teamperformance, and internal team

environmentMarcello Russo

Management and Strategy Department, Rouen Business School,Mont Saint Aignax Cedex, France

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test a model in which diversity in goal orientation isassociated with decreased team performance by virtue of reduced group information elaboration. Inaddition, the model considers the moderating role of internal team environment.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of an empirical research in which thehypothesized relationships are investigated using hierarchical multiple-regression analyses.

Findings – The findings show that teams high in diversity in goal orientation report lower levels ofperformance because of the lower group information elaboration. However, in the presence of asupportive team environment the negative relationship of diversity in goal orientation on groupinformation elaboration are reduced.

Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on a cross-sectional design.

Practical implications – The paper suggests management should consider goal orientation in teambuilding, and provide interventions to improve team environment.

Social implications – Diversity has relevant consequences on interpersonal relations,decision-making processes, and team performance. The results of the present study suggest waysin which teams might leverage the benefits of diversity and reduce coordination problems associatedwith it.

Originality/value – This study contributes to the diversity team literature by expandingNederveen-Pieterse and colleagues’ research on diversity in goal orientation by emphasizing therole of internal team environment as moderator in the relationship between diversity in goalorientation and group information elaboration.

Keywords Team working, Team performance, Goal orientation, Team diversity,Information elaboration, Team climate, Decision making

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe majority of the literature suggests that diversity is a challenging issue for teaminterpersonal dynamics, decision-making processes, and performance ( Jackson andJoshi, 2010). Diversity refers to the presence of individual differences within a team interms of age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, values, personality, goal orientation, mentalmodels, etc. (Harrison and Klein, 2007). In particular, existing research distinguishesbetween surface and deep-level attributes of team diversity ( Jackson and Joshi, 2010;Milliken and Martins, 1996). Surface-level attributes of diversity refer to the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

The author is grateful to Loriann Roberson, Filomena Buonocore and Yehuda Baruch for theirhelpful comments on earlier versions of this article and would also like to thank Regine Bendland two anonymous EDI reviewers for their valuable guidance in revising the work.

EDI31,2

124

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: AnInternational JournalVol. 31 No. 2, 2012pp. 124-143q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-7149DOI 10.1108/02610151211202781

demographic characteristics such as gender, age or ethnicity that are easily detectableand might elicit discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices in a team (Tajfel and Turner,1986). Deep-level attributes refer to characteristics such as personality, values, beliefs,attitudes, mental models, or goal orientation that are less visible and might beunnoticed in a team (Bell, 2007). In virtue of these characteristics, deep-level attributeshave been considered as less influential in comparison with surface-level attributes,and, as a consequence, they have systematically received less attention in the literature(van Dijk et al., 2009). This is a serious shortcoming since deep-level attributes havebeen shown to influence team interaction and outcomes in the long term (e.g. Antill,1983; McGrath, 1984; Schilpzand et al., 2011; van Emmerik and Brenninkmeijer, 2009).Indeed, deep-level attributes are a relevant basis for the development of accurate,permanent, and non-stereotyped images of each team members (Harrison et al., 1998,2002). Hence, van Dijk et al. (2009, p. 42) suggested not “jumping to this conclusion[deep-level attributes are irrelevant] and discard the potential influence of deep-leveldiversity”. They argued that it would be beneficial for team diversity research toconduct additional research on deep-level attributes that are more closely related toteam performance or task achievement, such as goal orientation or mental models.

In this study, I decided to focus on diversity in goal orientation since it has receivedlower attention in comparison with team mental models (see Mohammed et al., 2010 for areview on this concept). To date, in fact, only few studies have specifically focused on theeffects of diversity (or low similarity) in goal orientation on teams (e.g. Kristof-Brownand Stevens, 2001; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). In particular, Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’(2011) study is the first research that conceptualized goal orientation in terms ofdiversity. Even though this paper is a seminal contribution for the analysis of diversityin goal orientation in teams, it presents some shortcomings that need to be addressed.First, it relies on a bidimensional conceptualization of goal orientation that does notaccount for recent developments of goal orientation theory, which considers a thirddimension of goal orientation (e.g. performance-avoid orientation (VandeWalle, 1997)). Inaddition, it makes use of a laboratory setting with the participation of students in arole-playing exercise. Although previous studies have shown that findings in thelaboratory are not different from field studies (e.g. Brown and Lord, 1999), there is theneed to investigate the role of diversity in goal orientations in real organizationalsettings, with participation of teams engaged in real work activities.

In the current paper, I attempt to extend Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) research,by proposing and testing a mediator model in which diversity in learning,performance-prove and performance-avoid orientation are related to decreased teamperformance by virtue of the lower group information elaboration. In addition, usingdata collected from Italian teams in audit and consulting companies, this study aims toinvestigate wheatear internal team environment is an organizational feature that mightmoderate the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and groupinformation elaboration.

The theoretical frameworkDiversity in goal orientation refers to the presence of differences in individuals’ mentalframework that might influence how teams approach tasks, goals, and achievementsituations (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). The concept of diversity in goal orientationis grounded on the goal orientation theory, which posits that individuals might exhibit

Diversity in goalorientation

125

a learning, performance-prove, or performance-avoid goal orientation[1] (Dweck, 1986;Dweck and Leggett, 1988; VandeWalle, 1997, 2001). Roughly speaking, individualswho exhibit a learning orientation tend to set difficult goals and undertake challengingtasks through which they can develop new knowledge and abilities. Individuals whoexhibit a performance goal orientation tend to set basic goals and undertake easy tasksthat might be successfully achieved. More specifically, individuals who exhibit aperformance-prove orientation tend to prefer visible tasks through which they candemonstrate favorable abilities to influential people in the workplace. Instead,individuals who exhibit a performance-avoid orientation tend to prefer tasks on whichthey have rehearsed extensively in order to avoid demonstrating unfavorable abilitiesor failures.

Research on diversity in goal orientation is still at an early-stage. The studiesconducted on this topic show that diversity in goal orientation is likely to induce adisagreement within a team with regard to goals, tasks, strategies or proceduresperformed, which, in turn, might have negative consequences on team processes andperformance (Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011).Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011), for instance, have found that diversity in goalorientation is likely to inhibit processing of information within the team, and preventagreement with strategies for task achievement, which, in turn, reduce teamperformance.

In the current paper, building on similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971), Ihypothesize that diversity in learning, performance-prove, and performance-avoid goalorientations are negatively related to team performance. The similarity-attractiontheory has been frequently used to elucidate the negative effects of diversity in teams(Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). It posits that individuals are more attracted to peoplesimilar to self in terms of values, attitudes, goals, personality and other personalcharacteristics. As a consequence, they tend to communicate, interact, and cooperatemore frequently only with those people because they perceive this interaction as safe,easy, and satisfying (Byrne, 1971). Relying on these arguments, I assume that diversityin learning, performance-prove and performance-avoid orientation is associated withdecreased team performance. Diversity in goal orientation nurtures the perception oflow similarity between self and other members’ goal orientation (e.g. Kristof-Brownand Stevens, 2001). It is possible that team member with a dominant goal orientation(i.e. learning orientation) might be less likely to initiate an interaction with peoplehaving a different orientation (i.e. performance orientation), thereby reducing teamdiscussion and interaction (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The presence of differencesin goal orientations might also induce a strong disagreement among team memberswith regard to the nature of goals pursued, the tasks performed, and the strategiesadopted, which might impede task accomplishment (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011).Taken together these arguments are supportive of the idea that diversity in goalorientation might negatively relate to team performance. Accordingly:

H1a. Diversity in learning orientation is negatively related to team performance.

H1b. Diversity in performance-prove orientation is negatively related to teamperformance.

H1c. Diversity in performance-avoid orientation is negatively related to teamperformance.

EDI31,2

126

The mediating role of group information elaborationGroup information elaboration has been recently introduced by van Knippenberg et al.(2004) as a newer team process that might elucidate the positive effects of diversity indecision-making processes and performance. It refers to the extent to which teammembers exchange, share, process, and integrate task unique information within theteam. Specifically, group information elaboration consists of distinct activities that areresponsible for a more accurate processing of information, such as individualprocessing of team information, feeding back the results into the group, discussing andintegrating of the different perspectives brought to the team by each member (vanKnippenberg et al., 2004).

This process has been introduced to overcome the shortcoming of theinformation/decision-making approach, which is traditionally used to explain thebenefits associated with higher levels of diversity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Theinformation/decision-making perspective assumes that diversity benefits teamdecisions and performance, because it expands the set of information, opinions,perspectives, orientations, and skills in the team (Jackson and Joshi, 2010; vanKnippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). However, vanKnippenberg et al. (2004) challenged this assumption, arguing that what is salient inteams is not only the availability of resources or information, but also how the teammanages such resources. For example, if team members simply ignore the differentperspectives and information present in heterogeneous teams, and continue to rely onlyon shared information to make their decision, the potential benefits of diversity in thedecision-making process are discarded. Hence, they argued that how the teamprocesses, elaborates, and integrates different information, opinions, and perspective iscritical to made better decisions and achieve higher levels of performance(van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2010). Consistently, recent reviews on the topichave found that group information elaboration is a process that might explain howheterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous ones (e.g. Nederveen-Pieterse et al.,2011; van Dijk et al., 2009; van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2010). Numerous studieshave found that groups that fully process internal information, and integrate uniqueperspectives held by each team member are likely to achieve a higher level ofperformance (e.g. Homan et al., 2007, 2008; Kearney and Gebert, 2009; Kearney et al.,2009; Nederveen-Pieterse, 2009; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011; van Ginkel and vanKnippenberg, 2008, 2009).

In the current research, I hypothesize that group information elaboration mediatesthe relationships between diversity in goal orientation and team performance.Additionally, I posit that diversity in goal orientation is related to a lower groupinformation elaboration. The presence of a different set of goal orientation might leadto the formation of different subgroups (i.e. learning versus performance-orientedmembers), which might prevent a complete processing of group information. Forexample, team members with a learning goal orientation might be less likely to share,elaborate, and integrate information with performance-prove or performance-avoidoriented colleagues. Additionally, they might perceive that the personal contribution isnot valued and even criticized by other members, since their behavior diverts time andenergies from relevant short-term activities (and vice versa). Accordingly:

H2a. The process of elaborating task relevant information mediates the negativerelationship between diversity in learning orientation and team performance.


127

H2b. The process of elaborating task relevant information mediates the negativerelationship between diversity in performance-prove orientation and teamperformance.

H2c. The process of elaboration of task relevant information mediates negativerelationship between diversity in performance-avoid orientation and teamperformance.

The moderating role of internal team environmentGoal orientation has been frequently conceptualized as a situational variable that canbe manipulated by intervening on internal or external organizational/team factors(Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Dragoni, 2005; Dragoni and Kuenzi, 2010; Mehta et al.,2009). Similarly, major research on team diversity has shown that team characteristics(i.e. team climate) or organizational policies (i.e. a team-based reward system) mightinfluence the positive and negative effects of diversity in teams (Roberge and van Dick,2010). Taken together, these arguments are supportive of the idea that the effects ofdiversity in goal orientation on team process and performance might be moderated byintervening variables. Consistently, the study by Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011) hasshown that team reflexivity (i.e. the tendency of a team to reflect on internal dynamics)reduces the negative effects of diversity in goal orientation on group informationelaboration.

In this paper, I posit that internal team environment moderates the relationshipbetween diversity in goal orientation and group information elaboration. Internal teamenvironment refers to the extent to which team members perceive internal climate to besupportive or unsupportive (Carson et al., 2007). Internal team environment is afunction of three dimensions: shared purpose, social support, and voice. Sharedpurpose refers to the extent to which team members have a common representation ofteam goals and priorities. Social support refers to the extent to which team membersvoluntarily provide emotional and psychological support to their colleagues. Voicerefers to the extent to which team members have the possibility to participate activelyin team discussions and decision-making process (Carson et al., 2007). In particular,existing research has shown that a supportive internal environment reduces thesalience of individual differences by leading team members to prioritize team needs,and take the right steps to ensure the achievement of team goals (Carson et al., 2007).Additionally, a supportive environment has been shown to lead team members to giveup feelings of animosity and reduce task disagreement, by stimulating a higher level ofinternal coordination and a deeper process of information (Kirkman and Rosen, 1997;Liden et al., 2000; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). Hence, a supportive team environmentmight help teams to overcome coordination problems due to high levels of diversity ingoal orientation, stimulating a higher participation in the internal discussion, and, as aconsequence, a complete processing and elaboration of information. Accordingly:

H3a. The relationship between the diversity in learning orientation and the processof elaborating task-relevant information is moderated by the internal teamenvironment. The negative effects of the diversity in learning orientation onthe process of elaborating task-relevant information are weaker when theinternal team environment is supportive whereas they are stronger when theinternal team environment is unsupportive.

EDI31,2

128

H3b. The relationship between diversity in performance-prove orientation and theprocess of elaborating task relevant information is moderated by the internalteam environment. The negative effects of diversity in performance-proveorientation on the process of elaborating task relevant information are weakerwhen the internal team environment is supportive whereas they are strongerwhen the internal team environment is unsupportive.

H3c. The relationship between diversity in performance-avoid orientation and theprocess of elaboration of task relevant information is moderated by internalteam environment. The negative effects of diversity in performance-avoidorientation on the process of the elaboration of task relevant information areweaker when the internal team environment is supportive whereas they arestronger when the internal team environment is unsupportive.

A model illustrating the proposed relationships is shown in Figure 1.

MethodSampleData for the present study were collected from auditors and consultants working intwo audit companies (belonging to the “Big Four” group) and a consultant companybased in Italy. Audit and consultant teams define a compelling sample because goalorientation has a critical role for team decision-making processes and performance.Indeed, auditors and consultants are simultaneously motivated by performance goalsfor the necessity to satisfy customers’ needs and by learning goals for the necessity toachieve a steady professional growth, and be competitive on the job market.

Sampled teams consisted of auditors and consultants in different stages of theircareer (i.e. senior manager, manager, assistant, junior assistant). Teams wereresponsible for tax, legal or financial consulting to organizations in different industries,such as public administration, shipping, automotive, energy, etc. Sampled companieswere initially contacted via e-mail and, after gaining consent, visited to ask managers’commitment, promising feedback about the individuals’ perception of team dynamics.Consistent with other studies on this topic (e.g. Simons et al., 1999; Tsui et al., 1992;Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005), “the informant sampling approach” was followedto select the participating teams. It requires internal support from HR managers in theselection of teams that have relevant characteristics fitting with research aims.

Since members participated in multiple teams, they were asked to complete anonline web survey related to the dynamics of a distinct team identified by the name ofthe customer. A coding system was proposed to companies to prevent the diffusion of

Figure 1.Conceptual model


129

confidential information (e.g. the name of the customer). Following suggestions formanagement of online web surveys provided by Dillman (1999) and Kraut (2005),several interventions were taken to ensure the participation of all team members, andincrease the response rate. First, each team member was personally invited to completethe survey – the e-mail set out to explain both the research aims and to guarantee theconfidentially of responses. Second, HR managers sent a further e-mail specifying theimportance of the research for the company. Finally, two follow-ups (after two and fourweeks) were sent to strengthen the complete participation of team members.

A total of 262 team members and 40 supervisors were e-mailed with a web link thatredirected to an online questionnaire. I received 174 (66.4 percent) members’ and 30 (75percent) supervisors’ response. Inclusion in the final sample required a completesurvey from both the supervisor of each team and at least 50 percent of the teammembers. The survey matching process reduced the sample to 124 (47.3 percent) teammembers who were rated by 24 (60 percent) supervisors. The average team size was7.93 (SD ¼ 4:77); 70 percent of team members were male with an average age of 28.5years (SD ¼ 3:05), and all members had a degree in economics or statistics. Teamtenure was 12.43 months (SD ¼ 14:003); team familiarity, concerning how well teammembers knew each other before of project start, was 2.28 (SD ¼ 0:57) therebyreflecting a moderate level of team familiarity.

MeasurementDiversity in goal orientation. Goal orientation was measured using a 13-item scaledeveloped by VandeWalle (1997). The scale allows partial values for learning,performance-prove, and performance-avoid orientations to be measured. Sample itemsare: “I enjoy changeling and difficult tasks at work where I’ll learn new skills” (learningorientation); “I try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others at work”(performance-prove orientation); “I’m concerned about taking on a task at work if myperformance would reveal that I had a low ability” (performance-avoid orientation).The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scale are 0.86 for learning goal orientation; 0.82for performance-prove goal orientation and 0.88 for performance-avoid goalorientation. Diversity was calculated as the standard deviation on each scale withineach group (Harrison and Klein, 2007).

Team performance. To avoid potential bias related to the utilization of a single sourceof information (i.e. common rater effect (Podsakoff et al., 2003)); team performance wasmeasured using supervisors’ ratings of six performance criteria drawn from previousresearch on this topic (e.g. Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Van der Vegt and Bunderson,2005). Established criteria were quality, efficiency, adherence to schedule, adherence tobudget, overall achievement, and improved customer satisfaction. Each supervisor wasasked to indicate whether team performance were higher, lower, or on average incomparison with the performance achieved by other teams engaged in similar projects inthe company. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.84.

Group information elaboration. Group information elaboration was measured usinga four-item scale developed by Kearney et al. (2009). A sample item is: “Members of thisteam carefully consider the unique information provided by each individual teammember”. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.71.

Internal team environment. The internal team environment was measured using aten-item scale including members’ rating to shared purpose, social support and voice.

EDI31,2

130

Items for shared purposes and social support were developed by Carson et al. (2007).Items for voice were developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items are: “Themembers of my team discuss our team’s main tasks and objectives to ensure that wehave a fair understanding” (shared purpose); “The members of my team giveencouragement to team members who seem frustrated” (social support); “As a memberof this team, I have a real say in how this team carries out its work” (voice). TheCronbach alpha coefficient was 0.88.

Control variables. Team size and team familiarity were included as controls sinceprevious research has shown that these variables are significantly related to the effectsof any underlying attributes of diversity on team processes and performance (Harrisonet al., 1998, 2002). Team familiarity was measured using a scale introduced byGruenfeld et al. (1996). Team members were asked to indicate how well they hadknown other colleagues before the project began.

Interrater agreement and reliability. Group information elaboration and internalteam environment were measured using data collected from each team member relyingon the assumption that members’ ratings reflect a shared perception of team dynamics.If this assumption is supported, ratings from members of the same team need to besimilar to one another, and significantly dissimilar from ratings provided by membersof different teams (Bliese, 2000). Consistent with team research, this assumption wasverified considering the average interrater agreement coefficient (rwgj ( James et al.,1984)) and the interclass correlation (ICC(1); ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000)). Mean values of rwgj

were 0.94 for elaboration of task relevant information and 0.90 for internal teamenvironment, which indicate a high level of agreement within the team. ICC(1) was 0.14for the elaboration of task relevant information and 0.10 for perception of internal teamenvironment, which suggest that a significant part of the variance was due to teammembership (Bliese, 2000). Values for ICC(2) were 0.47 for the elaboration of taskrelevant information and 0.20 for the internal team environment. These values arelower than the values obtained in prior research; however, these differences might bedue to different size of teams sampled in the present study in comparison with studiesthat established the cut-off values (Bliese, 2000).

AnalysisHierarchical multiple-regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses (Cohenet al., 2003). This technique was used since all investigated variables are at team level.Mediation was tested following the procedure illustrated by Baron and Kenny (1986),which argues to verify three steps to establish the presence of a mediation effect. First,the presence of a direct effect between the independent and the dependent variable needto be established (step 1). Second, the mediator variable need to influence the dependentvariable (step 2) and finally, this effect need to be verified by controlling for theindependent variable. The moderating role of internal team environment was testedusing the “simple-slope” procedure illustrated by Aiken and West (1991). It allows thesignificance of the changes of the dependent variable on the independent variable athigher, moderate, and lower levels of the moderator variable to be verified.

ResultsBefore all the proposed relationships were tested simultaneously, the discriminantvalidity of the measurement model through a confirmatory factor analysis was


131

verified. A measurement model where all items load on a single factor was comparedwith a measurement model where items load on the four factors: goal orientation, teamperformance, group information elaboration, and internal team environment. Theresults reported in Table I show that the four-factors model fits the data better, thusindicating support for the discriminant validity of the variables in the current study.

A preliminary correlation analysis was then performed (Table II). The findingsconfirm that relations proceeded in the expected directions. Diversity in learningorientation, performance-prove orientation and performance-avoid orientation werenegatively related to both team performance and group information elaboration. Inaddition, the internal team environment was positively related to group informationelaboration.

Tables III-V summarize the results of analyses for diversity in learning,performance-prove and performance-avoid goal orientation. The hypotheses H1a,H1b and H1c, which assume that diversity in learning, performance-prove andperformance-avoid orientations are negatively related to team performance, aresupported by data. Diversity in learning orientation (b ¼ 24:99, p , 0:001),performance-prove orientation (b ¼ 21:44, p , 0:001), and performance-avoidorientation (b ¼ 20:03, p , 0:01) were all negatively related to team performance.

The hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c, which assume that group informationelaboration mediates the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and teamperformance, are supported by data. In particular, the findings show that diversity ingoal orientation is negatively related to group information elaboration (b ¼ 20:67,p , 0:001), and that group information elaboration is significantly related to teamperformance after controlling for it (b ¼ 1:57, p , 0:001). Although diversity inlearning orientation remained significant, the result of the Sobel test shows that themediation effect was significant (Z ¼ 23:48, p , 0:001) (Table II). Regarding diversityin performance-prove orientation, the result of the Sobel test confirms the presence of asignificant mediator effect (Z ¼ 24:77, p , 0:001) (Table IV). Finally, the results showthat group information elaboration fully mediated the relationship between diversity inperformance-avoid orientation and team performance (Z ¼ 22:34, p , 0:05) (Table V).

The hypotheses H3a, H3b and H3c, which assume that a supportive internal teamenvironment might moderate the relationships between diversity in goal orientationand group information elaboration, are supported by data only for the hypothesis H3a(see model 2 in Tables III-V). In particular, only the interaction term associated withdiversity in learning orientation (diversity in learning orientation £ internal teamenvironment) was significantly associated with group information elaboration(b ¼ 2:09, p , 0:001) (Table III). The simple-slope test confirms that, in teams witha supportive internal team environment, diversity in learning orientation waspositively related to group information elaboration (b ¼ 1:07, t ¼ 3:87, p , 0:001).Instead, in teams with an unsupportive internal team environment, diversity inlearning orientation was negatively related to group information elaboration

Model x 2 df NFI CFI RMSEA

1 factor 1,994.33 495 0.236 0.298 0.1684 factors 1,238.50 495 0.535 0.649 0.120

Table I.Results of confirmatoryfactorial analysis

EDI31,2

132

Var

iab

les

Mea

nS

D1

23

45

67

8

1.T

eam

size

7.93

4.77

12

0.13

0.57

**

*0.

27*

*2

0.02

20.

45*

**

20.

62*

**

20.

40*

**

2.T

eam

fam

ilia

rity

2.28

.57

10.

16*

20.

23*

0.22

*0.

130.

28*

*0.

133.

Div

ersi

tyin

lear

nin

gor

ien

tati

on0.

570.

12(0

.86)

0.14

20.

18*

20.

66*

**

20.

53*

**

20.

34*

**

4.D

iver

sity

inp

erfo

rman

ce-p

rov

eor

ien

tati

on1.

070.

27(0

.82)

0.40

*2

0.54

**

*2

0.49

**

*2

0.13

5.D

iver

sity

inp

erfo

rman

ce-a

voi

dor

ien

tati

on1.

320.

31(0

.88)

0.01

20.

102

0.01

6.T

eam

per

form

ance

5.20

0.86

(0.8

4)0.

71*

**

0.58

**

*

7.E

lab

orat

ion

ofta

skre

lev

ant

info

rmat

ion

4.18

0.29

(0.7

1)0.

63*

**

8.In

tern

alte

amen

vir

onm

ent

3.90

0.27

(0.8

8)

Notes:

* p,

0:05

;*

* p,

0:01

;*

** p

,0:

001

Table II.Means, standard

deviations, andcorrelations


133

(b ¼ 20:2:52, t ¼ 28:86, p , 0:01). These findings are illustrated in Figure 2 where itcan be observed the different relationship of diversity in learning orientation withgroup information elaboration at supportive, unsupportive and moderately supportiveinternal team environment.

Model 1:team

performance

Model 2:elaboration oftask relevantinformation

Model 3:team

performanceVariables b SE b SE b SE

Step 1Team size 20.004 0.01 20.01 * * * 0.004 0.03 * 0.01Team familiarity 0.36 * * 0.10 0.12 * * * 0.03 0.13 0.10Elaboration of task relevant information 1.57 * * * 0.24Diversity in learning orient. 24.99 * * * 0.64 20.67 * * * 0.18 23.60 * * 0.24Internal team environment 0.42 * * * 0.07F 35.11 44.77 46.06R 2 0.48 0.62 0.62

Step 2: interaction effectDiversity in learning orientation £ internalteam environment 2.09 * * * 0.19DR 2 0.14F 48.15R 2 0.71

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance codes *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported

Table III.Coefficients of regressionanalyses for teamperformance andinteraction of diversity inlearning orientation andinternal teamenvironment

Model 1:team

performance


Model 3:team


Step 1Team size 20.06 * 0.01 20.02 * 0.003 20.005 0.01Team familiarity 20.02 0.11 0.05 0.02 20.14 0.10Elaboration of task relevant information 1.74 * 0.27Diversity in performance-prove orientation 21.44 * 0.25 20.33 * 0.06 20.85 0.23Internal team environment 0.47 * 0.06F 22.95 54.4 33.54R 2 0.38 0.66 0.54

Step 2: interaction effectDiversity in performance-prove orientation £internal team environment 0.001 0.01DR 2 0.28F 43.1R 2 0.66

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance code *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported

Table IV.Coefficients of regressionanalyses for teamperformance andinteraction of diversity inperformance-proveorientation and internalteam environment

EDI31,2

134

Model 1:team

performance


Model 3:team


Step 1Team size 20.08 * * * 0.01 20.03 * * * 0.004 0.003 0.01Team familiarity 0.11 0.13 0.12 * * 0.03 20.15 0.01Elaboration of task relevant information 2.24 * * * 0.27Diversity in performance-avoid orientation 20.03 * 0.24 20.16 * 0.07 0.33 0.19Internal team environment 0.51 * * * 0.07F 9.46 29.12 28.52R 2 0.19 0.44 0.50

Step 2: interaction effectDiversity in performance-avoid orientation £internal team environment 0.01DR 2 0.25F 33.28R 2 0.60

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance codes *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported

Table V.Coefficients of regression

analyses for teamperformance and

interaction of diversity inperformance-avoid

orientation and internalteam environment

Figure 2.Internal team environment

as moderator of therelationship betweendiversity in learning

orientation and theprocess of elaboration of

task relevant information


135

DiscussionThe purpose of this paper was to investigate the effects of diversity in goal orientationon team processes and performance, especially considering how the presence of asupportive internal team environment might influence these relationships. The resultsof this study indicate that:

. the three dimensions of diversity in goal orientation are related to decreased teamperformance;

. group information elaboration mediates the relationship between diversity inlearning, performance-prove, performance-avoid goal orientation and teamperformance; and

. internal team environment reduces the negative effects of diversity in learningorientation on group information elaboration.

This study contributes to team literature in several ways. First, this study contributesto emphasize the importance to consider and directly measure deep-level attributes ofdiversity, in addition to surface-level attributes, to favor a better understanding of teamdynamics (van Dijk et al., 2009). So doing, it challenges the approach traditionally usedby scholars who are likely to measure surface level attributes as a proxy for theoreticalspeculation on actual differences in deep-level attributes (e.g. Chatman et al., 1998).

Second, this study expands Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’s (2011) seminal contributionon diversity in goal orientation in at least two ways. First, the current research uses anempirical study with a professional sample. Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) researchmade use of a laboratory setting with a student sample. Although they highlighted thevalidity of this approach, they claimed for further field studies that might address theissue of generalizability. Hence, the current research contributes to the literature bystrengthen the reliability of these findings, and corroborating the importance toconsider goal orientation as a relevant deep-level attribute of diversity in teams.Second, this study expands Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’s study since it considers athree-dimensional model of goal orientation in teams. Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011),in fact, focused on a two-dimensional model of goal orientation, considering the effectsof diversity in learning and performance orientation only. This study considers theconsequences for team processes and performance associated with diversity inperformance-avoid orientation. So doing, it also challenges prior research that did notfound a significant relationship between performance-avoid goal orientation and teamperformance (e.g. Mehta et al., 2009).

Finally, this study makes a constructive contribution to team managementliterature, since it shows that the presence of a supportive internal environment mightattenuate the negative consequences of diversity in goal orientation on groupinformation elaboration. So doing, it illustrates a fruitful intervention that might allowmanagers to leverage the benefits of diversity in goal orientation, while at the sametime minimizing the coordination problems associated with higher levels of diversity(Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Hirst et al., 2009; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011; Porteret al., 2010; Roberge and van Dick, 2010).

A possible explanation for these findings might be found in the followingarguments. First of all, diversity in goal orientation might induce in the team a strongdisagreement with regard to goals pursued, tasks performed, and strategies adopted.For example, individuals with a learning orientation might exhort the team to raise the

EDI31,2

136

level of goals, even suggesting the adoption of unexplored procedures to achieve them.Instead, individuals with a performance-prove or a performance-avoid orientation mayexhort the team to set a lower level of goals, mostly suggesting the adoption oftraditional and well-know procedures that reduce the likelihood of errors. Internaldisagreement might generate interpersonal animosity, and immobility in taskaccomplishment, which negatively relate to team performance.

Additionally, diversity in goal orientations might lead to interaction problems, andreduced group information elaboration. Team members might decide to intentionallyreduce the communication with members having a different goal orientation, and to notshare with them relevant information (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). This situationmight depend on two reasons. First, human beings have a natural tendency to initiateinteraction with people that share a common background, common memories, and acommon goal orientation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). For example, members with alearning or performance orientation will be more likely to initiate an interaction withindividuals having a similar goal orientation because such interaction is perceived asrelaxed, understandable, and satisfying. Second, a state of anxiety is usually associatedwith interaction with people different from self because of potential misunderstanding,negative judgments, derision, and even insults (Berscheid and Walster, 1969; Byrneand Nelson, 1965; Singh and Ho, 2000; Singh and Tan, 1992). For example, individualswith a performance-avoid goal orientation might perceive a state of anxiety wheninteracting with colleagues learning oriented since they are concerned with notshowing a lack of expertise, and avoiding possible negative judgments.

Finally, an explanation for the moderating role of the internal team environmentmight lie in the positive consequences associated with the perception of a supportiveteam environment. The presence of a supportive team environment can stimulate ahigher participation of all members in the decision-making process. It nurtures a higherinvolvement in teamwork, and induces among team members a positive mood thatleads them to cooperate with others, regardless of different goal orientation. Indeed, thepresence of a supportive internal environment might contribute to reduce the salienceof individual differences by nurturing the perception that the achievement of commongoals and high levels of performance are more important than individual differences(Carson et al., 2007).

Managerial implicationsThis study has several implications for management. In particular, it suggests theadoption of appropriate HR policies that stimulate a supportive team environment andhelp to leverage the benefits associated with higher levels of diversity. Diversity in goalorientation need to be encouraged more than dissuaded since, if properly managed, thesimultaneous presence of members with a different goal orientation can generatebenefits more than losses. For example, learning oriented individuals might exhort theteam to dedicate greater attention to learning activities, such as the research ofinnovations in tasks and procedures. Instead, performance oriented individuals mightexhort the team to dedicate greater attention to performance activities, such asadherence to deadline or budget. Since these activities have been shown to be equallyrelevant for the achievement of a higher effectiveness in internal strategies andperformance (Mehta et al., 2009), it is clear that diversity in goal orientation is beneficialfor teams. Team leaders can have a critical role in managing internal environment and


137

team diversity. Because of their status and experience, team leaders might helpacknowledging the benefits associated with higher levels of diversity (DeRue et al.,2010; Maltbia and Power, 2009), and overcoming differences in goal orientation,thereby favoring a deeper elaboration and integration of information, perspectives andideas among team members (Nederveen-Pieterse, 2009).

Another fruitful intervention is the development of diversity training programs thatmight help to foster a better acknowledgment of the benefits associated with diversity( Jackson and Joshi, 2010; Kulik and Roberson, 2008; Maltbia and Power, 2009). Topicsworthy addressing might be the presence of high levels of diversity in apparentlyhomogeneous teams; the importance of unique information held by each teammembers; the benefits of integrating multiple ideas and perspectives, conflictmanagement, etc. Additionally, it might be beneficial to train teams using varioustechniques for group decision making and decision support system (DSS)(e.g. simulation models), which encourage team members to share and discussopenly information, and stimulate group information elaboration abilities.

Finally, another fruitful intervention might concern the encouragement ofcross-understanding among team members through task complexity.Cross-understanding refers to the extent to which team members have an accurateknowledge of one another’s mental model (Huber and Lewis, 2010). Huber and Lewis(2010) suggested that cross-understanding might reduce the salience of individualdifferences since it promotes integration and identification of similarities in personalcharacteristics. In particular, they argued that increased task complexity is useful topromote cross-understanding since it requires a closer interaction and interdependenceamong team members to accomplish with assigned tasks. Increased task complexitymight help the team to overcome divergences associated with diversity, since it fostersteam members to rely on each another, and discover shared perspectives and commonmental frameworks, to solve difficult tasks.

LimitationsThis research has several limitations. Firstly, it was conducted on a small sample(n ¼ 24) thus influencing the validity of assumption of interrater agreement andrestricting the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the particularorganizational context considered might have influenced the results. Audit andconsultant teams’ performance strongly depend on customers’ evaluations; hence highlevels of performance-prove or performance-avoid orientation might have been inducedby the organizational context more than by individual differences. In such contexts,indeed, even the smaller error might have serious economic and legal consequences.Future research carried out on a larger sample is required to extend the understandingof the possible effects of diversity in goal orientation. Second, the utilization ofsubjective indicators of team performance might have influenced the relationshipbetween diversity in goal orientation and team performance. van Dijk et al. (2009)argued that the use of subjective or objective indicators of team performance influencesthe level of statistical significance, and the magnitude of the relationship betweendiversity and team performance. Thus, even though team supervisors provided data onteam performance, some bias might exist with the results because supervisors aredirectly involved in team dynamics, by managing strategic activities such as externalteam relationships with customers.

EDI31,2

138

However, despite these limitations, this study makes a significant contribution toexisting research since it extends Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) seminal contributionon diversity in goal orientation, by emphasizing the importance of internal teamenvironment in reducing the negative effects of diversity in goal orientation on teamprocesses and outcomes.

Note

1. Dweck (1986) introduced the construct of goal orientation by observing pupil reactiontoward the assignment of tasks with different levels of complexity. He noticed that somepupils became depressed when coping with newer and more difficult tasks. They showed alower interest in continuing the activity and adopted ineffective strategies to cope with them.On the contrary, other pupils were excited by newer and more difficult tasks, showed ahigher interest and adopted more effective strategies to cope with them (VandeWalle, 2001).He argued that the first reaction reflects an individual disposition for performanceachievement, whereas the second reaction reflects an individual disposition for learning andpersonal development. Hence, he defined the former disposition as “performance goalorientation” and the latter as “learning goal orientation”.

References

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, 3rded., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product teamperformance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-41.

Antill, J.K. (1983), “Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 145-55.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Bell, S.T. (2007), “Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615.

Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. (1969), Interpersonal Attraction, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Bliese, P. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications fordata aggregation and analysis”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), MultilevelTheory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 349-81.

Brown, D.J. and Lord, R.G. (1999), “The utility of experimental research in the study oftransformational/charismatic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 531-9.

Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003), “Management team learning orientation and businessunit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 552-60.

Byrne, D.E. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Byrne, D.E. and Nelson, D. (1965), “Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positivereinforcements”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 659-63.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigationof antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50No. 5, pp. 1217-34.


139

Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S. and Neale, M.A. (1998), “Being different yet feeling similar:the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processesand outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 749-80.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/CorrelationAnalysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

DeRue, S.C., Barnes, C.M. and Morgeson, F.P. (2010), “Understanding the motivationalcontingencies of team leadership”, Small Group Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 621-51.

Dillman, D.A. (1999), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley,New York, NY.

Dragoni, L. (2005), “Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizationalwork groups: the role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1084-95.

Dragoni, L. and Kuenzi, M. (2010), “The impact of a climate for learning: boundary conditionsand facilitators”, paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Conference,Montreal.

Dweck, C.S. (1986), “Motivational processes affecting learning”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41No. 10, pp. 1040-8.

Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation andpersonality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-73.

Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y. and Neale, M.A. (1996), “Group composition anddecision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process andperformance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1,pp. 1-15.

Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,pp. 1199-228.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and theeffect of surface versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H. and Florey, A.T. (2002), “Time, teams, and taskperformance: changing effects of diversity on group functioning”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1029-45.

Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D. and Zhou, J. (2009), “A cross-level perspective on employeecreativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 280-93.

Homan, A.C., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and Ilgen,D.R. (2008), “Facing differences with an open mind: openness to experience, salience ofintra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1204-22.

Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007), “Bridgingfaultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performancein diverse work groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189-99.

Huber, G.P. and Lewis, K. (2010), “Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition andperformance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 6-26.

Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2010), “Work team diversity”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. II, APA, Washington, DC.

EDI31,2

140

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliabilitywith and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98.

Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009), “Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: thepromise of transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1,pp. 77-89.

Kearney, E., Gebert, D. and Voelpel, S.C. (2009), “When and how diversity benefits teams: theimportance of team members’ need for cognition”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 581-98.

Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1997), “A model of work team empowerment”, in Pasmore, W.A.and Woodman, R.W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development:An Annual Series Featuring Advances in Theory, Methodology, and Research, Vol. 10,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 131-67.

Kraut, A.I. (2005), Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Kristof-Brown, A. and Stevens, C.K. (2001), “Goal congruence in project teams: does the fitbetween members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter?”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1083-95.

Kulik, C.T. and Roberson, L. (2008), “Common goals and golden opportunities: evaluations ofdiversity education in academic and organizational settings”, Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-31.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role ofpsychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-16.

Maltbia, T. and Power, A. (2009), A Leader’s Guide to Leveraging Diversity: Strategic LearningCapabilities for Breakthrough Performance, Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam.

McGrath, J.E. (1984), Group Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Mehta, A., Field, H., Armenakis, A. and Mehta, N. (2009), “Team goal orientation and teamperformance: the mediating role of team planning”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 1026-46.

Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.J. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding themultiple effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-33.

Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K. (2010), “Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of theteam mental model construct”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 876-910.

Nederveen-Pieterse, A. (2009), “Goal orientation in teams: the role of diversity”, unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Nederveen-Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D. and van Ginkel, W.P. (2011), “Diversity in goalorientation, team reflexivity and team performance”, Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Process, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 153-64.

O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J. and Frink, D.D. (1994), “A review of the influence of groupgoals on group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1285-01.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method variancein behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Porter, C.O., Webb, J.W. and Gogus, C.I. (2010), “When goal orientations collide: effects oflearning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workloadimbalance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 935-43.


141

Roberge, M. and van Dick, R. (2010), “Recognizing the benefits of diversity: when and how doesdiversity increase group performance?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20No. 4, pp. 295-308.

Schilpzand, M.C., Herold, D.N. and Shalley, C.E. (2011), “Members’ openness to experience andteams’ creative performance”, Small Group Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 55-76.

Simons, T.L., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate,and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-73.

Singh, R. and Ho, S.Y. (2000), “Attitudes and attraction: a new test of the attraction, repulsion andsimilarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses”, British Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 197-211.

Singh, R. and Tan, L.S.C. (1992), “Attitudes and attraction: a test of the similarity-attraction anddissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3,pp. 227-38.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S.and Austin, W.G. (Eds), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL,pp. 7-24.

Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992), “Being different: relational demography andorganizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-79.

Van der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), “Learning and performance in multi- disciplinaryteams: the importance of collective team identification”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 532-47.

VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientationinstrument”, Educational & Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015.

VandeWalle, D. (2001), “Goal orientation: why wanting to look successful doesn’t always lead tosuccess”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 162-71.

van Dijk, H., van Engen, M.L. and van Knippenberg, D. (2009), “Work group diversity and groupperformance: a meta-analysis”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Chicago, IL.

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence ofconstruct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,pp. 108-19.

van Emmerik, I.J.H. and Brenninkmeijer, V. (2009), “Deep-level similarity and group socialcapital: associations with team functioning”, Small Group Research, Vol. 40 No. 6,pp. 650-69.

van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2008), “Group information elaboration and groupdecision making: the role of shared task representations”, Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 82-97.

van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2009), “Knowledge about the distribution ofinformation and group decision making: when and why does it work?”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 218-29.

van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Work group diversity”, Annual Review ofPsychology, Vol. 58, pp. 515-41.

van Knippenberg, D. and van Ginkel, W.P. (2010), “The categorization-elaboration model of workgroup diversity: wielding the double-edged sword”, in Crisp, R. (Ed.), The Psychology ofSocial and Cultural Diversity, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

EDI31,2

142

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Work group diversity and groupperformance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1008-22.

Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a reviewof 40 years of research”, in Staw, B. and Sutton, R. (Eds), Research in OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 20, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 77-140.

About the authorMarcello Russo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Strategy, RouenBusiness School, France. He received his PhD at the University of Naples Parthenope, Italy. Hehas been a Visiting Scholar in the “Social-Organizational Psychology Program” at the TeachersCollege of Columbia University, New York City, USA. His current research interests include:work-life balance, diversity and stereotype, teams, and healthcare management.


143

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment