Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Aligning Differences: : Discursive Diversity and Team Performance

Published: 01 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

How does cognitive diversity in a group affect its performance? Prior research suggests that group cognitive diversity poses a performance tradeoff: Diverse groups excel at creativity and innovation, but struggle to take coordinated action. Building on the insight that group cognition is not static, but is instead dynamically and interactively produced, we introduce the construct of discursive diversity, a manifestation of group cognitive diversity, which reflects the degree to which the meanings conveyed by group members in a given set of interactions diverge from one another. We propose that high-performing teams are ones that have a collective capacity to modulate shared cognition to match changing task requirements: They exhibit higher discursive diversity when engaged in ideational tasks and lower discursive diversity when performing coordination tasks. We further argue that teams exhibiting congruent modulation—that is, those with low group-level variance in members’ within-person semantic shifts to changing task requirements—are more likely to experience success than teams characterized by incongruent modulation. Using the tools of computational linguistics to derive a measure of discursive diversity and drawing on a novel longitudinal data set of intragroup electronic communications and performance outcomes for 117 remote software development teams on an online platform (www.gigster.com), we find support for our theory. Our findings suggest that the performance tradeoff of group cognitive diversity is not inescapable: Groups can navigate it by aligning their levels of discursive diversity to match their task requirements and by having members stay aligned with one another as they make these adjustments.
This paper was accepted by Isabel Fernandez-Mateo, organizations.
Funding: Financial support fromthe NSF-CAREER [Grant 1847091] is gratefully acknowledged.
Supplemental Material: Data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4274.

References

[1]
Aggarwal I, Woolley AW (2019) Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Sci. 65(4):1586–1599.
[2]
Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad. Management J. 39(5):1154–1184.
[3]
Ancona D, Chong C-L (1996) Entrainment: Pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 18:251–284.
[4]
Ancona D, Chong C-L (1999) Cycles and synchrony: The temporal role of context in team behavior. Wageman R, ed. Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Groups in Context, vol. 2 (Elsevier Science/JAI Press, Bingley, UK), 33–48.
[5]
Berger PL, Luckmann T (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor, New York).
[6]
Brereton MF, Cannon DM, Mabogunje A, Leifer LJ (1996) Collaboration in design teams: How social interaction shapes the product. Christiaans H, Cross N, Dorst K, eds. Analyzing Design Activity (Wiley, Chichester, UK), 319–341.
[7]
Bunderson JS, Boumgarden P (2010) Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organ. Sci. 21(3):609–624.
[8]
Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Castellan NJ Jr, ed. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ), 221–246.
[9]
Carley KM (1997) Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 18(S1):533–558.
[10]
Carmeli A, Halevi MY (2009) How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quart. 20(2):207–218.
[11]
Cejka MA, Eagly AH (1999) Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 25(4):413–423.
[12]
Chapple ED (1974) Culture and biological man: Explorations in behavioral anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 15:53–63.
[13]
Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Handron C, Hudson L (2013) The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles 69(1):58–71.
[14]
Collins R (2014) Interaction Ritual Chains (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
[15]
Corritore M, Goldberg A, Srivastava SB (2020) Duality in diversity: How intrapersonal and interpersonal cultural heterogeneity relate to firm performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 65(2):359–394.
[16]
Cronin MA, Weingart LR, Todorova G (2011) Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):571–612.
[17]
Cropley A (2006) In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Res. J. 18(3):391–404.
[18]
Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Sci. 50(3):352–364.
[19]
DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR (2010) The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 95(1):32–53.
[20]
De Dreu CKW, West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psych. 86(6):1191–1201.
[21]
DiMaggio P, Bernier C, Heckscher C, Mimno D (2018) Interaction ritual threads: Does IRC theory apply online? Weininger EB, Lareau A, Lizardo O, eds. Ritual, Emotion, Violence: Studies on the Micro-Sociology of Randall Collins (Routledge, New York), 99–142.
[22]
Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):350–383.
[23]
Eliasoph N, Lichterman P (2003) Culture in interaction. Amer. J. Sociol. 108(4):735–794.
[24]
Fleishman EA, Zaccaro SJ (1992) Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. Swezey RW, Salas E, eds. Teams: Their Training and Performance (Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT), 31–56.
[25]
Foucault M (2002) Archaeology of Knowledge (Psychology Press, Hove, UK).
[26]
Garg N, Schiebinger L, Jurafsky D, Zou J (2018) Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(16):E3635–E3644.
[27]
Gibbs JP, Martin WT (1962) Urbanization, technology, and the division of labor: International patterns. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27(5):667–677.
[28]
Gibson C, Vermeulen F (2003) A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):202–239.
[29]
Goldberg A, Srivastava SB, Manian VG, Monroe W, Potts C (2016) Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(6):1190–1222.
[30]
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psych. Rev. 102(1):4–27.
[31]
Griffith TL, Neale MA (2001) Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Res. Organ. Behav. 23:379–421.
[32]
Guerin B (1986) Mere presence effects in humans: A review. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 22(1):38–77.
[33]
Hackman JR (2011) Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA).
[34]
Harkins SG (1987) Social loafing and social facilitation. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 23(1):1–18.
[35]
Hauser OP, Gino F, Norton MI (2018) Budging beliefs, nudging behaviour. Mind Soc. 17(1-2):15–26.
[36]
Healey MP, Vuori T, Hodgkinson GP (2015) When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Acad. Management Rev. 40(3):399–422.
[37]
Jansen JJP, George G, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. J. Management Stud. 45(5)982–1007.
[38]
Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1993) Entrainment of creativity in small groups. Small Group Res. 24(2):179–198.
[39]
Kelly JR, McGrath JE (1985) Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 49(2):395–407.
[40]
Kelly J, Futoran GC, McGrath JE (1990) Capacity and capability: Seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Res. 21(3):283–314.
[41]
Knight D, Pearce CL, Smith KG, Olian JD, Sims HP, Smith KA, Flood P (1999) Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management J. 20(5):445–465.
[42]
Knorr Cetina K, Bruegger U (2002) Global microstructures: The virtual societies of financial markets. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(4):905–950.
[43]
Kozlowski AC, Taddy M, Evans JA (2019) The geometry of culture: Analyzing the meanings of class through word embeddings. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 84(5):905–949.
[44]
Larson JR (2010) In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (Psychology Press, New York).
[45]
Lewis D (2002) Convention: A Philosophical Study (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).
[46]
Liang D, Moreland R, Argote L (1995) Group vs. individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 21(4):384–393.
[47]
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.
[48]
Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Management Rev. 26(3):356–376.
[49]
Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psych. 85(2):273–283.
[50]
McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Res. 22(2):147–174.
[51]
McGrath JE, Kelly JR (1986) Time and Human Interaction: Toward a Social Psychology of Time (Guilford Press, New York).
[52]
McGrath JE, Kelly JR, Machatka DE (1984) The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings. Appl. Soc. Psych. Annu. 5:21–44.
[53]
Mihalache OR, Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2014) Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 8(2):128–148.
[54]
Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Burges CJC, Bottou L, Welling M, Ghahramani Z, Weinberger KQ, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 26. (Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY), 3111–3119.
[55]
Miller CC, Burke LM, Glick WH (1998) Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management J. 19(1):39–58.
[56]
Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Management Rev. 21(2):402–433.
[57]
Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K (2010) Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Management 36(4):876–910.
[58]
Moreland RL, Argote L, Krishnan R (1996) Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. Nye JL, Brower AM, eds. What’s Social About Social Cognition? Research on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA), 57–84.
[59]
Moreland R, Argote L, Krishnan R (1998) Training people to work in groups. Tindale R, Heath L, eds. Theory and Research on Small Groups (Plenum Press, New York), 37–60.
[60]
O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):324–338.
[61]
Page SE (2008) The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, new ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
[62]
Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):1–28.
[63]
Prince C, Salas E (1993) Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. Wiener EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL, eds. Cockpit Resource Management (Academic Press, San Diego), 337–366.
[64]
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12(4):502–517.
[65]
Reagans R, Miron-Spektor E, Argote L (2016) Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organ. Sci. 27(5):1108–1124.
[66]
Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(1):101–133.
[67]
Reid FJM, Reed S (2000) Cognitive entrainment in engineering design teams. Small Group Res. 31(3):354–382.
[68]
Ren Y, Argote L (2011) Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):189–229.
[69]
Rogan M, Mors ML (2014) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1860–1877.
[70]
Salancik GR, Pfeffer J (1978) Social information-processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Admin. Sci. Quart. 23(2):224–253.
[71]
Schroeder J, Kardas M, Epley N (2017) The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psych. Sci. 28(12):1745–1762.
[72]
Schwaber K (1997) SCRUM development process. Sutherland J, Casanave C, Miller J, Patel P, Hollowell G, eds. Business Object Design and Implementation (Springer, London), 117–134.
[73]
Sørensen JB (2002) The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):70–91.
[74]
Srikanth K, Harvey S, Peterson R (2016) A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: Moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):453–493.
[75]
Srivastava SB, Banaji MR (2011) Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 76(2):207–233.
[76]
Srivastava SB, Goldberg A, Manian VG, Potts C (2018) Enculturation trajectories: Language, cultural adaptation, and individual outcomes in organizations. Management Sci. 64(3):1348–1364.
[77]
ten Brinke L, Liu CC, Keltner D, Srivastava SB (2016) Virtues, vices, and political influence in the US Senate. Psych. Sci. 27(1):85–93.
[78]
Thompson L, Fine GA (1999) Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 3(4):278–302.
[79]
Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Management Rev. 38(4):8–29.
[80]
Warner RM (1979) Periodic rhythms in conversational speech. Language Speech 22(4):381–396.
[81]
Warner RM (1992) Cyclicity of vocal activity increases during conversation: Support for a nonlinear systems model of dyadic social interaction. Behav. Sci. 37(2):128–138.
[82]
Wegner DM (1987) Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. Mullen B, Goethals GR, eds. Theories of Group Behavior, Springer Series in Social Psychology (Springer, New York), 185–208.
[83]
Wegner DM, Erber R, Raymond P (1991) Transactive memory in close relationships. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 61(6):923–929.
[84]
Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing (AddisonWesley, Reading, MA).
[85]
Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688.
[86]
Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Organizational Culture, Adaptation, and PerformanceOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.1679135:5(1823-1848)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Exposure to the Views of Opposing Others with Latent Cognitive Differences Results in Social Influence—But Only When Those Differences Remain ObscuredManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2022.0089570:10(6669-6684)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Gender mismatch and bias in people‐centric operationsJournal of Operations Management10.1002/joom.129970:5(686-711)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Management Science
Management Science  Volume 68, Issue 11
November 2022
724 pages
ISSN:0025-1909
DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2022.68.issue-11
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2022
Accepted: 11 August 2021
Received: 07 June 2020

Author Tags

  1. groups and teams
  2. cognition
  3. diversity
  4. interaction

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 08 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Organizational Culture, Adaptation, and PerformanceOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.1679135:5(1823-1848)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Exposure to the Views of Opposing Others with Latent Cognitive Differences Results in Social Influence—But Only When Those Differences Remain ObscuredManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2022.0089570:10(6669-6684)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Gender mismatch and bias in people‐centric operationsJournal of Operations Management10.1002/joom.129970:5(686-711)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Gender mismatch and bias in people‐centric operationsJournal of Operations Management10.1002/joom.124970:5(E1-E17)Online publication date: 17-Jul-2024
  • (2023)Shared language in the team network-performance association: Reconciling conflicting views of the network centralization effect on team performanceCollective Intelligence10.1177/263391372311997392:3Online publication date: 1-Jul-2023

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media