There are conflicting findings in team diversity research on whether it is better for an individual on a team to be similar to or different from the rest of the team. This lab study with undergraduates completing a critical thinking and decision-making task uses optimal distinctiveness theory to examine the idea that finding a balance between these two states for team member personality will result in positive perceptions of team process. Our results supported this such that participants had the most positive perceptions of team process when optimally distinct from the rest of the team in terms of personality.
BanduraA. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In SmithK. G.HittM. A. (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
2.
BarrickM. R.StewartG. L.NeubertM. J.MountM. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377
3.
BasadurM.HeadM. (2001). Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01048.x
4.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
5.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
6.
BluedornA. C.TurbanD. B.LoveM. S. (1999). The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.277
7.
BradleyB. H.KlotzA. C.PostlethwaiteB. E.BrownK. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029845
8.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167291175001
ChattopadhyayP.GeorgeE.ShulmanA. D. (2008). The asymmetrical influence of sex dissimilarity in distributive vs. colocated work groups. Organization Science, 19(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0324
11.
ChattopadhyayP.TluchowskaM.GeorgeE. (2004). Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736071
12.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
13.
DeRueD. S.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1242
14.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002224378101800104
15.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
16.
HalfhillT.SundstromE.LahnerJ.CalderoneW.NielsenT. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496404268538
17.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.BellM. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901
18.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.GavinJ. H.FloreyA. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069328
19.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonF. P. (1994). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Allyn & Bacon.
20.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A. (2014). The design and analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 589–607). Cambridge University Press.
21.
Kristof-BrownA.BarrickM. R.StevensC. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 935–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00334.x
22.
LeonardelliG. J.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In M. P. Zanna. & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63–113). Academic Press.
23.
LePineJ. A.BuckmanB. R.CrawfordE. R.MethotJ. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30
26.
MeyerB. (2017). Team diversity: A review of the literature. In RicoR. (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of teamwork and collaborative processes. Wiley-Blackwell.
27.
MeyerJ. P.AllenN. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. SAGE.
28.
MohammedS.AngellL. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance. Small Group Research, 34(6), 651–677. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496403257228
29.
MohammedS.AngellL. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.293
30.
MurphyK. R. (1989). Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time?Human Performance, 2(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0203_3
31.
NeiningerA.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.KauffeldS.HenschelA. (2010). Effects of team and organizational commitment – a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.009
32.
NeumanG. A.WagnerS. H.ChristiansenN. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1059601199241003
33.
NeumanG. A.WrightJ. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
34.
NgT. W.SorensenK. L.EbyL. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.416
35.
PeetersM. A. G.van TuijlH. F. J. M.RutteC. G.ReymenI. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.588
36.
PickettC. L.BonnerB. L.ColemanJ. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.543
37.
PrewettM. S.WalvoordA. A. G.StilsonF. R. B.RossiM. E.BrannickM. T. (2009). The team personality–team performance relationship revisited: The impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903120253
38.
ShoreL. M.RandelA. E.ChungB. G.DeanM. A.Holcombe EhrhartK.SinghG. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206310385943
39.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
SnyderC. R.FromkinH. L. (1980). Uniqueness, the human pursuit of difference. Plenum.
42.
StevensM. J.CampionM. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500205
43.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relation (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
44.
ThatcherS. M. B.PatelP. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206311426187
45.
TsuiA. S.EganT. D.O’ReillyC.III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393472
46.
TsuiA. S.O’ReillyC. A.III. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.5465/256368
47.
WickhamH. (2009). Ggplot: Using the grammar of graphics with R. Springer.
48.
WilliamsK. Y.O’ReillyC. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
