Write a 2 page paper considering the following: Destructive communication takes many forms. This is vividly depicted in the film, The 33.
Describe a work interaction in which you witnessed or experienced one-upping, withdrawing, bottling negative emotions, lashing out unexpectedly, engaging in personal insult rather than addressing a problem, or insistence on handling issues alone. Be sure to define the term(s) you are using for this example.
Explain the response this behavior created in the interaction and how you or the other person reacted in turn.
NOTE: If you cannot think of a personal work situation where one of these events occurred, you might want to view The 33 and use an example from the film.
Given what you have learned in this chapter, discuss what you would have done differently in that interaction and what advice would you give others in a similar situation. If you choose to use the film, discuss what did the miners did to resolve their communication and work through group conflict.
Use at least three sources in addition to the course text. The paper is to follow
APA guidelines (Links to an external site.)
as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Required Resources
Text
Read the following chapters in
Group behavior in organizations
:
Chapter 3: Interpersonal Relations, Communication and Group Effectiveness
Chapter 4: Diversity
Recommended Resources
Multimedia
Calderon, A. (Producer), & Riggen, P. (Director). (2015).
The 33 (Links to an external site.)
[Motion picture]. Chile: Warner Bros. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2006295/
This film supports the Destructive Communication assignment this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)
Forbes (2015, January 9).
How Admiral Michelle Howard is innovating within the Navy (Links to an external site.)
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/rpLI88LExTg
This video supports the Positive Interdependence and Knowledge Sharing discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)
McChrystal, S. (2011).
Listen, learn…Then lead (Links to an external site.)
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal
This video supports the Influence of Informal Groups discussion this week. This video has closed captioning and a transcript that can be accessed here: https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal/transcript (Links to an external site.)
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)
77
3Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effectiveness
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe interpersonal skills and their importance in the workplace.
• Explain how our basic interpersonal relations skill set is formed and describe methods for further
development.
• Identify and describe the major elements of the communication process.
• Identify the major communication flows in an organization and the type of information associated with each.
• Identify and describe three significant models of communication.
• Outline the basic obstacles to effective communication and strategies for overcoming them.
• Describe the relationship between positive interdependence and knowledge sharing.
• Define interpersonal communication and its impact on group effectiveness.
1. Interpersonal skills are only important in face-to-face group work; they are not really
applicable to virtual team settings. T/F
2. Our ability to recall the information we have heard degrades within a short period of
time. T/F
3. Social skills are not trainable; like personality, you get what you are born with. T/F
4. One of greatest challenges to communicating effectively lies in how both the sender and
receiver filter the content of a message. T/F
5. In teams, members pool their KSAs through mass exchange or information capture. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Bexco is a small engineering firm that takes a team-based approach to the work environ-
ment. At Bexco, a team composed of five engineers has worked together for a little over
2 years. About 6 months ago, the team’s manager informed the team members that he
had hired a new engineer to join their team. Team members received this news well, and
they have spent the past 4 months adjusting to and training their new team member,
Erik. During this time, team members have all worked with Erik in some capacity and
have all experienced the same problem—Erik has trouble communicating with others.
The team is decentralized, meaning that all members share leadership and task roles and
communicate directly with each other. There is no single leader through which to fun-
nel communications, which allows members to easily share their knowledge and view-
points. This has allowed the team to enjoy uninhibited communication and collaboration.
Although the team members have demonstrated the way their communication network
functions and have encouraged Erik to communicate directly with his team, Erik contin-
ues to direct his communications toward the team’s supervisor rather than to his fellow
team members. When Erik communicates with his team through the supervisor, he limits
his ability to influence the team and its ability to influence him, which inhibits relation-
ships. Additionally, when he does communicate with team members directly, his messages
are often unclear and his colleagues cannot determine their meaning or the importance
of the information. His communications typically contain important information but lack
the context the rest of the team needs to understand their significance.
The team members want to help Erik improve his communication skills. They under-
stand that everyone makes mistakes when they communicate; while such mistakes can
sometimes be revised or explained, the exchange can never be undone. Both practice and
empathy—understanding the perspective of the person with whom you are communicat-
ing—will improve interpersonal communications over time. The team intends to help
Erik grow his skills in this area by providing feedback on his communication and present-
ing him with some guiding principles to effectively communicate.
Whether we are employees, managers, part of a work group, or on a team, working
together requires cooperation, coordination, and social interaction. Given adequate
technical skills and material resources, effective performance largely depends on prop-
erly using essential interpersonal skills (Klein, DeRouin, & Salas, 2006). Effective teams
are characterized by using interpersonal skills to facilitate:
• sharing knowledge and viewpoints,
• identifying problems (by voicing concerns),
• solving problems and making decisions, and
• resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative ways (Cannon-
These processes are too complex to address in a single chapter. Problem solving, deci-
sion making, and conflict management are individually dealt with later in the text. In this
chapter, we define and discuss the interpersonal relations skill set, examine interpersonal
behaviors and skills relating to communication, and explore their impact on performance.
3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Interpersonal skills, or people skills, refer to a complex skill set that encompasses KSAs and
behaviors that enhance the quality of our interpersonal interactions (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1995). Interpersonal skills and the ability to work constructively in groups and teams top the
list of the most valuable skill areas for job seekers, interns, employees, and managers at all
levels and across virtually any operational setting, from accounting to the armed forces (Mun-
son, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004; Klein et al., 2006). Everybody wants interper-
sonal skills, but nobody seems to know exactly where they come from, what they are, or how
to get them.
Where Do Interpersonal
Skills Come From?
As with skills of any type, interper-
sonal skills can be learned, prac-
ticed, and developed over time. We
can consciously begin the process
of honing these skills at any point in
our lives and across any setting, pri-
vate or professional. However, most
of us develop an unconscious level
of competency in interpersonal skills
simply by living and interacting with
others over the course of our life-
time. Humans are social by nature,
and from our earliest moments, most
of us try to communicate with those
around us via eye contact, facial
expressions, body language, and
KIM JAE-HWAN/Staff/GettyImages
Today U.S. Marines receive special training in people
skills and social interaction before going on overseas
duty assignments.
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
physical sensations, and we eventually graduate to using verbal communication as well (Klein
et al., 2006). We develop a sense of social and behavioral norms from our early interactions
with family and friends, and as we learn to read and interpret interpersonal behaviors and
social cues. The greater our experience with interpersonal contact, the more easily and natu-
rally we develop interpersonal skills (Miller, 2004).
As we grow older and experience more complex social interactions, we develop a standard
toolbox for all our interpersonal exchanges. However, the experience and skills gained via
social development may not fully prepare us for interaction in professional settings. Work-
place relations can be difficult to navigate because they feature rapid development and fre-
quent changes in employee roles, interdependence, expectations, and demands. Today’s
reliance on technology-assisted communication, online project management, and virtual
teamwork add an extra dimension of complexity to an already multidimensional process.
Consider the difficulty of communicating emotional nuance and tone such as shared enthu-
siasm, attentiveness, teasing, or sympathetic encouragement via text or e-mail. The limited
ability to translate traditional interpersonal behaviors and social cues via technology make
the development of interpersonal skills even more important for effective communication,
coordination, and cooperation in the contemporary workplace (Caya, Mortensen, & Pinson-
neault, 2013; Kimble, 2011).
Prior to the use of interpersonal skills as an umbrella term for the KSAs and behaviors we
use to navigate and manage our interpersonal interactions, theorists approached this field of
study with a “divide and conquer” approach. Formal and informal theories evolved, defining
our ability to relate to others as social or emotional intelligence and connecting our level of
intelligence with specific personality traits. Contemporary thought regarding the identifica-
tion and application of interpersonal skills grew out of this early theory work (Landy, 2005),
and the multiple dimensions of intelligence and personality represent factors that can poten-
tially influence our ability to acquire and effectively utilize interpersonal skills. In the follow-
ing sections, we examine different facets of intelligence and personality and their relationship
to interpersonal skills. Let’s begin with social and emotional intelligence.
Social and Emotional Intelligence
Long before interpersonal skills, member attachment styles, or social value orientation were
considered significant elements of organizational behavior, E. L. Thorndike (1920) intro-
duced the idea of social intelligence. Thorndike’s discussion was more a call to recognize
multiple forms of intelligence than a serious investigation into interpersonal competencies;
however, it did open the doors on this area of study and introduce the idea that cognitive abil-
ity is multifaceted (Landy, 2005). Today theorists describe social intelligence as the ability
to understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during interpersonal situations and to act
appropriately on that understanding (Marlowe, 1986; Klein et al., 2006).
Social intelligence has three basic components:
• Social sensitivity: the ability to perceive emotional and behavioral cues from our-
selves and others; this represents our awareness of what is going on during a social
interaction.
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
• Social insight: the ability to meaningfully connect emotional and behavioral cues
within a given context and to understand why we or others feel and behave in a par-
ticular way.
• Communicative competence: the ability to accurately understand and interpret
verbal and nonverbal messages from others and strategically control the messages
we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980).
In action, social intelligence translates into social skill, or the ability to effectively read, com-
prehend, and manage social interactions (Witt & Ferris, 2003). Social skill allows us to trans-
late goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective behavior (Schneider, Ackerman,
& Kanfer, 1996; Schneider, Roberts, & Heggestad, 2002).
The idea that human intelligence has not one but multiple dimensions inspired some research-
ers to focus on our cognitive ability to perceive, express, and manage emotion (Gardner, 1983,
1999; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Emotional intelligence (EI) describes our ability to
identify and express emotions, understand emotions and their underlying causes, integrate
emotions to facilitate thought, and regulate positive and negative emotions in ourselves and
others (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Our ability to deal with an interaction’s emo-
tional content can profoundly affect interpersonal relations and conflict management.
There is a major debate on whether EI is trait or ability based (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2000). The trait perspective views emotional intelligence as innate (Petrides & Furnham,
2001), essentially treating EI as a collection of fixed personality traits. This approach has met
with considerable resistance, both academically (see Locke, 2005; Landy, 2005)—because
a constellation of personality traits cannot be considered “intelligence”—and in practice,
because it shuts out the possibility that emotional intelligence can be learned or increased.
The ability-based perspective offers a more optimistic view, conceptualizing EI as comprising
relatively trainable cognitive abilities, capacities, and skills (Salovey, Mayer & Caruso, 2004).
Either way, emotional intelligence has been effectively used as a tool for selecting and training
employees whose primary tasks involve interpersonal interactions (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002;
Cherniss, 2003). There is a tendency to confuse interpersonal skills with personality traits,
and while they are different, there is some connection between the two. Let’s explore these
topics more closely.
Personality and Interpersonal Skills
Personality traits are often confused with social skills. They tend to be lumped together, par-
ticularly in our evaluations of an individual’s positive or negative interpersonal skills. For
example, in an interview-based study of the interpersonal communication skills human
resources managers most valued in other managers, many cited personality traits as well as
effective communication and other interpersonal skills (Bambacas & Patrickson, 2009). This
is understandable, since our personality traits, and others’ perception of them, can signifi-
cantly impact our ability to acquire and use interpersonal skills in the real world. Individu-
als who tend toward introspection and shyness, for example, will likely have less interaction
experience and thus lower skill development in areas such as cooperation and verbal com-
munication. However, these individuals may also be more practiced—and skilled—in areas
such as being mindful of others and listening effectively.
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
However interrelated they may seem, personality traits and social skills are distinct. Indi-
vidual personality traits are considered relatively fixed and enduring, whereas social skills
are relatively trainable (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Leary, 1995). Another major difference lies in
their practical use: Social skills can counteract the presence of less sociable personality traits,
but the reverse tends not to be true (Klein et al., 2006). For instance, socially pleasing per-
sonality traits such as extraversion and agreeableness will not make up for a serious lack in
social skills. However, personality can affect our ability to acquire and strategically use inter-
personal skills, thereby affecting performance effectiveness in group work and teamwork. We
all have areas within our interpersonal skill set that our personality and background have
brought to the fore. Capitalizing on these and improving areas in which we have less experi-
ence or skill can counteract potentially negative personality effects on group performance
(Leary, 1995).
So just what are interpersonal skills? Now that we have some background on where they
come from and understand the theoretical foundations of contemporary concepts, it’s time to
look inside the interpersonal skills toolbox.
The Interpersonal Skills Toolbox
Although there are more than 400 individual skill and behavioral components recognized as
part of the interpersonal skill set, most are related to the basic issues surrounding commu-
nicating, managing interactions and relationships, and correctly interpreting social dynam-
ics and cues (Klein et al., 2006; Bedwell, Fiore, & Salas, 2014). The components originally
perceived to make up social intelligence—social sensitivity, social insight, and communicative
competence—are nice and concise, but tell us little about how people are supposed to achieve
these abilities or which skills will strengthen them. In today’s workplace, expertise in using
interpersonal skills calls for competence across several key areas that represent both subtle
and overt skills. The basic subtle and overt skill sets are outlined in the paragraphs below.
The Subtle Skill Set
Subtle skills affect interactions indirectly. They deal primarily with how we think and perceive
or are perceived by others. Although we can actively engage these skills during an interaction,
they are not an overt part of the exchange. The subtle skill set includes critical competencies
in the following:
Perceptiveness involves acute sensitivity to and observation of interpersonal behaviors, atti-
tudes, and communications; the interaction and its context; and the elements affecting each
of these. Unlike perception, which is often skewed, skilled perceptiveness requires seeing
and hearing things with as little distortion and bias as possible. This is a necessary compo-
nent of effective group performance (Trower, 1979; Klein et al., 2006). Nowhere is this more
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
apparent than in interpersonal interactions, in which each individual has a unique perception
of the situation, the interaction, others, and him- or herself. During and after the interaction,
the group generates another shared perception of what happened and what was (or was not)
accomplished within the exchange. As we will see later in the chapter, what we perceive and
how we interpret it profoundly affect our interpersonal relations.
Self-presentation involves influencing the reactions and images others have regarding our
ideas, image, and self. This is a vital aspect of social interaction and is key to organizational
success at any level (Baumeister, 1989; Klein et al., 2006). We all engage in self-presentation
behaviors that are motivated by our desire to establish, manage, and maintain an appropri-
ate personal image in the minds of others (DuBrin, 1997; Klein et al., 2006). The process by
which we attempt to influence others’ perception of and reaction to our image is referred to
as impression management. It includes demonstrating punctuality, good humor, sensibility,
helpfulness, appropriate dress, friendliness, and approachability (de Janasz, Dowd, & Schnei-
der, 2002). People working within an organization, either individually or as part of a group
or team, are all to some degree dependent on the goodwill and cooperation of others. Self-
presentation is therefore an important skill regardless of our specific position or job require-
ments (Klein et al., 2006).
Mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves during interactions in order to
inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). To do this, we must be able to read and
evaluate our own and others’ reactions, as well as an interaction’s efficacy in terms of how
the process is (or is not) accomplishing desired outcomes. Mindfulness is always useful, even
after an interaction is over. However, as we grow in practice and competency, being mindful
during an interaction allows us to read the situation and adjust our interaction or communi-
cation tactics to be more effective. Mindfulness is also a key factor in strengthening existing
skill areas and developing new ones.
Cognitive flexibility reflects our ability to shift perspective, supplement and revise existing
mental models, consider conflicting information and evidence, and create new mental mod-
els when existing ones are no longer effective (Hayes, 2002; Ionescu, 2012). This helps us
avoid jumping to conclusions, making biased assumptions, and stereotyping or prejudging
people or situations. Cognitive flexibility is useful to both task work and teamwork processes.
It enhances our critical-thinking and creative problem-solving skills and supports the devel-
opment of positive attitudes and relations between members.
Intercultural sensitivity reflects our awareness and understanding of cultural differences
and our ability to perceive and relate to how people from other cultures will interpret an
interaction, communication, situation, or event (Dunbar, 1996; Klein et al., 2006). Key pro-
cesses involve keeping an open mind, viewing differences as interesting rather than frighten-
ing, developing understanding and empathy for other people and worldviews, acknowledg-
ing that “normal” is a flexible concept, seeking feedback on perceptions of our own behavior
and customs, adapting to the unfamiliar, and constructively managing confusion and conflict.
Intercultural sensitivity is a valuable competency within today’s organizational environ-
ments, which are characterized by an increasingly diverse workforce. Employees at all levels
can benefit from understanding how differences in cultural values and norms affect behavior
and communication (Arai, Wanca-Thibault, & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; de Janasz et al., 2002).
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Next, we describe the overt skill set competencies that complete our toolbox.
The Overt Skill Set
Overt skills directly affect interactions. When these skills are engaged, they become active
elements of an exchange. The overt skill set includes critical competencies in the following:
Verbal expression involves communicative competency in both writing or speaking. This
requires us to accurately interpret verbal messages from others and strategically control the
messages we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980). Language is complex in that certain
aspects of grammar, word selection, word meaning, and vocal tone can significantly change
or be differently perceived because of context. To be effective, not only must communications
be clear, but the sender’s intention and the receiver’s interpretation must align as closely as
possible. Learning to effectively express ourselves is one of the most valuable and critical
interpersonal skills we can develop, and communication is considered one of the most desir-
able skills when making hiring or promotion decisions (Klein et al., 2006).
Nonverbal expression involves communicative competency in both reading and nonverbal sig-
nals and cues. This is an important feature of interpersonal interactions. Nonverbal commu-
nication encompasses a diverse range of sensory and behavioral cues, including facial expres-
sions, physical gestures, movements, postures and orientations, interpersonal spacing and
touching, and vocal and visual cues (DePaulo, 1992). Individuals with poor social skills tend
not only to miss or misunderstand nonverbal communications, they also underutilize or mis-
use them when communicating with others (Trower, 1980).
Listening involves mindfully and perceptively assimilating verbal communication, paying
attention to the speaker and the content of his or her message, and recognizing and acknowl-
edging the speaker’s communicative intent and expectations regarding our response. Listen-
ing is a critical competency for collaboration, particularly in interactions involving decision
making, problem solving, conflict resolution, and negotiation. Teams engage in all of these
processes from the moment they begin collaborative goal setting. We will discuss specific
dimensions and processes of competent/skilled listening in more detail later in the chap-
ter. Listening is considered one of the most valuable interpersonal skills that employees, and
especially managers, can employ in the workplace (Klein et al., 2006; Robbins & Hunsaker,
1996).
Persuasion involves consciously manipulating interactions to encourage others to adopt spe-
cific attitudes, behaviors, viewpoints, or courses of action (Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996; de
Janasz et al., 2002). People employ three basic vehicles for persuasion: credibility, rationality,
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
and emotional appeal (Verderber & Verderber, 1986). Persuading others through credibility
requires that the persuader be perceived positively and have the ability to inspire confidence.
This aspect involves self-presentation. Persuading others with rationality involves logical rea-
soning skills—part of the critical-thinking skill category. Persuading others through emotional
appeal requires perceptiveness, mindfulness, self-presentation, cognitive flexibility, listening,
and some aspects of intercultural sensitivity, enabling one to identify and understand others’
emotional buttons and adjust tactics midstream. All of these require communicative compe-
tency. Persuasion is a pervasive element in interpersonal interactions (Klein et al., 2006).
Cooperation involves working together and/or in support of one another to achieve a mutu-
ally beneficial outcome. Essential processes include identifying and making positive associa-
tions between our own and others’ interests and goals; determining mutually beneficial tasks,
activities, and processes; modeling and encouraging prosocial and supportive behaviors such
as offering assistance; pacing activities to fit team schedule and needs; monitoring others’
reactions to our behavior; and clarifying misinterpretations or miscommunications (Salas,
Sims, & Klein, 2004). Although different personality types and backgrounds can predispose
us to or away from cooperative attitudes, cooperation competency—like any skill—requires
time and practical experience to develop. Being able to work cooperatively is a highly valu-
able skill in today’s job market (Klein et al., 2006).
Coordination involves managing task interdependencies within the performance process flow
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Essential processes include mapping tasks and activities to sup-
port specific and measurable goals; handling resource allocation, task and activity assign-
ment, sequencing, and synchronization; and integrating member contributions and effort
(Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Cooperation and coordination are both
integral to effective group and team performance. Their value is not limited to group work,
however; both are considered critical skill competencies for interpersonal interaction in the
workplace, regardless of whether one is working alone or in a group or team (Klein et al.,
2006).
Conflict resolution involves reconciling people, ideas, and viewpoints; discussing and achiev-
ing closure on negative reactions and behaviors; negotiating a mutually acceptable outcome;
and restoring positive relations between participants. Although conflict resolution requires
a variety of skills, core competencies include perceptiveness, listening and communicative
competencies, mindfulness, self-presentation, intercultural sensitivity, and mediation. Key
processes include fostering constructive communication and feedback, avoiding or mitigating
destructive communication and feedback, keeping an open mind, engaging in rational rather
than emotional debate, identifying similarities and demystifying differences, modeling and
encouraging a climate of cooperation and positive perceptions of diversity, and synthesizing
viewpoints and perspectives to construct mutually beneficially outcomes (Johnson & John-
son, 2013; Smith, 2001). Conflict resolution is another competency that is high on the list of
most desirable employee skills (Klein et al., 2006).
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Next, we will overview some of the techniques and strategies for developing interpersonal
skills.
Developing Interpersonal Skills
With an increasing awareness of the effect that interpersonal skills have on the workplace,
organizations are now spending more to train employees in this skill set. In fact, more than
half the training budget in organizations across all industries is dedicated to improving
employees’ interpersonal skills (O’Sullivan, 2000; Landy & Conte, 2004). Common sense sug-
gests that training methods should be carefully selected based on specific abilities and needs;
however, selection is more typically determined by organizational and individual constraints
(i.e. time, money, and other resources, as well as employees’ willingness to participate). While
Business Applications: Interpersonal Relations Are Critical in
the New Millennium
In the age of virtual workspaces, we might assume that technology skills would be more impor-
tant than people skills. Management, human services, and even sales are increasingly moving
into virtual realms where teams coordinate, customer service reps placate, and negotiators . . .
negotiate—all in the intangible office space of the Internet. The lack of physical connection in
our workplace interactions can lead us to think that interpersonal skills are obsolete—but in
fact, it is just the opposite. Now that we have less tangible interactions, it is more important
than ever that we pay attention to the people behind the computer screen.
Rather than downgrading people skills, our transformation from an industrial society to an
information-based one has many employers placing a premium on interpersonal relations,
effective communication, and integrity (Zehr, 1998; Robles, 2012). Technical skills, though
necessary, are not enough to keep us employed in the new millennium (James & James, 2004).
Current and future managers and leaders emphasize the importance of interpersonal rela-
tions and other soft skills in the tech-assisted workplace (Robles, 2012; Mast, Jonas, Cronauer,
& Darioly, 2012)—and these skills have some unlikely advocates.
While the armed forces have a reputation for creating ultrastrong bonds that last years beyond
members’ active duty, they are not well known for managing with soft skills. This, however,
has begun to change. In his 2011 TED Talk, Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal described
how managing teams in active duty after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fostered
a realization that in this era of techno-communication and virtual management, interpersonal
skills are profoundly important to managers and leaders.
Critical-Thinking Question
In his TED Talk, McChrystal describes the need to personally connect, build trust, and mean-
ingfully communicate over distance via technological interfaces. As an online class, you, your
classmates, and your instructors face a similar issue. Describe some of the methods you think
facilitate meaningful communication and build bonds within this class on the online forum, as
well as areas where you feel there has been a significant failure to connect.
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
interpersonal skill training can be directed toward specific areas of cognitive and behavioral
ability, the most successful development occurs when these areas are woven together in a
training program that combines information, demonstration, practice, and constructive feed-
back (Bailey & Butcher, 1983; Harrison, 1992). Here we examine formal and informal strat-
egies that have acknowledged success rates and are frequently selected by organizations
(Klein et al., 2006).
Formal Training Strategies
Of the formal strategies employed to develop interpersonal skills, role playing is by far the
most popular and successful (Berry, 1998; Connerley, 1997; Muchinsky, 2003). In particu-
lar, a specific role-playing technique known as behavior modeling is often used. Applying
the principles of Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory to interpersonal skill development,
behavior modeling consists of a multistep process in which employees:
1. observe real-time or filmed interactions in which participants demonstrate both
positive and negative behaviors (Baldwin, 1992),
2. practice recognizing negative behaviors and engaging in positive behaviors by par-
ticipating in role-playing exercises, and
3. experiment with using these new behavioral skills in real-world settings.
In a study of behavior modeling exercises used to improve listening skills, researchers found
that role-playing sessions that broke tasks into smaller, more manageable practice units expe-
rienced greater success in skill development (May & Kahnweiler, 2000).
Sophisticated technology has increasingly enhanced the effectiveness of computer-based
role-playing and virtual simulation training as well (Holsbrink-Engels, 1997). One such role-
playing simulator is used in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) training centers, where a
computer-based training program allows agents to practice picking up verbal and nonverbal
cues to detect deception during interviews (Olsen, Sellers, & Phillips, 2004). Teams in both
the military and civilian industrial sector are using computer-based role-playing and simula-
tion training to improve communication and other interpersonal skills (Salas, Burke, Bowers,
& Wilson, 2001).
Informal Training Strategies
More commonly and easily applied than their formal counterparts, informal strategies can be
highly effective and have the added benefit of being useful to a teamwork process. Common
informal training strategies include the following:
These strategies can all help informally develop interpersonal skills, and they pull double
duty in teams because of their usefulness in facilitating effective performance. Let’s take a
quick look at how informal strategies accomplish all this.
As we learned in Chapter 2, goal setting helps team members stay motivated and focused on
team tasks and activities by providing a framework of clearly understood, specific, and mea-
surable performance goals and expectations; a system for evaluation; and planned discussion
and revision points. Goal setting is often one of the first collaborative activities in which a
team engages. When a formal strategy such as the SMARTER goals model is used, collabora-
tive activities and objectives are clearly identified, organized, and broken down into manage-
able segments. The whole process is mapped out to be accomplished in a relatively short time
frame. For these reasons, goal setting makes excellent practice for developing interpersonal
skills such as coordination, cooperation, mindfulness, perceptiveness, listening, and verbal
expression.
Coaching involves analyzing the performance of a team and each of its members, offer-
ing insight into problem areas, and providing encouragement and making suggestions for
improvement at both the individual and team level (DuBrin, 2005). Coaches can objectively
assess team members’ individual interpersonal skill competencies and needs, as well as make
recommendations for how to consciously work on developing skills during team interactions.
Mentoring is similar to coaching, yet distinct. Whereas coaches take a more general approach,
mentors are committed to developing a long-term personal relationship with individual
team members whom they feel can benefit from their knowledge and experience (DuBrin,
1997). Like coaches, mentors objectively observe and offer members specific feedback and
suggestions for developing interpersonal skills. Unlike coaches, however, mentors will engage
in one-on-one training exercises (such as role playing and behavior modeling) to help their
protégés succeed.
Feedback represents any form of communication that offers individuals information about
themselves, their attitudes, their behavior, their performance, and/or the effect they have on
others (Mill, 1976; Klein et al., 2006). Feedback can be positive and indicate areas in which an
individual has succeeded in some way, or it can be negative and focus on failures or shortcom-
ings. Both positive and negative feedback can be constructive, however. Constructive feed-
back is intended to aid personal development and performance. Giving constructive feedback
on an individual’s performance and interpersonal skills can instill confidence in his or her
existing skills, identify areas in need of improvement, and offer practical assistance in further
skill development.
Communication is paramount to all of these techniques, as it is to all interpersonal interac-
tions. While communication skills are encompassed within the interpersonal skill set, com-
munication itself is a process, and one that occurs within any interaction. The remaining sec-
tions in this chapter deal with the communication process, overcoming basic obstacles to
effective communication, and the relationship between communication and group effective-
ness. Let’s begin with an overview of the communication process.
3.2 The Communication Process
Communication represents the comprehensive exchange of interpersonal, contextual,
and task-related information. It is the process of sending and perceiving meaning via sig-
nals and messages. These activities can be both conscious and unconscious. In face-to-face
interactions, for example, we pay conscious attention to both the messages we are sending
and those we receive. Body language, however, may simultaneously send signals by which we
unconsciously perceive each other’s apparent emotional or affective states (i.e., confidence,
excitement, anxiety, or disdain). Though often unintended, these signals influence our per-
ception and interpretation of conscious communications. As we become more practiced in
interpersonal skills and develop our understanding of the communication process, we can
more easily shift from unconscious to conscious control of our verbal and nonverbal commu-
nications and our perception of these in others.
At a minimum, communication requires a sender, a receiver, and a message sent via a com-
munication channel between them (see Figure 3.1). Senders initiate messages by encoding
the information they want to share. When we encode, we translate information-
encompassing mental models into informative and expressive language. Knowledge, ideas,
feelings, and thoughts are translated into a message, or a symbolic representation of infor-
mation in a condensed form. Spoken or written words, images, physical models, and body
language are all messages that have been encoded and sent through a particular medium, or
channel. Personal and tech-assisted conversation, phone, e-mail, texting, and social media are
just some of the channels through which we communicate. Once a message has been sent,
receivers accept and decode the message—by processing and interpreting the information—
and take appropriate action or respond.
Figure 3.1: Basic components of communication
The most basic components of communication are a sender, a receiver, a message, and a
communication channel.
Message
Channel
Sender Receiver
Hello!
Direction of Message Flow
Workplace communication is often categorized in terms of the direction a message takes on
its “journey” through organizational hierarchies (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008). Table 3.1
provides an overview of the directional message flows found in the workplace, including
downward, upward, lateral, external, and grapevine communications.
As shown in Table 3.1, the separate categories are typically associated with specific types of
messages (Canary & McPhee, 2011). Whatever direction they travel in, messages are sent via
communication channels.
Communication Channels
Communication channels represent the media through which messages travel. Channels
can be characterized by media type, degree of receiver participation, media richness, and
organizational acceptance. Each of these dimensions can be used to describe communication
Table 3.1: Workplace communications categorized by message flow
Message
direction Description Examples
Downward
communication
Messages that move from higher to
lower levels of organizational hierarchy
(i.e., from managers to group or team
members, or from upper to middle
management).
• Procedural, goal, and task directives
• Initiative and change announcements
• Clarifications and explanations
• Employee feedback and appraisal
Upward
communication
Messages that move from lower to higher
levels of organizational hierarchy (i.e.,
from team member to project manager, or
from midlevel to upper management).
• Job- and task-related issues and
activities
• Accounting and performance reports
• Requests or suggestions for
improvement and change
• Grievances and disputes
• Employees’ feelings or needs
concerning their work, their
coworkers, and the organization
Lateral
communication
Messages that travel between employees
of equal or equivalent hierarchical rank
(i.e., between team members, between
same-level managers, or between union
leaders and corporate managers). It can
also include coordination communications
that flow diagonally across organizational
departments and hierarchy.
• Usually task- or project-related
messages
• Activity coordination within or across
groups and departments, and related
project responsibilities and issues
• Discussion among colleagues or
peers regarding messages from
higher or lower levels of hierarchy in
order to process the information or
problem solve an issue
External
communication
Messages that flow between organiza-
tional employees or representatives to
a variety of contacts and stakeholders
outside the organization. Messages in
this category tend to fall into two major
subcategories: Most are related to the
organizational business process, and
some are related to organizational public
relations.
• Organizational business process:
Sales, customer service,
advertisement, financial reports
to stakeholders, acquisitions, and
negotiations
• Organizational public relations:
Press releases and product,
marketing, and productivity
announcements
Grapevine
communication
Messages that travel outside of organiza-
tionally established lines of communica-
tion. These typically include work-related
information, happenings, or issues that for
whatever reason feel more comfortable or
accepted in an informal conversation or
interaction.
• Unpublicized organizational needs,
issues, or happenings
• Prospective transitions or changes
• Issues or relationships between
organizational employees or between
various divisions and groups
channels in a different way. Together, they offer a comprehensive understanding of what
media channels are and how they affect our communications.
Media Type
Channels characterized by media type are fairly self-evident and easy to identify (Berger,
2011). Face-to-face channels include all same time, same place in-person interactions (e.g.,
speeches, team meetings and discussions, brown bag lunches, conversations in formal and
informal gatherings and groups, and so on). Digital channels include technology-based inter-
personal interactions (e.g., texting, voice mail, intranets, social media, wikis, etc.), as well as
real-time virtual communication spaces (e.g., videoconferencing, chat, electronic meetings,
and so on). Print channels include online and offline written media that do not integrate social
interaction (e.g., reports, memos, written announcements, newsletters, informational web
pages, books and e-books, journals, articles, and so on).
Degree of Receiver Participation
Marshall McLuhan, who predicted the Internet 30 years before its invention and coined the
modern usage of the terms surfing and global village (Levinson, 1999; Getto, 2011), also
proclaimed, “the medium is the message” (McLuhan 1964/2001, p. 25). He argued that the
communication channels we choose impact our messages by engaging receivers in different
ways. McLuhan used the terms hot and cool to differentiate between the receiver participa-
tion levels associated with each media format. Hot media (e.g., lecture, film, radio/podcasts,
and print) provide a wealth of information stimulus and require little participation. We are
engaged through passive involvement—we need only to watch and listen. Cool media (e.g.,
the web, social media, and face-to-face interactions) require a significantly higher degree of
participation, since we are actively involved in communicating informative and expressive
details. Meaningful communication via cool media depends heavily on an individual’s ability
to communicate information, express emotion, and engage communication partners.
Media Richness
Daft and Lengel (1984) developed the concept of media richness to help communicators
select the best channel for a given situation. They proposed that a channel’s communicative
ability should match a message’s complexity, in terms of how much and what type of informa-
tion is conveyed. For example, complex personal messages that require expression and tone
to be interpreted are not well expressed through a quick e-mail or text message. The degree
to which a channel can convey message complexity represents its media richness. Factors
that affect a media channel’s communicative ability include its capability to convey multi-
dimensional information, effect communication, and change understanding, as well as the
availability and speed of feedback along the channel. Daft and Lengel outlined a continuum
running between rich media, those with the highest communicative capabilities, and lean
media, those with the lowest capabilities (see Figure 3.2).
Face-to-face channels are considered to hold the richest media, followed by interactive, real-
time digital channels. Media rich channels are considered optimum for complex, multidi-
mensional exchanges such as negotiation or problem solving. Tech-assisted communications
such as e-mail, phone calls, and live chats lack some elements of sensory input and therefore
rest midcontinuum. Finally, print channels and other noninteractive media, such as recorded
announcements, are considered media lean.
Organizational Acceptance
Media selection is also influenced by organizational culture and social norms, which affect
member thinking and attitudes toward specific channels and how they should be used (Fulk,
Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1987). Formal channels are those established by the organiza-
tion or its members specifically for communications related to professional activities and pro-
cesses (such as company e-mail or official memos). Informal channels spontaneously emerge
according to individual choices for transmitting personal, social, and even work-related mes-
sages (Langan-Fox, 2001). Multioption, tech-assisted personal messaging has become the
norm, blurring the lines between established and emergent channels.
Listening—which thanks to technology can span all of the descriptive categories discussed
here—is also considered a communication channel. According to Harris and Nelson (2008), it
is the channel most commonly used. Ironically, listening is also the most commonly fallible of
all communication channels. Before we get into the details of what makes or breaks effective
communication, let’s round off our examination of the basic components with some visual
models of the communication process.
Communication Models
Researchers have been modeling the communication process for years, each one building
a new layer of understanding for this complex interaction. There are three communication
models of particular note to our study of interpersonal relations within groups and teams: the
transmission model, the interaction model, and the constructionist model. Each focuses on a
single aspect of contemporary communication. Taken together, they build a comprehensive
picture of the basic communication processes that occur today. We will begin with the oldest
and most simplistic communication model, which conceptualizes messages as transmissions.
Figure 3.2: Media continuum
Media channels move from lean to rich on the media continuum. Noninteractive channels are
considered the leanest form of media, while face-to-face is the richest.
Lean Media Rich Media
Print
Tech-
Assisted
Exchange
Face-to-
Face
Exchange
Transmission Model
The transmission model describes communication as a linear, one-directional process in
which messages move from a sender to a receiver (Ellis & McClintock, 1990). In this model,
the sender or transmitter is the primary actor during communication. The receiver is a rela-
tively passive target that serves as an end point for the transmission process (see Figure 3.3).
First developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949), the transmission model was
originally built to mirror radio and telephone technologies. Although it still does a fair job of
modeling one-way, asynchronous, technology-aided communication (i.e., tweets, posts, and
some forms of e-mailing), the transmission model lacks the depth and complexity needed
to accurately describe dynamic interactions. It does, however, provide a firm foundation for
later, more sophisticated theories, such as the interaction model.
Interaction Model
Slightly more complex than the transmission model, the interaction model describes com-
munication as a cyclical, two-way process in which the sender and receiver alternate roles
and interactively generate meaning via messages and contextual feedback (Schramm, 1954,
1997). In this model, both parties actively engage in message exchange, alternating quickly
and easily between the roles of sender and receiver (see Figure 3.4).
The interaction model acknowledges that senders and receivers are mutually influencing
entities and that communication takes place within various contexts that range from psycho-
logical to environmental. We discuss contexts in greater detail later in this chapter. The inter-
action model simplifies and describes the ongoing communication and feedback cycles that
fuel our interaction; however, it does not entirely capture what actually occurs as we interre-
late. This is addressed more clearly in the constructionist model of communication.
Figure 3.3: Transmission model of communication
The transmission model of communication assumes messages move in a linear, one-directional
process.
Source: From The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Copyright 1949, 1998 by the Board of Trustees of the University of
Illinois. Used with permission of the University of Illinois Press.
Message Message
Signal Received
signal
Information
source
Transmitter Receiver Destination
Channel
Constructionist Model
The constructionist model describes communication as an interactive negotiation of mean-
ing (Cronen & Pearce, 1982). Under this model, meaning is not a set construct. Rather, the
meaning of a single word can change depending on its context, the way it is used, the physical
and emotional cues given during an interaction, and its socially accepted meanings. Accord-
ing to the constructionist model, communicating is not just a simple exchange of information.
When we communicate we share meaning, and that meaning is jointly constructed (see
Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Constructionist model of communication
According to the constructionist model of communication, as we communicate, we negotiate and
coconstruct meaning.
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Message
Sender/
Receiver
Negotiated/
Constructed
Meaning
Figure 3.4: Interaction model of communication
In the interaction model, communication is perceived as an interactive exchange cycle that takes
place within multiple contexts.
Source: Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp.
3–26). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
In many cases jointly constructed meaning occurs before any communicative interaction. This
occurs when certain gestures or expressions have been indoctrinated into our cultural under-
standing, such as using a thumbs-up to indicate approval or readiness (good job; all set) or
using the abbreviation LOL (laugh out loud) to indicate humor in text-only communications.
At other times, we discover the need to co-construct and negotiate meaning during an inter-
action. Consider this exchange between 39-year-old Kylie and her 72-year-old mother, Ailene:
After setting up Ailene’s online account, Kylie says, “Great, let’s test it out. Who do you want
to chat with?” “What do you mean?” asks Ailene. Kylie points out Ailene’s contact list and tells
her she can chat with any of the people who are currently online. “But won’t they be too busy
to talk to me if they are already online?” Ailene asks. “If they are,” says Kylie, “they’ll just refuse
to chat. It’s OK Mom, pick one.” Ailene looks at the list and picks up her phone, “Ok,” she says,
“I guess I’ll see if Cindy has time to chat.” “What are you doing?” asks Kylie. “I’m calling to chat
with Cindy, like you said,” answers Ailene. Kylie sighs.
What just happened? Before texting or online chatting became the norm, saying “let’s chat”
had a whole different meaning. Kylie and Ailene both assumed they had the same under-
standing of what the word chat means. However, it is clear that they are talking about two
different things. In order to communicate, each person must realize what the term means to
the other. They must establish a common ground and negotiate a shared meaning in which
understanding can occur. Here, the common ground is that both Kylie and Ailene expect to
test Ailene’s new online account by chatting. To negotiate meaning, Kylie must acknowledge
Ailene’s understanding of the word chat and expand on it by sharing her own. Ailene may
adopt Kylie’s use of the word, or together they may decide to use a qualifier, like online chat.
Once a shared meaning is understood, Kylie and Ailene can communicate: “Let’s try this
again,” says Kylie. “Just click on Cindy’s name to start an online chat.” “Ok!” answers Ailene.
To sum up, the transmission model views communication as a linear, one-directional process
that features an active sender and passive receiver. The interaction model describes commu-
nication as a two-way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback between two or more
active sender–receivers. The constructionist model acknowledges that sender–receivers
interact not only to share information, but also to negotiate and co-construct meaning. The
addition of this perspective is particularly important in fostering group effectiveness because
it facilitates positive interdependence and helps maintain member relations. Coming to a
mutual understanding and shared meaning can be difficult, however, and diverse perspec-
tives and interpretations can become barriers to effective communication. We will address
basic obstacles to effective communication and strategies for overcoming them in the follow-
ing section.
3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
The complex coordination and interpersonal cooperation that enable group and team work
depend on clear, concise communication (Kanki & Palmer, 1993; McIntyre & Salas 1995, Stan-
ton 1999). Yet communicating effectively is no easy task. Ironically, part of the problem is that
we tend to think we are already good at it—we have plenty of practical experience, after all.
Most of us spend 70% to 80% of our waking hours communicating in one form or another
(Bebe, Bebe, & Redmond, 2011). However, effective communication goes beyond our ability
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
to hold our own during a conversation (Stevens & Campion, 1994) or to chat on- or offline.
Effective communication describes the clear and accurate exchange of information, con-
cepts, and contextual meaning (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).
This may not sound difficult, but as anyone who has ever played the game of telephone can
attest, even simple communications can be misheard, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.
Teams are particularly vulnerable to miscommunication because members are highly inter-
dependent and tend to work in complex, dynamic conditions. Operational settings that fea-
ture multiple information sources and recipients wreak havoc on effective communication
and information management. Information loss and distortion can obstruct the team, leading
directly to task and performance failures. They can also indirectly contribute to negative out-
comes by creating or exacerbating misunderstanding and conflict. Mismanaged communica-
tion is one of the most commonly cited causes for interpersonal conflict and performance
failure in teams (Salas et al., 2000; Jelphs, 2006).
Why is miscommunication such a common failing? The answer is complex, but like many
complex things it can be broken down to its base components. The communication process
depends on a series of interpretative interactions that occur when we process and filter infor-
mation, translate linguistic meaning, and listen to communications. Each of these represents
a basic obstacle to effective communication—a point in the communication process where
information loss and distortion will inevitably occur. In the following sections, we will exam-
ine each of these obstacles in turn and outline strategies for overcoming them. Let’s begin
with information processing and filtering.
Information Processing and Filtering
Information loss and distortion can occur at any point in the communication process. The
first opportunity for mishap occurs as the sender begins to condense and encode informa-
tion to produce a message. The information we want to communicate does not sit placidly in
our heads, prepackaged into attractive and appropriate servings like groceries on supermar-
ket shelves. Instead, we generate continuously evolving mental models that encompass our
ideas, feelings, and thoughts, as well as all of the situational variables, knowledge, history, and
expectations that are associated with or attached to them. To produce a message, we must
first process all of that information, assigning values based on our expectations and desired
outcomes for the communication. Next, we filter information to encode it into the message we
believe most likely to promote our desired outcomes. Message quality depends on our skill
and experience in managing these processes.
Sending a clear, concise message increases the likelihood that we will experience effective
communication but does not guarantee it. The most common cause of loss and distortion lies
in the fact that when we encode and decode a message, senders and receivers use separate
and unique codebooks. That is, we process information within a personal framework based
on individual viewpoints, experience, knowledge, understanding, and values. The differences
between these frameworks are even more distinct when a message travels across cultures.
Just as senders hold a mental model of the information they want to send, and a framework
for processing, evaluating, and encoding it, receivers decode messages by interpreting and
extrapolating meaning subjectively, altering the intended message—potentially beyond rec-
ognition (Barnlund, 1970). This distortion occurs because decoding represents a second
round of information processing and filtering, performed within a new framework that results
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
in a revaluation and reinterpretation of message content, associated expectations, and desired
outcomes. Effective communication occurs when the sender and receiver get similar results—
the closer the match, the more effective the communication (Tubbs & Moss, 2006). This pro-
cess is made more difficult by the presence of communication noise.
Communication noise represents
various distortional elements that
affect communication clarity. These
can include excessive information
(such as redundant, superfluous, or
overwhelming message content);
communication barriers (from func-
tional, cultural, or cognitive diver-
sity); and channel-specific limita-
tions (for example, the inability to
view body language via e-mail, or the
tendency to remember only half of
what we hear). Communication noise
comes from several sources. Some is
included in the initial message from
the sender. Other noise is associated
with channels we choose, and still
more is introduced during message
decoding.
Groups and teams can mitigate the loss and distortion inherent in the communication pro-
cess—and thereby facilitate effective communication—by developing shared mental models.
Shared mental models capture the communal, organized understanding and conceptualiza-
tion of knowledge or beliefs that are relevant to how the group or team functions (Klimoski
& Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Shared mental models significantly increase
the likelihood of sender/receiver matchup. This is one of the prime reasons they are so useful
in teamwork. Next, we take a closer look at information filtering and processing styles and
outline some strategies for managing these for effective communication.
Unconscious and Conscious Filtering
Every moment of an interaction floods us with sensory and communicative data. This is true
even for online communications, for although we experience limited sensory input from mes-
sage senders, we still take in sensory information from our own context that influences how
we perceive a message. Cognitively, we simply cannot give equal attention to all the informa-
tion we take in. Instead, we automatically filter, or pick and choose the aspects or character-
istics that seem to be most relevant and meaningful (Fitousi & Wenger, 2011). Information
filtering can be an unconscious or conscious part of our communication process, and there
are three basic styles in which it occurs: selective perception, emotional filtering, and practi-
cal filtering.
Ever hear the saying, you see what you want to see? Selective perception occurs when we
selectively see, hear, or pay attention to (or alternatively, do not see, hear, or pay attention to)
specific aspects or characteristics of an interaction or event. Selective perception is a largely
Stockbyte/Thinkstock Images/Thinkstock
Communication noise can come from various sources
to distract the receiver from decoding the intended
meaning of a message.
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
unintentional consequence of the way we unconsciously filter information based on personal
experiences, background, expectations, motivations, or interests. We might be predisposed to
see the best or worst in someone based on our expectations. A belief that nonnative English
speakers communicate poorly, for example, can cause us to overly focus on relatively small
grammatical errors, even if the speaker is actually doing a good job of getting his or her point
across overall.
Selective perception can be tied to our personal interests as well. For example, in an early
study on selective perception in the workplace, researchers asked 23 mid-management exec-
utives from various organizational departments to read a case study that described a steel
company’s organizational processes and activities (Dearborn & Simon, 1958). The executives
were then asked to identify the issue of highest priority within the organization. Answers
were varied; some prioritized sales, marketing and distribution, others prioritized organiza-
tional alignment, and still others focused on human relations and teamwork. This disparity
of results occurred because each executive selectively perceived the situational aspects that
most closely related to their department’s priorities and needs.
Our emotional outlook during an exchange can also influence the way we perceive and inter-
pret information, resulting in unconscious emotional filtering. For example, individuals
with a negative outlook tend to scrutinize communications with suspicion and in great detail,
whereas individuals with a positive outlook tend to feel more confident about their opinions
and take information and messages at face value (Sinclair, Moore, Mark, Soldat, & Lavis, 2010;
Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010). Consequently, happy people are easier to persuade
(Brinol, Petty, & Barden, 2007). Under extreme emotion—good or bad—we tend to disregard
our objective and rational thinking processes altogether and turn to emotional judgments
instead. Emotional filtering is at play when a conflict between coworkers escalates to a per-
sonal level, with each perceiving the other as deliberately working against them regardless of
the facts of the matter.
Practical filtering reflects a conscious intent and effort to filter information toward a par-
ticular purpose or goal. This can include filtering message content:
• for clarification, brevity, and tone;
• to infer specific intentions or expectations; or
• to guide or persuade others toward a particular outcome, viewpoint, or opinion.
Sometimes our desire to avoid conflict or be perceived positively causes us to consciously
filter information to give it a particular slant or spin. We may present only positive aspects
of a situation and avoid sharing concerns or problems because we fear censure, loss of face,
or negative response. Or we may manipulate messages to present the information—or our-
selves—in a favorable light. A good example of this is when we tell colleagues or a manager
what we think they want to hear instead of our true opinion. Similarly, we may also con-
sciously filter our communications to support a particular idea or viewpoint that we wish
others to adopt. These spin tactics are a go-to tool for media and public relations experts, who
routinely filter information to creatively present facts and/or present a biased interpretation
of a product, event, choice, or situation.
Strategically managing both conscious and unconscious filtering is a key to effective com-
munication. So how do we achieve this? Mindfulness plays an important role. Recall that
mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves during interactions in order to
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). Effective communication requires us to
be mindful of our potential to skew or warp messages via the filtering process. To mitigate
nonproductive filtering, we must do the following:
• Strive to be aware of and understand unintentional filters (in others and ourselves)
that can engage selective perception and/or shift message meaning or interpreta-
tion. This includes reading emotional cues and being sensitive to cultural differences
between group or team members.
• Consciously choose how we process message information, and understand the way
in which this affects our ability to interpret important communications.
We take a closer look at message processing next.
Message Processing
When we process information, our first decision is how much of our attention and cognitive
ability to engage. When deciding which brand of strawberry yogurt to buy in the supermar-
ket, for example, we tend not to worry about doing preliminary taste comparisons or brand
research. Instead, we often opt for a habitual or familiar brand choice or simply select the one
with the most appealing picture or price. This is an example of automatic processing (Petty
& Brinol, 2008), a relatively superficial consideration of information and evidence involv-
ing generalizations based on our past experiences and what we do or do not like, value, or
believe. In automatic processing, unconscious filtering is high.
Now imagine shopping for a new car. For most of us this involves more than simple compari-
sons of size, color, or price. We might research the durability, efficiency, and safety of various
makes and models, as well as special characteristics, styles, and accessories. Then, once we
select a vehicle, we may compare the cost to lease or buy, and shop around for the best deal.
This detailed consideration of information and evidence relying on logic, critical evaluation,
and the gathering of significant facts and data represents controlled processing (Petty &
Brinol, 2008). Controlled processing requires far more time and effort than automatic pro-
cessing, but it also helps reduce unconscious filtering and counteract conscious nonconstruc-
tive filtering because we pay far more attention to the realities of the information or situation
we are taking in.
So how do we consciously select how to process messages during communication? We can be
better prepared to shift between automatic and controlled processing by understanding that
certain factors increase our tendency to engage in one or the other:
• Interest level. When we are interested in message content or outcome, we tend to
process information more carefully. Team members who are invested in communi-
cations via commitment to task work or teamwork will be more likely to engage in
controlled processing during communication exchanges. Interest level is one of the
greatest predictors of whether we use controlled or automatic processing (Blanken-
ship & Wegener, 2008).
• Knowledge. We are more likely to engage in controlled processing when we are well
informed of a communication’s context or subject matter. This is because we have
already tagged the content as important or of interest and outlined some of our own
ideas and conclusions regarding the situation or information. Well-informed receiv-
ers are more likely to demand more detailed information and will also require more
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
logical persuasion to change an opinion or agree to a solution or tactic that differs
from their own expectations (Petty & Brinol, 2008).
• Personality. Some people simply desire or require more information than others to
process a situation, form an opinion, or make a decision (Worthington, 2003). These
individuals will opt for controlled processing. Others may be more impulsive or
intuitive with their processing or lack the patience to get into more detail (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980). Automatic processing is likely habitual for these individuals.
• Message characteristics. Combined message characteristics such as media richness,
required participation level, and available processing time all help determine our
tendency toward automatic or controlled processing. For example, a video commer-
cial may be higher in media richness than a magazine article, but neither requires
the viewer to actively engage and respond. The determining factor here would be
processing time—the video offers very little, while the article’s process time and
depth are chosen entirely by the reader. We tend to use automatic processing with
video commercials, whereas we use more detailed processing with an article we
take the time to read.
By understanding what type of processing we use for which situations, we can more strategi-
cally plan how filtering affects our communication process. Next, we look at how language
barriers challenge effective communication and how those challenges can be overcome.
Language Barriers
Language is our basic means of communication, and the foundation for knowledge shar-
ing and creation (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). But language can either bring us
together or keep us apart. The normalization of the Internet and the use of tech-assisted
communication have shaped an increasingly global workplace with virtually networked
employees and teams. This environment creates a high potential for miscommunication or
misunderstandings based on language and contextual differences. Obviously, people who
work together require a basic level of competence in a shared language. Until recently, it was
generally believed that adopting English as the lingua franca, or common working language,
for global business would effectively erase language barriers (Tietze & Dick, 2013; Youssef
& Luthans, 2012). However, simply speaking the same language does not guarantee shared
meanings (Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013).
Language codes are culturally agreed-upon dynamic systems of symbols that help us orga-
nize, understand, and generate meaning (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993). With around 6,000 language
codes in use around the world (Crystal, 2005), language is simultaneously one of our most
useful communication tools and most easily erected barriers. Learning a language is not just
about learning its words, however. Many words have several definitions, to be used in dif-
ferent contexts. Meanings can further shift depending on how we use particular words, who
we are talking to, and the tone of our presentation (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). A bed of
roses, for instance, is quite different from the type of bed we sleep in. Likewise, the saying “it’s
no bed of roses” refers to a difficult or unpleasant situation. Language codes also have other
rules we need to follow in order to effectively communicate. To achieve language competency,
we must learn the following:
• Word definitions and how they shift in context and conversation.
• Proper grammar, so we can connect and communicate our concepts.
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
• Conversational patterns for how to communicate smoothly across various topics and
settings.
• Language conventions for acceptable topics, conversational politeness, and for
addressing others in particular settings or of particular status (compared to our
own). For example, we may call our boss by his or her first name outside of formal
work settings but use a title in the office.
Failure in any of these areas can result in language barriers, or communication difficulties
that arise from the inability to speak, interpret, or comprehend a shared language at a level
sufficient for developing common understanding. So how do we overcome language barriers
if establishing a lingua franca is not enough?
On a practical level, there are several guidelines both native and nonnative speakers can fol-
low (Berger, 1996; Leung, Lu, & Liang, 2003):
• Be patient and persistent when communicating information and concepts and when
explaining contextual meaning.
• Recognize contextual differences but resist stereotyping, which blocks our ability to
get to know one another and develop mutual understanding.
• Be sensitive and accept differences in cultural scripts and norms for interaction.
• Be mindful that in interactions, discomfort and conflict may stem from differences in
cultural scripts and norms for social exchange, rather than personal issues between
members.
Language barriers tend to aggravate existing frictions between group members, which
impedes collaborative problem solving and constructive conflict (Von Glinow, Shapiro, &
Brett, 2004). Furthermore, linguistic diversity itself can be a source of negative emotions
between native and nonnative speakers of the lingua franca on the team (Tenzer & Pudelko,
2015). Whether the team’s working language is English or something else, nonnative speak-
ers can feel restricted by their language skills, perceive themselves as lacking professional
standing or respect, fear negative performance appraisals, and experience stress, embarrass-
ment, frustration, apprehension, or shame during interactions (Harzing & Feely, 2008; Hinds,
Neeley, & Cramton, 2012).
These reactions influence nonnative speakers’ perceptions of native speakers, and vice versa.
For example, overwhelmed by negative emotions during team interactions, nonnative team
members tend to distrust or resent native speakers and view them as arrogant (Tenzer &
Pudelko, 2015). They may cope by avoiding or withdrawing from interactions that involve
comprehensive discussion (e.g., knowledge sharing, collaborative discussion, and problem
solving) or by reverting to their native tongue, if member diversity permits the creation of
cultural subgroups (Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014). Native speakers often feel excluded and
disrespected by these behaviors and perceive them as rejection or unwillingness to collabo-
rate or knowledge share as a team (Hinds et al., 2012). Consequently, all team members end
up feeling excluded, devalued, and disrespected.
These dynamics are not limited to linguistic differences based on nationality—they can also
arise within teams that bring together different functional cultures. One study noted, for
example, that a divisive subgroup formed when two members specializing in IT intention-
ally lapsed into highly technical language during disagreements. By excluding other mem-
bers from the conversation, they effectively took control of the debate (Ranieri, 2004). As
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
would happen in the context of national linguistic diversity, this damaged the team’s ability
to resolve the conflict and effectively collaborate, and it caused frustration and other negative
emotions among team members.
Negative emotions triggered by linguistic and cultural diversity drive interpersonal conflict
and erode collaborative efforts (Hinds et al., 2014; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). This further
damages communication between members, strengthens the tendency to form divisive sub-
groups, and can instigate a vicious cycle of negative emotions and process dynamics (Hinds et
al., 2012, 2014). The resultant losses to team performance and effectiveness adversely affect
outcomes at the organizational level as well (Harzing & Feely, 2008; Hinds et al., 2012). While
intercultural sensitivity is key, listening is perhaps the most critical skill competency for deal-
ing with language and contextual barriers.
Learning to Listen
Listening is the mental process of extracting meaning from sound. This seems easy in theory,
but in practice it is quite complex. Listening involves a cyclical process of receiving sensory
input and interpreting that which we receive into meaningful elements. This process is made
more or less difficult by the amount and complexity of the information we receive. When
we listen to recorded music, for example, we can close our eyes; this sensory deprivation
has little effect on our interpretation of what we hear. During interpersonal communication,
however, we can receive potentially meaningful information from all of our senses. When our
listening skills are engaged in interpersonal interactions, the interpreting process involves
combining what we hear with what we see, feel, experience, and know.
Skilled Listening
Skilled listening is one of our most valuable tools for interaction (Klein et al., 2006; Robbins
& Hunsaker, 1996). It requires more than simply extracting meaning from sound. Listening
competence requires a veritable web of other interpersonal skill competencies, including per-
ceptiveness, intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and mindfulness. While we practice
all of these, we must also remember to pay attention to what is actually communicated during
an interaction. Although more than half of our communication time is spent listening (Johnson,
1996), we typically retain only 25% of the information we hear (Treasure, 2011). The abil-
ity to recall verbally communicated information is also an important facet of skilled listening.
Nobody’s memory is absolute, and our ability to recall what we hear degrades quickly over
time. Most of us will forget roughly 50% of what we hear immediately after hearing it, accu-
rately recall about 35% after 8 hours have passed, and around 20% the next day (Hargie, 2011).
This is because most people do not fully listen when others talk. Typically, we are also busy:
• making judgments,
• preparing our response,
• contemplating our own ideas, or
• thinking about other things we need or want to do.
So what exactly does skilled listening entail? In the workplace, listening can be broken down
into five practical dimensions:
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
• Informational listening prioritizes complete understanding and recall. Rather than
evaluating or interpreting communications, we primarily direct energy toward accu-
rately recalling what we heard. When we listen to news or progress briefings or ask
for directions to the nearest coffee shop, we are engaging in informational listening.
• Critical listening prioritizes the analysis of communication based on what is pre-
sented verbally and what is inferred from the message context. Critical listeners can
accept, dismiss, or withhold judgment on messages while seeking out more informa-
tion. This is particularly useful in persuasive exchanges or when the speaker’s logic
or objectivity is in doubt.
• Empathetic listening prioritizes putting ourselves into someone else’s shoes and
trying to understand what others are thinking or feeling. This is considered the
most challenging form of listening because stepping outside our own experience
and worldview is counterintuitive and not easy to do (Bruneau, 1993). Empathetic
listening is key to conflict resolution and helps maintain positive interpersonal
relations.
• Active listening prioritizes pairing externally perceivable positive listening behav-
iors (such as making eye contact, adopting an encouraging posture, and referencing
statements made by the speaker) with positive cognitive listening practices (such as
paraphrasing, summarizing, and asking clarifying questions).
• Passive listening prioritizes quiet attentiveness that fosters the feeling of “being
heard” and absorbing both informational content and the meaning the speaker is
trying to convey. In a way, passive listening combines informational and empathetic
listening. Like active listening, it requires physical cues of attentiveness, such as
adopting an encouraging posture. However, passive listeners refrain from making
comments or having interruptive reactions; they give the speaker “room” to express
him- or herself without interference.
Developing Effective Listening Skills
So how do we become more effective listeners? First, it is useful to know and understand
our default listening orientation. As seen in Figure 3.6, listeners can be categorized into four
basic orientations. Although some people shift listening orientations on a situational basis,
many unconsciously revert to a single preferred orientation, particularly in times of emo-
tional or cognitive stress (Worthington, 2003). Identifying our default listening orientation
and the ways in which it affects our interactions allows us to focus mindfully on these aspects
of our behavior during an exchange. This helps us consciously redirect our tendencies during
important communications and strategically organize our interactions to work synergisti-
cally with our default style. We’ll take a look at how to do this in just a moment. First, examine
Figure 3.6 and try to identify your own listening style.
Mindfulness, perceptiveness, cognitive flexibility, constructive feedback, and practice can
enable us to evaluate our existing listening skills, identify areas to further develop or use to
better effect, and develop more effective listening skills over time. The following steps offer a
helpful guideline for this process.
Prioritizes addressing the
needs and feelings of others
over task-related content.
Easily frustrated by
information that is
inaccurate, excessive,
or poorly organized.
Enjoys processing complex
messages and prefers
detailed information with
multiple perspectives.
Prioritzes task completion
and goal accomplishment.
Tends to be impatient
with detailed or
irrelevant information.
People Oriented Action Oriented
Content Oriented Time Oriented
Section 3.3 Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Communication
Step 1: Evaluate existing listening skills and identify a default listening orientation. It is use-
ful to engage in both self-evaluation and assisted evaluation involving constructive feedback
from others. Although self-evaluation does not require knowledge sharing, it can certainly
benefit from it. Beginning with self-evaluation, moving to assisted evaluation, and following
up with a more informed self-evaluation allows us to enhance our mindfulness and make our
perception more accurate. We become able to practice these skills throughout the process,
noting differences in how others perceive our listening skills. We can also observe how our
own perceptions change after we receive constructive feedback. Once we clearly understand
our default listening orientation, we can move on to the next step.
Step 2: Review the five practical dimensions of listening and analyze potential strengths and
weaknesses within them. Our existing listening skills will likely be strongest in the areas that
engage our default listening orientation. We can identify areas of potential strength and
weakness by comparing our default listening style to elements of the five dimensions. For
example, a people-oriented listener will likely be better at empathetic listening than a time-
oriented listener, but he or she may be less skilled in critical listening. Both people- and time-
oriented listeners may struggle to stay focused during informational listening. Another round
of assisted evaluation and feedback can help confirm our evaluation of our listening strengths
and weaknesses.
Step 3: Engage in conscientious practice. With conscious attention and effort, we can learn
to listen more effectively in all the dimensions. This requires self-monitoring and control to
note when we fall into a default orientation that runs counter to our listening needs and to
strategically shift our energies toward those areas where we are not naturally strong. We can
also adapt the way we interact to better align our orientation with listening requirements. For
example, action- or time-oriented listeners can strategically manage information exchanges
by setting formal meeting rules or by simply informing others of their preference (e.g., “I’m
pressed for time, just give me the highlights”). Likewise, content- or people-oriented members
Figure 3.6: Basic listening orientations
Which listening orientation describes you?
Action Oriented
Prioritizes addressing the
needs and feelings of others
over task-related content.
Easily frustrated by
information that is
inaccurate, excessive,
or poorly organized.
Enjoys processing complex
messages and prefers
detailed information with
multiple perspectives.
Prioritzes task completion
and goal accomplishment.
Tends to be impatient
with detailed or
irrelevant information.
People Oriented Action Oriented
Content Oriented Time Oriented
can ask constructive questions during information listening (e.g., by asking for details or
clarification, or personalizing the information by asking about member roles and opinions
regarding the information).
To sum up, effective communication depends on our communicative competence and our
ability to overcome the major obstacles that impact communication. The next section covers
how communication contributes to group effectiveness.
3.4 Communication and Group Effectiveness
Group effectiveness is a highly studied area of group dynamics. The multiple perspectives
from which it has been examined have identified many factors that influence it in different
settings. Strategies for improving effectiveness include cohesion, mental models, transac-
tive memory, diversity in KSAs, communication, leadership, and interpersonal dynamics. At
the heart of all of these concepts, however, is the fact that effective performance depends on
(a) facilitating positive interdependence and (b) maintaining member relations. We accom-
plish these through two key communication processes: knowledge sharing and interper-
sonal communication. Let’s examine these key processes by taking a look at the relationship
between positive interdependence and knowledge sharing.
Positive Interdependence and Knowledge Sharing
As you may recall from Chapter 2, we defined positive interdependence as the constructive
interrelations between members that support the group’s existence and enable cooperative
action. In that chapter, we described group performance as a state of positive interdependence
in which members work cooperatively toward a mutually beneficial outcome. We also estab-
lished the concept that group energies and interactions work along two distinct but simulta-
neous activity tracks: teamwork and task work (Morgan et al., 1993). We can use this informa-
tion as a framework to better understand positive interdependence by separating it into its
base components of interdependence and cohesion, as seen in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: The components of positive interdependence
Teamwork Socioemotional interdependence repre-
sents mutual dependence and influ-
ence on social relations and standing,
emotional state, and well-being.
Interpersonal cohesion refers to the
level of attachment and camaraderie
between team members.
Task work Task interdependence reflects the
degree to which members rely on each
other to perform tasks and achieve
goals.
Task cohesion reflects the team’s
shared valuation and commitment to
tasks, task work activities, and goals.
Different types of groups must develop and maintain each of these components to different
degrees. To illustrate this, let’s revisit the differences between work groups and teams. Though
both are task groups, their interdependence and cohesion requirements are quite different.
Work groups are led by a single, clear leader who controls positive interdependence by
directing and managing individual motivation, efforts, and accountability. Task interdepen-
dence is low, since group tasks and activities are coordinated and connected only through
the work group leader. Task cohesion is largely superfluous in this case, although a well-run
work group may develop a shared identity, with the group leader as a rallying point. Likewise,
interpersonal cohesion needs only to be sufficient to foster a positive working environment,
although long-standing work group members often develop some level of informal attach-
ment. Socioemotional interdependence is mainly expressed by adhering to designated roles
and hierarchy and by members’ respectful interactions.
Team members are largely self-coordinating, and positive interdependence is reflected in the
basic elements of collaborative performance, demanding high levels in each of the teamwork
and task work components. Despite their differences, both work groups and teams foster
positive interdependence and maintain member interrelations through a self-supporting
cycle of attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing (see Figure 3.7).
Attachment encompasses the extent to which team
members feel they are part of the team, are included
in team activities and processes, and look forward to
working with other members. In work groups, this
translates to a sense of being valued and appreci-
ated by the work group leader and an air of mutual
respect among work group members. In both types
of task groups, trust reflects members’ intention
and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to
the group. In teams, this is founded on the expecta-
tion without guarantee that all members will act in
support of the team and treat each other consider-
ately and benevolently (Rousseau et al., 1998; Whit-
ener et al., 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al.,
2003). Work group members trust that the group
leader will monitor and manage interactions so that
members are treated fairly and in a considerate and
benevolent manner. So how does knowledge sharing
fit in?
The Integral Role of Knowledge Sharing
In both work groups and teams, attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing form a system of
mutual support. This is because knowledge sharing is the primary means of accomplishing
the following:
• Script sharing and assimilation
• Clarifying group agendas and goals
Figure 3.7: Self-supporting
cycle of attachment, trust, and
knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is the key component
in actively maintaining this cycle.
• Coordinating group tasks and activities
• Giving and receiving feedback
• Demonstrating trust and inclusion
Knowledge sharing is also a prime factor in developing shared mental models, putting every-
one on the same page regarding the following (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993):
• Physical resources (e.g., equipment and tools)
• Human resources (e.g., member KSAs, preferences, and work methods)
• Tasks, goals, performance requirements, and problems
• Developmental and task-oriented processes
Knowledge sharing is not always a direct exchange or assimilation of information, however. It
is also a way that group and team members can access diverse KSAs.
Tapping Diverse KSAs
In work groups, leaders access the KSAs of subordinate group members as needed, keep-
ing track of individuals’ expertise and accumulated task knowledge. By contrast, team mem-
bers pool their own KSAs, but they do not do this by mass exchange or information capture.
Instead, they create a kind of information network based on a general awareness of everyone’s
task-relevant KSAs (Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Understanding who knows what allows team
members to keep each other updated with relevant task information and access distributed
KSAs at need (Wegner, 1995). When this behavior is adopted as a shared script, it becomes a
collective system for encoding, storing, and retrieving distributed information (Wegner, 1986,
1995; Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985). Within this system of transactive memory, indi-
vidual team members are responsible for knowing one piece of the cognitive puzzle, collect-
ing and sharing information relating to their particular KSAs, and passing along information
that falls outside their area to other team members. The patterns by which information is
accessed and shared reflect—or are mirrored by—a group or team’s internal hierarchy.
Communication and Hierarchy
When we consistently interact within small groups, we develop patterns of communication.
Referred to as communication networks, these patterns reflect the way in which group mem-
bers share and access information and how they deal with external communication to and
from those outside the group. Communication networks can be viewed as relatively small
and simple, encompassing only group members; or vast and complex, encompassing all the
myriad connections and contacts each group member has available to them in any context.
Looking at the group only, the communication network between members follows the group’s
internal hierarchy. In organizational groups and teams, this reflects the group’s responsibility
structure, or accepted distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities. Figure 3.8 offers a
simplified illustration of two distinct responsibility structures common to small groups and
teams, referred to as circle and wheel.
The circle model reflects a shared responsibility structure in which all members of a team
carry out leadership tasks and roles. This creates an all-channel or decentralized network
in which team members actively communicate with each other on all aspects of performance
and information is shared equally. The wheel model reflects a group or team with a single
strong leader. This creates a leader-centric or centralized network in which the leader con-
trols communications and distributes information to other members, who have little or no
exchange with each other. This format is most typical of work groups; however, teams with a
strong leader may shift between a leader-centric and an all-channel network, depending on
their process needs. For example, a team leader may use the leader-centric pattern when
communicating new project parameters or giving individual feedback but shift to an all-
channel network for collaborative discussions and processes.
Figure 3.8: Circle and wheel responsibility structures
The circle and wheel structures are reflective of all-channel or leader-centric communications.
Circle Model Wheel Model
Candice
Deon
MonicaAmar
Chen Amar Deon
Monica
Candice
Chen
Internal hierarchy can dramatically impact the group’s effectiveness by increasing or decreas-
ing the flow of communication. While restricted networks like the wheel model provide a sta-
ble organization for small group communication, they can also limit flexibility by restricting
the ways in which information travels through the group. If Deon has information for Monica
and Amar, for example, it must go through Chen. Leader-centric groups are more rigidly coor-
dinated and do not engage in group discussion. This typically allows centralized groups to
perform with greater speed and efficiency, but decentralized groups are more effective in
dealing with complex activities and processes that require members to tap diverse KSAs (Ellis
& Fisher, 1994). While these networks reflect internal hierarchy, the reverse can also be true.
If new patterns of responsibility or leadership roles emerge within a team, the patterns of
communication will redistribute themselves to reflect the new hierarchy. If this differs from
the old one, then the group may find itself transitioning from a centralized to decentralized
network, or vice versa, as it mirrors a new arrangement of member relations.
Member relations develop as a group or team comes together to perform. Maintaining these
relations is imperative to keeping that performance effective. Next, we examine the role
of interpersonal communication in maintaining member relations and facilitating group
effectiveness.
Maintaining Member Relations
Communication is the tool we use to develop and manage the interrelations between group
members. Working together requires us to cooperate, coordinate responsibilities and tasks,
and navigate any conflict that arises. Maintaining positive member relations is critical if we
are to succeed at any of these activities. We’ve looked at how knowledge sharing facilitates
group effectiveness by supporting positive interdependence between group members. Now,
we examine interpersonal communication, a specialized category of communication that con-
cerns the ways in which people relate to one another.
Interpersonal communication is the process that people use to:
• interactively construct, negotiate, and manage meaning;
• influence each other; and
• develop and maintain relationships (Dainton & Zelley, 2005).
Skilled interpersonal communication facilitates cohesion and conflict resolution. It also
enhances employees’ commitment to collective goals, group leaders, managers, and the orga-
nization as a whole. However, skillful interpersonal communication can be difficult to achieve,
as it involves enhancing our verbal expression skills with the full range of other interpersonal
skills, particularly:
Principles of Interpersonal Communication
There is no quick way to master interpersonal communications. We spend our entire lives
building awareness and developing our skills in this area. However, there are a few helpful
principles that can be usefully applied to any interpersonal interaction:
• Interpersonal communication involves mutual influence. Any time we interact with
others, we engage in mutual influence. Interpersonal communication involves
mutual influence on a profound level. This is important to truly grasp and compre-
hend; if participants are not open to being influenced as well as influencing others,
interpersonal communication will be neither effective nor complete.
• Information exchange does not necessarily equal communication. We often assume
that by sharing information we are communicating the meaning or implications that
go along with it. When this happens we end up with comments like, “How do you
not know this, I’ve said it three times already,” or “Didn’t you look at my data? The
solution is obvious!” To be effective, messages must not only give information, they
must also convey significance and meaning. For example, if information sent repeat-
edly has seemingly been discounted or ignored, it may be that the message failed to
communicate either (a) the significance of the data to the project or (b) the expecta-
tions the sender held in terms of what the recipient would understand or do once
the information was received.
• There is no delete button. Communications can be explained, expanded on, reinter-
preted, or revised, but they can never be completely taken back. Once heard, read,
seen, or experienced, the signals and messages we intentionally and unintentionally
send will influence our interactions.
• Nobody is perfect. Even the most competent interpersonal communicators will flub
the message or occasionally throw out an inappropriate or destructive comment.
• A little empathy goes a long way. Communicating with and influencing others often
depends on understanding their perspective, motivations, and needs. Being able to
empathize with someone else will increase the efficacy of both interpersonal com-
munication and relations skills.
• Practice, practice, practice! The more we engage in social interactions and interper-
sonal communications, the more competent we become, especially if we listen to
feedback and evaluate our own interactions.
Interpersonal communication skills help us build and maintain member relations—a criti-
cal element in effectively working together. Skillful interpersonal communication requires
being aware of and understanding contextual differences and metacommunication. It also
involves the ability to recognize constructive and destructive communication behaviors. We
will briefly examine each of these and their impact on interpersonal communication. Let’s
begin with contextual differences.
Contextual Differences
Just as a group’s context influences how it develops, functions, and interrelates within an
organization, the context within which we communicate affects our interaction. There are five
distinct contexts that influence interpersonal communication:
1. Psychological context represents the unique blend of KSAs, personality traits, motiva-
tions, interests, and needs that we each bring to an interaction; in effect, the “you-
ness” that comes into play. We are each unique, yet we all have some similarities. To
successfully interact in constructive and productive ways, we must learn to recog-
nize our areas of similarity. We must also accept that our differences can be positive
as well as negative, which largely depends on our attitudes and behavior regarding
those differences.
2. Relational context reflects the status, roles, and interrelationships between mem-
bers that generate specific attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for social interac-
tion. Two friends, for example, will interact and communicate differently than an
employee and a supervisor. Likewise, the interaction and communication behaviors
between people who have been teammates for a long time will differ from those who
have recently joined a team or between recent additions and existing members.
3. Cultural context includes the culturally accepted rules and norms governing our
attitudes, perception, and behavior. As we grow and develop, we are shaped by
the ongoing negotiation of learned and patterned values, behaviors, attitudes, and
beliefs, collectively referred to as culture. We all have a cultural identity based on the
culture in which we were raised. This provides us with a primary cultural context
that helps guide our social interactions. Cultural context dictates such things as how
close we stand to one another, general rules of politeness, styles of entering into and
leaving an interaction, and appropriate topics or timing for conversations. When we
move outside of our own culture, we step into someone else’s, which provides us
with a secondary cultural context. When these are not aligned, misunderstandings
and conflict become all too common.
4. Social context deals with the rules and norms associated with the situational ele-
ments of a social interaction. Just as cultural context gives us rules and norms for
general interaction, social context guidstepur behavior in specific settings or circum-
stances. We engage differently, for instance, in formal or informal settings. The inter-
action that takes place outside of the office or while eating together in the company
cafeteria will be significantly different from exchanges during formal work activities.
Likewise, online and technology-aided communications assume a different social
context than face-to-face exchanges.
5. Environmental context encompasses the physical aspects of the location in which
interactions occur. These can include working conditions of the operational setting,
including sensory factors (i.e., temperature, feel, and noise level), and psychosocial
factors (i.e., time of day, surrounding activity types and levels, and the presence or
absence of stressors). These can influence our mood, energy, and ability to concen-
trate and act skillfully within interpersonal interactions.
Understanding and being able to strategically manage contextual differences can be exceed-
ingly complex. Each context represents a complex system of attitudes, beliefs, and individual
and shared scripts regarding social interaction. Furthermore, interactions are affected by not
one, but all of these contexts together. Group members may share most (excluding the first),
differ in one or two, or share none. The latter tends to happen predominantly in cross-cultural
virtual teams, since face-to-face team members begin with a shared environmental context, if
nothing else. So how do we deal with all of this contextual complexity?
There are a few key points to remember when dealing with contextual differences in inter-
personal interactions:
• Groups and teams must accept and work within differences in psychological, cul-
tural, and environmental contexts, because these cannot typically be altered within
the time frame of a group’s existence. In dealing with these, our best strategy is to
learn about each other’s differences and accept their presence in our interactions.
• Relational and social context can be assimilated or co-constructed through the devel-
opment of shared scripts and norms. It is within these areas that we actively work to
create a unified culture based on the group’s unique membership, the developmen-
tal and operational setting in which it is embedded (group context), and the com-
prehensive culture, systems, structure, processes, and resources in place within the
organization (organizational context).
• Developing mutual understanding through knowledge sharing and interpersonal
communication is key to dealing with any contextual differences.
• Simply recognizing that contextual differences exist and influence interactions
invites cognitive flexibility and mindfulness into group interactions and marks the
beginning of developing mutual understanding, sharing scripts and norms, and
accepting “unchanging” differences.
Another important aspect of interpersonal communication, metacommunication, can be a
useful tool for dealing with contextual differences and building mutual understanding. How-
ever, differences in cultural or environmental context can make metacommunication more
difficult to achieve. Next, we briefly examine the concept of metacommunication, its influence
on interpersonal interactions, and potential difficulties in using it to positively affect interper-
sonal exchange.
Metacommunication
Metacommunication is often playfully described as communication about communication.
While it does encompass discussion of the meaning and interpretations applied to specific
communications, it also includes subordinate verbal and nonverbal messages, the primary
purpose of which is to explain or convey meaning about the sender’s principle messages
(Sarangi, 1998; Lutterer, 2007). These secondary messages help us monitor and read reac-
tions during ongoing communication interactions. They also allow us to preface or prep the
field for a message we are about to send. Let’s take a look at how these feedback and feed-
forward messages enrich our interpersonal interactions.
Feedback messages encompass the contextual responses both senders and receivers expe-
rience during message transmission. Feedback comes from within, as we monitor what we
do and say, and from others, as they respond to what they perceive in our communications.
Internal feedback messages can contain emotional content—causing us to smile in humor
or embarrassment in response to what we have just communicated—or processing content
informing us of the success of our own communication—causing us to correct or rephrase
our message. Feedback messages also come from others as they receive our communication
attempts. Nodding, smiling, frowning, looking puzzled, or asking for clarification all represent
feedback messages that message receivers can transmit to senders.
During face-to-face interactions, senders and receivers automatically monitor feedback mes-
sages by reading facial expression and body language. However, many of today’s interper-
sonal communications are transmitted via technology. Although the medium is different,
feedback messages are still possible in tech-assisted communications. While we can commu-
nicate our emotional response to a message or demand clarification in writing, technology
has created new ways to provide feedback, in the form of likes, emoticons, +1s, comments,
Pins, and retweets, for example. The primary difference between face-to-face and tech com-
munications is in the immediacy and richness of feedback messages. Face-to-face interactions
offer immediate and simultaneous feedback across all of our senses, while tech-assisted com-
munications are limited in sensory information and are often asynchronous, occurring at dif-
ferent times or with some degree of delay.
Feed-forward messages preface message content with secondary messages that generate
expectations about the upcoming message and/or desired outcomes or responses. For exam-
ple, a team member might preface a long discussion about a complex problem by saying,
“Have you got some time to meet with me? We’ve got an issue to work out.” Or, he or she might
preset expectations by announcing, “I’ve got some good (or bad) news.” Attaching an online
communication to a “friend request” is another way to send a feed-forward message. E-mail
subject headings, website slogans, social media taglines, and caller ID are all variants of for-
ward-feeding messages that generate expectations about upcoming message content and/or
desired outcomes or responses. In face-to-face interactions, both in person and via technol-
ogy, feed-forward messages are often communicated via facial expression and body language.
Smiling and standing or sitting calmly tend to signal a friendly or positive interaction. Fidget-
ing, appearing worried, or avoiding eye contact may signal an unpleasant exchange or a mes-
sage that the sender finds difficult to communicate.
Feedback and feed-forward messages can be extremely useful in co-constructing meaning
during an exchange; however, their capacity to facilitate this process depends on the par-
ticipants’ ability to accurately perceive and interpret their intended meaning. This can be
difficult, particularly between individuals from cultures in which specific verbal expressions
and nonverbal signals may have very different meanings or norms (Hurn, 2014). In North
America and western Europe, for example, direct eye contact indicates attentiveness, inter-
est, and trust; however, in Japan and Thailand, this custom appears aggressive and may cause
discomfort. Likewise, something as basic as the customary head nod for “yes” and shake for
“no” can lead to confusion when dealing with people from Bulgaria, Southern India, and parts
of Greece, where these signals are reversed and nodding the head means “no.”
Next, we examine constructive and destructive communication and how their associated
behaviors influence member relations.
Constructive and Destructive Communication
Communication is a process by which we convey meaning and manage interrelations. It is a
major factor in shaping, mitigating, and resolving conflict (Olekalns et al., 2008). However, its
positive impact largely depends on our ability to recognize constructive and destructive com-
munication behaviors. Constructive communication reflects a desire to maintain open knowl-
edge sharing and positive relations while addressing problems and working toward produc-
tive outcomes. This does not mean that we should confine our conversations to address only
positive topics and emotions. Voicing concerns, working to resolve negative emotions and
conflict, and engaging in constructive criticism and feedback are all constructive communica-
tion behaviors.
Destructive communication reflects noncooperative and aggressive attitudes in which mem-
bers engage in communications and behavior that are counterproductive to cooperation,
teamwork, and conflict resolution. One-upping is a typical example of destructive communica-
tion in interpersonal conflict situations. One-upping represents a negative emotional reaction
to a communication that spurs an immediate negative comeback that escalates the conflict.
Other destructive communication behaviors include:
• withdrawing,
• bottling negative emotions and lashing out unexpectedly,
• engaging in personal insult rather than addressing a problem, and
• insisting on handling issues alone (Guerrero, Farinelli, & McEwan, 2009).
Although communication is a critical tool for managing and resolving conflict, destructive
communication can rapidly escalate negative interactions. The manner in which we express
anger is particularly revealing of the differences between constructive and destructive
communication.
The expression of anger can take four distinct forms (Guerrero, 1994):
Concepts in Action: Destructive Communication: One-Upping
Our Teammates
Consider the following interaction between teammates Sharene and Dominick:
Sharene returns from lunch to find her teammate, Dominick, has once again eaten lunch at his
desk. Annoyed, she tells him, “I wish you would stop leaving your food trash in here, it makes
the whole room smell.” Feeling angry and hurt, Dominick engages in one-upping by replying,
“Well I wish you spent as much time working as you do nagging.”
There are several interpersonal relations and communication factors that contributed to this
conflict. First, let’s consider how Sharene could have communicated differently to help the
interaction go more smoothly. She could have:
• worded her comment in a less aggressive way, or
• acknowledged that Dominick worked through lunch again or asked how he was doing
before suggesting he throw his food trash away outside of their shared workspace.
Or she could have approached with a friendly smile and said something like:
“Whew—that smells good! What did you have for lunch? Mind if I throw this away outside? I
won’t be able work if I’m thinking about food all afternoon.”
While this exchange does not overtly ask Dominick not to leave his food trash in their office
space, it does calmly state her problem and desired resolution:
• Problem: The smell distracts Sharene from her work.
• Solution: Dispose of food trash outside of the office space.
Sharene’s friendly delivery creates a memory point based on a positively toned interaction. By
modeling behavior she’d like to see, Sharene may help encourage Dominick to throw his food
trash away outside in the future. This would have been a constructive way to introduce the
issue while maintaining positive relations. Of course, the actual communication style and tone
were not the only problems in this example. The interaction between Sharene and Dominick
provides clues that there could be some underlying issues. Consider the following:
• Assertion, wherein direct, nonthreatening statements are used to explain the situ-
ation and its resultant negative feelings. Assertion invites collaborative problem
solving and allows members to work through grievances and negative emotions
without resorting to personal threats or insults. Expressing anger through assertion
promotes attachment and trust and is the only format that supports constructive
communication (Guerrero et al., 2009).
• Aggression, wherein statements are direct and threatening and used to make
accusations.
• Passive aggression, in which attitudes and behaviors indirectly communicate nega-
tive feelings in a destructive manner (e.g., ignoring someone, moping, blocking
resources, withdrawing effort or participation).
• Avoidance, in which attitudes and behaviors focus on avoiding the issue or denying
the existence of negative feelings and consequences (e.g., pretending the issue is
inconsequential, that negative feelings do not exist, and that nothing remains to be
resolved).
The success or failure of group and team work depends on our capacity to communicate and
use interpersonal skills to facilitate effective performance. Of all of the concepts touched
on in this chapter, perhaps the most important is this: Effective communication and other
important interpersonal skills are learned and developed through practice. Understanding
the mechanics and principles of effective communication is a first step toward becoming an
effective communicator. Once we understand these principles, we may begin actively apply-
ing them in real-world interactions. This practice enables us to deepen our understanding
of others—a critical factor in successfully navigating social interactions in today’s diverse
workplaces. Chapter 4 delves into the nature of workplace diversity, and strategies for man-
aging its associated challenges.
Chapter Summary
• Effective teams apply interpersonal skills to facilitate:
• sharing knowledge and viewpoints,
• identifying problems (by voicing concerns),
• solving problems and making decisions, and
• resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative ways.
• Despite being on the same team, Dominick and Sharene do not eat lunch together. Per-
haps there is some animosity between them that causes them to avoid each other. Or
Dominick may simply feel he must work through lunch.
• If Dominick feels that he must work through lunch and Sharene does not, perhaps there
is a difference in commitment or viewpoint or an unbalanced workload.
• Dominick implies that Sharene does not focus enough energy on work, while her com-
ment about smell may stem from viewing Dominick as slovenly or unorganized. If this is
the case, both need to share and address these concerns in a more constructive manner.
• If the workload is unbalanced or if Dominick needs assistance or support from other
team members so as not to have to work through lunch, these issues also need to be dis-
cussed and resolved collaboratively. If the team does not have a set leader or manager,
then team members need to come together in support of the team and each other to rec-
ognize such issues and find ways to resolve them.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Think about a time when you engaged in one-upping in the workplace or your personal
life. What underlying issues contributed to the conflict? Were they interpersonal or
related to situational factors? How did you resolve them?
2. In the original interaction, Dominick’s response was to one-up Sharene’s comment. How
could he have expressed his hurt or anger in a more assertive way? How does assertive
anger expression contribute to constructive interactions?
Concepts in Action: Destructive Communication: One-Upping Our
Teammates (continued)
• Interpersonal skills can be learned, practiced, and developed over time. This often
occurs simply by living and interacting with others over the course of our lifetime.
This also occurs in the workplace via formal and informal training strategies.
• Social skill allows us to translate goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially
effective behavior.
• Expertise in using interpersonal skills calls for competence across both subtle and
overt skill sets. Critical competencies in the subtle skill set are:
• perceptiveness,
• self-presentation,
• mindfulness,
• cognitive flexibility, and
• intercultural sensitivity.
• Critical competencies in the overt skill set are:
• verbal expression,
• nonverbal expression,
• listening,
• persuasion,
• cooperation,
• coordination, and
• conflict resolution.
• Communication is the process of sending and perceiving meaning via signals and
messages. These activities can be both conscious and unconscious.
• Workplace communication is often categorized in terms of the direction messages
take on their “journey” through organizational hierarchies. The separate categories
(upward, downward, lateral, external, and grapevine communication) are typically
associated with specific types of message content.
• Communication channels represent the medium through which messages are
transmitted and received. Channels can be characterized by media type, degree of
receiver participation, media richness, and organizational acceptance.
• The transmission model of communication views communication as a linear, one-
directional process with an active sender and passive receiver.
• The interaction model of communication describes communications as a two-
way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback between two or more active
sender–receivers.
• The constructive model of communication acknowledges that sender–receivers
interact not only to share information, but to negotiate and coconstruct meaning.
• Challenges to effective communication include the following:
• Information distortion and loss
• Intentional and unintentional filtering
• Language and contextual barriers
• Ineffective listening skills
• Skilled listening is one of our most valuable tools for interaction. It requires a mix of
interpersonal skills, including perceptiveness, intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flex-
ibility, and mindfulness.
• In the workplace, listening can be broken down into four practical dimensions:
informational listening, critical listening, empathetic listening, active listening, and
passive listening.
• There are four different listening styles: people oriented, action oriented, content
oriented, and time oriented. Identifying our default listening orientation and the
ways in which it affects our interactions supports conscious development of listen-
ing skills and strategies for increasing the flexibility and effectiveness of our default
listening style.
• Different groups require different levels of the four basic components of positive
interdependence: task and socioemotional interdependence, and task and interper-
sonal cohesion. Regardless of these requirements, all groups maintain interrelations
through a self-supporting cycle of trust, attachment, and knowledge sharing.
• In both work groups and teams, attachment, trust, and knowledge sharing form a
system of mutual support, because knowledge sharing is the primary means of:
• script sharing and assimilation,
• group agenda setting and goal clarification,
• group task and activity coordination,
• giving and receiving feedback, and
• demonstrating trust and inclusion.
• Knowledge sharing is also a prime factor in developing shared mental models, put-
ting everyone on the same page regarding physical and human resources, tasks,
goals, performance requirements, related issues, and group processes.
• Team members pool their KSAs by creating a system of transactive memory.
• Group responsibility structure and communication networks are mutually support-
ing and mutually influencing because the patterns by which information is accessed
and shared reflect—or are mirrored by—the internal hierarchy of a group or team.
• Interpersonal communication is viewed as the process by which people communi-
cate to:
• interactively construct, negotiate, and manage meaning;
• influence each other; and
• develop and maintain relationships.
• Skillful interpersonal communication requires an awareness and understanding of
contextual differences, metacommunication, and the ability to recognize constructive
and destructive communication behaviors.
• There are five distinct contexts that influence interpersonal communication: psycho-
logical, relational, cultural, social, and environmental.
• Awareness and understanding of metacommunication, another important aspect of
interpersonal communication, can be a useful tool in dealing with contextual dif-
ferences and building mutual understanding. However, differences in cultural or
environmental context can make metacommunication more difficult to achieve.
• Feedback and feed-forward messages can be extremely useful in coconstructing
meaning during an exchange. However, the ability to facilitate this process depends
on participants’ ability to accurately perceive and interpret the intended meaning.
• Constructive communication is a prime tool for effectively coordinating group work
and managing interpersonal relations. However, destructive communication can be
equally damaging to both of these elements.
• Interpersonal communication and other interpersonal skills work in tandem to
facilitate effective process and performance.
1. When a coworker bursts out laughing and pulls another person in to exclaim, “Tell it
again, you gotta hear this” after you recount what you did over the holiday weekend,
his behavior represents __________.
a. mentoring
b. feedback
c. mindfulness
d. active listening
2. Active listening prioritizes __________.
a. accurate information comprehension and retention
b. attempts to understand what others are thinking or feeling
c. pairing positive listening behaviors with positive listening practices
d. critically evaluating or analyzing communications
3. When you relay a message to a member of your team, this represents __________
communication.
a. upward
b. lateral
c. downward
d. external
4. All of the following depend on knowledge sharing EXCEPT __________.
a. group agenda and goal clarification
b. engaging in self-evaluation
c. giving and receiving feedback
d. developing shared mental models
5. Each of the following represents a form of information filtering EXCEPT __________.
a. selective perception
b. emotional filtering
c. mindfulness
d. spin tactics
6. The constructionist model describes the communication process as __________.
a. a two-way, interactive exchange of messages and feedback
b. a linear, one-directional process with an active sender and passive receiver
c. an interactive negotiation of meaning
d. the exchange of interpersonal, contextual, and task-related information
7. The degree of participation required by a media format can be described by the
labels __________.
a. rich and lean
b. hot and cool
8. If we have little interest or existing knowledge on a topic, we are more likely to use
__________.
a. spin tactics
b. positive learning behaviors
c. critical evaluation
d. automatic processing
9. All of the following represent critical competencies that become active elements of
an interpersonal exchange EXCEPT __________.
a. listening
b. effective nonverbal expression
c. perceptiveness
d. conflict resolution
10. All of the following are true about communication networks EXCEPT that they
__________.
a. reflect patterns of group communication
b. can be centralized or decentralized
c. cannot be influenced by group responsibility structure
d. influence the group’s responsibility structure
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Outline the similarities and differences between coaching and mentoring, and
describe a time in which you were either coached or mentored. Did it impact your
behavior or performance? Was the experience positive or negative, and why?
2. Consider the example of Kylie and Ailene’s negotiation of meaning, given in
Section 3.2 on the constructionist model of communication. Recall a communicative
interaction in which you and someone else followed this process model. Where did
your initial difference in meaning come from? Was it contextual or culturally based?
Did you successfully resolve the issue? What did you learn from that experience?
3. Destructive communication takes many forms. Describe an interaction in which you
witnessed or experienced one-upping, withdrawing, bottling negative emotions,
lashing out unexpectedly, engaging in personal insult rather than addressing a prob-
lem, or insistence on handling issues alone. What response did this behavior create
in the interaction, and how did you or the other person react in turn? Given what
you’ve learned in this chapter, what would you have done differently in that interac-
tion, and what advice would you give others in a similar situation?
4. Effective listening is critical to generating consistently effective communication.
What are some of the skills you currently use to facilitate your ability to listen?
Looking over these skills, do you think you have a tendency to call on informational,
critical, empathetic, or active listening skills? What could you do to be a more effec-
tive listener in one of these areas?
• Why the “Personal” Is So Important in Interpersonal Communications:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2014/12/10/why-the-per-
sonal-is-important-in-interpersonal-communications/#2715e4857a0b74
7ce2635934
• Quantifying the Value of Soft Skills:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dinamedland/2015/03/30/
quantifying-the-value-of-soft-skills/#2715e4857a0b4a0dd2591bae
• Talks to Help You Be a Better Listener:
https://www.ted.com/playlists/92/listen_up
• The Listening Bias:
https://www.ted.com/watch/ted-institute/ted-intel/
tony-salvador-the-listening-bias
• Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are:
• Walk The Earth . . . My 17-Year Vow Of Silence:
• Margaret Heffernan: Why It’s Time to Forget the Pecking Order at Work:
Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest
1. False. Working together in any setting requires cooperation, coordination, and
social interaction. The absence of traditional face-to-face interpersonal
behaviors and social cues in a virtual setting make developing and applying
interpersonal skills more—rather than less—important for effective group
work or teamwork.
2. True. Most people forget about 50% of what they hear immediately after hearing
it, accurately recall about 35% after 8 hours have passed, and recall roughly
20% the next day.
3. False. Unlike individual personality traits, which are considered relatively fixed and
enduring, social skills are relatively trainable.
4. True. Senders and receivers both filter message content when they encode and
decode messages. The fact that individuals can filter information very dif-
ferently accounts for a great deal of information loss and distortion in the
communication process.
5. False. Team members pool their KSAs, but not by mass exchange or information
capture. Instead, they create a kind of information network known as trans-
active memory, based on a general awareness of everyone’s task-relevant
KSAs.
1. Feedback represents any form of communication that gives us information about
ourselves, our attitudes, our behavior, our performance, and how these affect the
people with whom we interact.
2. Active listeners prioritize the pairing of externally perceivable positive listening
behaviors (such as making eye contact, adopting an encouraging posture, and refer-
encing statements made by the speaker) with positive cognitive listening practices
(such as paraphrasing, summarizing, and asking clarifying questions).
3. Lateral communication refers to messages that travel between employees of equal
or equivalent hierarchical rank (between team members, between same-level man-
agers, or between union leaders and corporate managers).
4. All of these require interaction and knowledge sharing except engaging in self-
evaluation, which may benefit from knowledge sharing before and after but primar-
ily requires mindfulness and accurate perception.
5. Selective perception, emotional filtering, and spin tactics all result in some degree of
information filtering. Mindfulness is a useful tool for mitigating our tendency toward
nonproductive filtering.
6. The constructionist model describes communication as an interactive negotiation of
meaning.
7. The terms hot and cool are used to differentiate between the receiver participation
levels associated with each media format.
8. Certain elements increase our tendency to engage in either automatic or controlled
processing. When we are interested in message contents or outcome, we tend to
process the information more carefully using controlled processing. We are also
more likely to engage in controlled processing when we are well informed of a com-
munication’s context or subject matter.
9. Listening, nonverbal expression, and conflict resolution are critical competencies of
the overt skill set. Perceptiveness is in the subtle skill set.
10. Communication networks reflect the pattern of group communication. The decen-
tralized or centralized network structure follows the group’s leadership and respon-
sibility structure, but these elements can be mutually influencing.
Key Terms
automatic processing A relatively super-
ficial consideration of information and
evidence involving generalizations based on
our past experiences and what we do or do
not like, value, or believe.
behavior modeling A role-playing tactic
that consists of a multistep process in which
employees (a) observe real-time or filmed
interactions in which participants demon-
strate both positive and negative behaviors,
(b) practice recognizing negative behaviors
and engaging in positive behaviors by par-
ticipating in role-playing exercises, and
(c) experiment with using these new behav-
ioral skills in real-world settings.
centralized network A communication
network in which the group leader controls
communications and distributes informa-
tion to other members, who have little or no
exchange between them.
coaching A process that involves analyz-
ing the performance of a team and each of
its members, offering insight into problem
areas, providing encouragement, and mak-
ing suggestions for improvement at both the
individual and team level.
communication channels The media
through which messages travel.
communication noise Various distortional
elements that affect communication clar-
ity, such as information overload—includ-
ing superfluous or misleading details—and
communication difficulties stemming from
functional, cultural, or viewpoint diversity.
communicative competence The ability to
accurately understand and interpret verbal
and nonverbal messages from others and to
strategically control the messages we send
in return.
constructionist model of communica-
tion A communication model that describes
communication as an interactive negotiation
of meaning.
controlled processing A detailed consider-
ation of information and evidence that relies
on logic, critical evaluation, and the gather-
ing of significant facts and data points.
cool media A form of media (web, social
media, and face-to-face interactions) that
requires significantly more active involve-
ment and participation to communicate
informative and expressive details.
decentralized network A communication
network in which team members actively
communicate with one another on all
aspects of team performance and equally
share all information.
decode The subjective process of interpret-
ing and extrapolating the meaning of mes-
sage content, associated expectations, and
desired outcomes.
effective communication The clear and
accurate exchange of information, concepts,
and contextual meaning.
emotional filtering Unintentional filter-
ing that occurs in response to our emotional
outlook.
emotional intelligence (EI) The ability
to identify and express emotions, under-
stand emotions and their underlying causes,
integrate emotions to facilitate thought, and
regulate positive and negative emotions in
others and ourselves.
encode The translation of our information-
encompassing mental models into informa-
tive and expressive language in the way we
think most likely to effect our expectations
and desired outcomes.
feedback Any form of communication that
gives us information about ourselves, our
attitudes, our behavior, our performance,
and the effects these have on the people with
whom we interact.
feedback messages The contextual
responses both senders and receivers expe-
rience during message transmission.
feed-forward messages Signals that set
the scene for upcoming message content
before it is communicated.
hot media A form of media (lecture, film,
radio/podcasts, and print) that provides a
wealth of information stimulus that requires
little participation and engages us via pas-
sive involvement.
impression management The process by
which we attempt to influence others’ per-
ception of and reaction to our image.
interaction model of communication A
communication model that describes com-
munication as a cyclical, two-way process
in which the sender and receiver alternate
roles and interactively generate meaning via
messages and contextual feedback.
interpersonal communication The pro-
cess by which people communicate to inter-
actively construct, negotiate, and manage
meaning, influence each other, and develop
and maintain relationships.
interpersonal skills A complex skill set
encompassing KSAs and behaviors that
enhance our ability to optimize the quality
of interpersonal interactions. Also referred
to as people skills.
language barriers Communication difficul-
ties that arise from the inability to speak,
interpret, or comprehend a shared language
at a level sufficient for developing common
understanding.
language codes Culturally agreed-upon
dynamic systems of symbols that help
us organize, understand, and generate
meaning.
lean media Media with the lowest capabil-
ity to convey multidimensional informa-
tion, effect communication, and change
understanding.
media richness The degree to which a
channel can convey message complexity.
mentors Individuals committed to develop-
ing a long-term personal relationship with
individual team members whom they feel
can especially benefit from their knowledge
and experience.
message A symbolic representation of
information in a condensed form.
practical filtering Intentional filtering of
information toward a particular purpose or
goal.
rich media Media with the highest capa-
bility to convey multidimensional informa-
tion, effect communication, and change
understanding.
selective perception A process in which
we selectively see, hear, or pay attention
to (or alternatively do not see, hear, or pay
attention to) specific aspects or character-
istics of a communication exchange, based
on our personal experience, background,
expectations, motivations, or interests.
social insight The ability to meaningfully
connect emotional and behavioral cues
within a given context and understand why
we or others feel or behave in a particular
way.
social intelligence The ability to under-
stand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
during interpersonal situations and to act
appropriately on that understanding.
social sensitivity The ability to perceive
the emotional and behavioral cues enacted
by ourselves and others; this represents
our awareness of what is going on during a
social interaction.
social skill The ability to effectively
read, comprehend, and manage social
interactions.
transactive memory A collective system
for encoding, storing, and retrieving distrib-
uted information.
transmission model of communication A
communication model that describes com-
munication as a linear, one-directional pro-
cess in which messages move from an active
sender to a passive receiver.
1. Diversity in today’s workplace is a response to the need to equalize job opportunities for
minorities. T/F
2. Diversity adds little to organizational performance; it is simply a fact of life in the
contemporary workplace. T/F
3. Stereotypes are negative preconceptions we hold about other team
members. T/F
4. Diversity characteristics are readily observable. T/F
5. Assumed differences that are false are just as impactful as actual diversity between
members. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Marni is a team leader at a large, international software company. Her team is composed
of five other individuals who were each brought in from different international offices. In
addition to their diverse personal backgrounds—in terms of race, culture, and education
level—each member of the team was specifically recruited for their particular KSAs.
Before they started working as a group, Marni took the time to meet individually with
team members to gain insight into their background as well as their skills and abilities.
She also gauged their work preferences—for example, what types of projects they enjoy
and how they like to accomplish their work. When they were ready to begin working
together, Marni introduced team members to each other, highlighting their personal
experiences and skills. This helped clarify everyone’s value to the group and made all
members feel equally important, despite the diversity of their individual experiences and
KSAs.
Marni observed her team closely during their initial months working together. She soon
became concerned over the number of interpersonal conflicts occurring between team
members. While Marni attempted to diffuse these conflicts and foster a more collabora-
tive environment, her efforts to set a positive example and demonstrate effective conflict
resolution were not working. The team members continued to struggle because of their
vast differences, both personal and KSA related.
Marni’s observations led her to believe that her teammates lacked cross-cultural self-
efficacy, meaning they did not believe in their own ability to interact with people from
other cultures. This perceived lack of ability was contributing to the frequency of inter-
personal conflicts. Having identified what she thought was the root cause of the problem,
Marni asked herself how she could make the team members more confident in their own
cross-cultural abilities, as well as more comfortable with each other.
After asking this question, it became obvious to Marni that her team only interacted
formally, during meetings and project discussions. She decided that the team members
needed to really get to know one another—not just be aware of each other’s personal
accomplishments and work-related skills sets, but become well versed in each other’s
interests. She was hoping team members could find common ground amid their diver-
sity. This could foster a feeling of belonging and allow the team to move past its ongoing
destructive conflicts.
Marni decided that an informal setting could promote such interactions, so she set up
an on-site team lunch where members were discouraged from talking about their work
project. Marni hoped that limiting talk about work would allow the team members to
open up and discover their similarities—and indeed, this is what happened. The interac-
tions during the informal lunch were more relaxed than those during team meetings,
and team members asked each other personal questions and shared stories. The relaxed
atmosphere allowed for a sense of belonging and interconnectedness to develop.
Marni made these informal lunch gatherings a regular occurrence. Over the months that
followed, she also developed opportunities for the team to work off-site together. Slowly,
the interpersonal conflicts dissipated. Disagreements became more constructive in nature
as the team members became more open to each other’s diverse viewpoints.
Diversity plays a major role in today’s workplace. As of 2010 there were more than
39 million immigrants living in the United States, and 68% of these actively participate
in the workforce (Grieco et al., 2012). Overseas, the highly diverse population of South
Africa—increasingly popular as a business process outsourcing location—has earned it
the epitaph of “Rainbow Nation” (Reichard, Dollwet, & Louw-Potgieter, 2014). But what
does an increasingly diverse workforce mean for small groups, teams, and organiza-
tions? It all depends on the type of diversity involved, and how it is managed.
The effects of diversity are notoriously double-sided when it comes to group and team
performance. Diversity of expertise and perspective enhance the prime benefit of
working together—which is to combine material and human resources. Yet diversity of
background and worldview also make it harder for group members to understand each
other, which can potentially threaten their ability to work together. In Chapter 4 we
explore workplace diversity from a contemporary viewpoint and examine the different
effects of cultural and skill-based diversity. We also highlight diversity challenges and
outline strategies for managing group diversity to achieve positive outcomes.
4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
As we learned in Chapter 1, perceived similarities between individuals are a major factor in
the group identification process. Still, no two group members are truly identical. Diversity is
the degree of variation in group members’ qualities, interests, and needs. Diversity can range
from very high—as in cross-functional, virtual, special project teams brought together from
across a multinational organization—to very low—as in a group gathered based on similari-
ties to test market reactions from a very specific client base. Although groups with extremely
low diversity are labeled homogenous, all groups possess at least some level of diversity.
With the ease of travel, the global reach of marketing and sales, the omnipresence of online
communication and virtual groups, and an increasingly global mindset among both individu-
als and organizations, diversity is a very real and influential factor in our personal and profes-
sional lives. Diversity is more than a simple side effect of the technological and social changes
associated with modernity, however. The United States has a long (albeit complicated) history
as a diverse nation. Since the early 20th century, the term melting pot has been used to
describe the ideal in which people of different nationalities, cultures, social backgrounds, and
ethnicities come together to forge a common (uniform) American identity (Pluralism Project,
n.d.). More recently, terms like mosaic or kaleidoscope have been used to highlight a more
contemporary ideal in which diverse peoples mix within American culture but are free to
retain some distinctions.
The perception of diversity within the U.S.
workplace has also experienced a shift.
Contemporary diversity is not viewed the
way it once was, nor does the term impart
the same meaning it did in the past. Begin-
ning in the late 1960s, as a result of civil
rights legislation, U.S. employers began
adopting equal opportunity measures to
address inequality and discrimination
against individuals based on gender, race,
ethnicity, nationality, and minority status.
The most notable of these measures was
affirmative action (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2014). In response
to the legislation, employers began to
fill racial and minority quotas in the
workplace. The sudden rise in employee
diversity injected instant complexity and
increased potential for misunderstand-
ing and conflict in the workplace. This
spurred a movement of political correct-
ness in the 1980s and 1990s. Diversity
within organizations during these years
was predominantly focused on increasing
the numbers of individuals with specific
demographic characteristics and then
training people to skirt politely around
individual differences and their newly
diverse working conditions.
Today workplace diversity no longer centers on antidiscrimination compliance. The new
focus for diversity in groups and teams revolves around the variation in specific traits, skills,
experiences, and qualifications that can increase the performance of a group in general or
on a specific project. This new focus came as a result of contemporary organizations operat-
ing in a global work environment fueled by multinational corporations. Following the eco-
nomic downturns at the start of the millennium and the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble in
2007, organizations began positively transforming the need to cut costs and downsize their
workforce. They employed the concept of rightsizing, or functioning effectively with a smaller
employee base (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992; Manz & Sims, 1987). Employee diversity
in traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications became critical to enacting this concept. The
rise of groups and teams in organizations, and of teamwork-centered practices, has given
diversity a new set of characteristics. While superficial differences (such as age, gender, or
University of Iowa Libraries. Special Collections Department
The term melting pot was used to describe how
people of various nationalities and cultures came
together to forge a common American identity.
ethnicity) are not entirely discounted, they take a backseat to task- and performance-related
diversity in group member selection, team building, and organizational hiring.
In the next section, we examine the case for diversity in the workplace.
4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
Diversity is a key element in maintaining organizational effectiveness. It engages new per-
spectives, enhances product and service development, and positively or negatively impacts
employee interactions, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover, as well as the ongoing devel-
opment of organizational learning and culture (Rašticová & Senichev, 2011; Senichev, 2013a,
2013b). But how exactly does workplace diversity achieve all of this? It does so by addressing
three core needs in contemporary organizations: developing mutual understanding, maxi-
mizing human resources, and cultivating ability and innovation (see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Diversity and core organizational needs
Contemporary organizations look to diversity to address three core needs.
Let’s look more closely at the three core organizational needs that diversity addresses.
Developing Mutual Understanding
Diversity is an increasingly inevitable factor in today’s interactive and operational settings. As
such, it cannot be ignored. Organizations need to understand, attract, expand on, and success-
fully interact with an increasingly diverse customer and client base. Diverse group and team
memberships are key to developing mutual understanding between an organization and its
clients, whether these represent specific individuals or entire markets. Developing mutual
understanding allows companies to:
• achieve effective coordination and collaboration between individual employees and
between and within various groups, teams, organizational departments, and levels
of hierarchy;
• identify and attract new markets and expand their customer or client base;
• effectively serve, communicate, and interact with new and existing customers and
clients; and
• engender fellowship among employees and clients alike and build trust and loyalty
toward the organization; this can be achieved by internally generating organiza-
tional cohesiveness via a corporate identity infused with team spirit and externally
fostering customer loyalty and goodwill.
Maximizing Human Resources
In Chapter 1, we outlined the benefits of and tendency toward efficiency or effectiveness in
work groups and teams. Of course, the best performance outcomes occur when we break with
“either/or” thinking and find a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. It is by realizing
their potential for achieving this balance that diverse groups outperform homogenous ones.
One of the key advantages of working in groups is the potential to access a broad scope of col-
lective KSAs and experience; indeed, this is the fundamental concept behind the now popular
use of cross-functional teams. Today’s organizational strategies call for making the most out
of a minimal workforce by capitalizing on a diverse range of employee capabilities.
In cases that involve complex problem solving and decision making, two heads really are bet-
ter than one. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and higher quality decisions and
solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant knowledge, viewpoints, experi-
ence, and skills (Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). This also mitigates group tendency toward
dysfunctional process behavior such as groupthink, which we address in Chapter 5.
Cultivating Adaptability and Innovation
In nature, genetic diversity within a group—such as a herd of elephants—is beneficial
because, in crisis, diverse groups are far more adaptable and resilient than homogenous ones
(Senichev, 2013b; Kreitz, 2008). For example, a herd with a diverse gene pool would have a
better chance of surviving a deadly hereditary disease than a herd that lacked genetic diver-
sity. This adaptability and resilience gives the diverse group stability. In this case stability
refers to more than the ability to maintain a status quo; rather, it is the capacity to survive
and thrive amid changing conditions. The ability to adapt and change is just as critical for
contemporary organizations. Diverse groups and teams have an inherently broader range of
KSAs and experience to draw from in response to changing circumstances.
As Indra Nooyi noted upon becoming chief executive officer (CEO) of PepsiCo, people are an
organizations’ biggest asset (Aspen Institute, 2014). Great ideas come from people. Diversifi-
cation in employee background, perspective, experience, and knowledge promotes creativity
and innovation because it fosters more diverse ideas. Diverse teams are more likely to chal-
lenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple perspectives to identify potential prob-
lems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified strategies and solutions through
debate (Agrawal, 2012). Meanwhile, groups with low diversity tend to more easily find and
hold common perceptions and viewpoints regarding the competitive environment, come up
with fewer strategic options, and are more prone to solutions that essentially regenerate
existing strategies.
While diversity within groups has tremendous benefits, there are also challenges associated
with diversity among group members. We discuss these challenges and barriers to construc-
tive diversity in the next section.
4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
The downside to engaging diverse ideas and viewpoints is that team members are more likely
to differ in their preferences for solutions and strategies. The inability to agree and collectively
commit to a specific course of action can delay the group’s progress and lower individual
motivation and effort (Mello & Ruckes, 2006). The very differences that broaden the group’s
capacity for adaptability, innovation, and effective performance can act as a divisive force
and foster separation, miscommunication, and conflict between team members (Harrison &
Klein, 2007; Polzer, 2008).
Group diversity is often portrayed as a double-edged sword because it heightens the poten-
tial for significant gains and losses in the performance process (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;
Pieterse et al., 2013). On the one hand, diverse perspectives enhance an organization’s abil-
ity to identify opportunities; rethink and redefine business strategies, practices, tasks, pro-
cesses, products, and services; and interact with both new and existing markets (Agrawal,
2012). On the other hand, poorly managed diversity can stunt developmental processes such
as identification and cohesion. This can lower employee commitment and satisfaction and
decrease task-related process speeds, which impede the group’s capacity for effective action
and response (Agrawal, 2012).
While diversity broadens the range of perspectives and expertise, it also increases the poten-
tial for miscommunication and conflict between group members (Agrawal, 2012). Dysfunc-
tional dynamics are often attributed to internal cognitive barriers—or limiting preconcep-
tions such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination—that are activated by the differences
we perceive between ourselves and others (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). These can, and do,
occur in any setting in which we interact with others and are made aware of differences of any
type. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers affect interactions between individu-
als, group members, and different groups or subgroups.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Internal cognitive barriers are associated with the concept of in-group-out-group bias. The
terms in-group and out-group may conjure up high school–style images of popular versus
unpopular groups. There is a reason for that. Although in the social sciences in-group and
out-group refer to those groups we do and do not belong to, we have a natural preference and
positive bias toward our own groups over others. This is caused by two basic factors:
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon, Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness” that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture, or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree. However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim, 1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al., 2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you. But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon, Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness” that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture, or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree. However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim, 1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al., 2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you. But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
While stereotypes tend to flatten distinctions between members of out-groups, they exagger-
ate differences between in-groups and out-groups. For instance, members of a rival company
may be portrayed as particularly lazy or unethical, while members of one’s own company are
automatically characterized as hard-working and ethical. Denigrating those in the out-group
by emphasizing their differences and ignoring their similarities with in-group members rein-
forces the idea that the out-group is inferior and bolsters the solidarity and unity of those in
the in-group. When diverse members must work together, however, this negative in-group-
out-group dynamic can seriously demoralize an entire group or team. When negative stereo-
types move from expectation to prejudgment, prejudice and discrimination occur.
Prejudice
Prejudice represents unjustified negative attitudes toward others based solely on their mem-
bership in a particular group or subgroup. Prejudice sustains a superior us versus inferior
them belief system that becomes ingrained in how we feel about other people. When we dis-
like, take offense with, or exclude someone based on attributes such as ethnicity, national-
ity, sexual orientation, or gender, we are engaging in prejudice. Although in popular usage
ethnicity refers to differences in genetic background, the term ethnic refers to any distinc-
tive characteristic held in common by a group of people, including language, culture, religion,
race, customs, orientations, and physical characteristics. Related to in-group-out-group bias,
ethnocentrism refers to our tendency to regard ethnic characteristics associated with our
own groups as superior, or more “natural” and “correct” than those associated with others.
Ethnocentrism is a major cause of prejudice.
Ethnocentrism skews our judgment when dealing with others because, in effect, we use our
own norms, standards, and values to measure the worth of others’ norms, standards, and val-
ues, rather than judging them from an objective standpoint (Reichard et al., 2014). This can
be especially problematic when it occurs within groups. If we do not know or understand the
context in which unfamiliar norms were developed, we may simply disregard them as use-
less or unimportant, potentially offending fellow group members. Group members who feel
rejected are typically less motivated to understand and adapt to the group’s shared context
(Earley & Ang, 2003). This becomes true on both sides of the equation if the offended group
members respond with aggression or rejection of their own.
Prejudice caused by ethnocentrism can take on many forms. Some of the most common
include:
• racism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular race or ethnicity;
• sexism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular gender; and
• ageism, or prejudice directed toward members of a certain age range, usually
older adults, but sometimes directed in the reverse, from older to younger group
members.
Ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, and ageism are often instilled and perpetuated by cultural
conditioning. As children, and throughout our lifetime, we are conditioned to conform and
respond positively to the culture in which we are raised. This includes our national culture
as well as our own family’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms. As we grow older, we are
also influenced by the cultural norms attached to the major secondary groups in our lives.
Because of this conditioning, we tend to respond negatively to, be confused by, or question the
“correctness” of attitudes, thoughts, or behaviors that fall outside our cultural norms.
In his classic treatise, The Nature of Prejudice, psychologist Gordon Allport (1954/1979)
presents a vivid example of the effects of cultural conditioning on our perception. Recount-
ing an experiment conducted with colleague Leo Postman (Allport & Postman, 1947), All-
port describes seating Caucasian study participants in a circle and then presenting just
one individual with a drawing to briefly study before beginning the round. The drawing
depicted White people of varying genders and attitudes riding in a subway car, watching an
angry White man with a switchblade threatening a conciliatory Black man. Without showing
the drawing to anyone else, the first participant had to briefly describe the drawing to the
next person, who then described what he or she heard to the next person, and so on, until it
reached the end of the line. In the actual drawing, a White man held a razor. Long before the
information had completed traveling the circle, the razor had somehow jumped to the hand
of the Black man.
Everyone experiences or is subject to prejudice at some time. Unless we experience preju-
diced thoughts or feelings all the time, having a few here and there does not automatically
mean we are racist, sexist, or ageist. Even if we consciously reject these negative attitudes,
cultural conditioning leaves its traces, like a lingering memory or bad habit. As with all con-
ditioned responses, it takes time, commitment, and conscious effort to overrule culturally
ingrained prejudice. Of course, some people choose to go the other way; instead of conquer-
ing their prejudice, they act on it. When we act on prejudice, we exhibit discrimination.
Discrimination
Discrimination refers to negative, unfavorable, or harmful treatment of others based on ste-
reotypical thinking and prejudice (Pagura, 2012). Examples of discrimination in the work-
place may include when someone is:
• denied equal opportunities or benefits;
• overlooked or refused promotion or reward;
• unfairly chastised, demoted, fired, or excluded from groups; and
• declined for hire based on stereotyping and prejudice.
Consider, for example, two individuals, one man and one woman, who are applying for the
same job. Aside from gender, they are equal in all respects (that is, in terms of age, educa-
tional background, qualifications, quality of references, and the degree to which they are well
spoken, look presentable, and have a personable nature). The exception is that the man has
3 years more experience than the woman in handling projects similar to those the employee
will be asked to take on.
If the man is selected based on his additional experience, this is a fair and logical choice.
However, if the man is selected because the interviewing manager believes that women in
general are less dedicated and more prone to familial distractions than men, discrimination
has influenced the choice. Discrimination would also be a factor if the woman is hired because
the manager thinks that men are too chauvinistic and overbearing to be good team players.
Instead of observing and responding to an actual interaction, (such as, “She clearly stated
that she has just married, desires children, and would want to be a stay-at-home mom for
her child’s first four years,” or “He made several chauvinistic remarks that I found very offen-
sive”), the interviewing manager made the decision based on blindly applied stereotypes and
prejudice.
Within specific groups and teams, discrimination can be expressed as:
• discounting or refusing praise for particular members’ contributions or work,
• refusing to collaborate or respect assigned roles, and
• two negative phenomena: scapegoating and blaming the victim.
Scapegoating occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is unfairly singled out and
blamed or aggressed against for something, in order to release the group’s pent-up anger and
frustration. For example, if a new product or marketing design fails in testing, a constructive
reaction would be to come together as a team to evaluate the failure and potential solutions.
However, disappointment combined with underlying stereotypes or prejudice can lead some
group members to unfairly lash out and blame another member, saying, for example, “It’s
Geri’s fault. He probably isn’t even qualified for this. Everyone knows people from India fake
their diplomas. He’s probably here under a visa scam!”
Geri, who has done none of those things and does not deserve to be singled out for the entire
team’s failure, will be understandably offended. It is also likely that other members of the
team will be offended on his behalf. Not only is Geri aggressed against, but the whole team
can become involved in responding to the negative interaction and possibly even break into
subgroups that defend different sides. Needless to say, this does nothing to address the
actual problem—fixing the team’s error and finding a workable solution. Furthermore, it can
fundamentally damage group cohesion and interrelations. The term scapegoat is rooted in
a biblical guilt-transference ritual in which members of a community transfer their sins to
a goat and then send it, along with their load of sins, out into the wilderness to disappear
(Zatelli, 1998). When we turn our team members into scapegoats, however, neither they, nor
our sins, disappear. If not carefully handled and resolved, scapegoating can tear a team apart.
Blaming the victim occurs when we ascribe a negative outcome, such as prejudice or dis-
crimination, to the victim’s personal characteristics and actions (Johnson & Johnson, 2013).
Why would we blame the victim? Most of us would feel considerable shame admitting that
we engaged in aggression—such as lying, stealing, or even psychological or physical abuse—
toward members of another group because we were jealous, coveted their resources, or sim-
ply lashed out. To make ourselves feel better about negative feelings and actions, we might
convince ourselves that members of the other group deserve such treatment. Unfortunately,
this type of thinking is often applied to victims of violence, with aggressors and even other
parties blaming the victim. You may have heard victim-blaming statements such as, “Anyone
walking alone in a bad neighborhood at night deserves to be mugged.”
It is natural for us to try to assign blame or find a cause for negative experiences (Hersh,
2013). As harmful as it might be, blaming the victim reinforces the belief that bad things hap-
pen for a reason and are therefore preventable. This gives us a sense of control and restores
our confidence in our ability to predict and avoid negative experiences. Causal attribution,
wherein we analyze events and interactions and infer causes, is a natural part of our learning
process. If we cannot find a cause for a negative experience, we have no way of protecting our-
selves from it. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no logical or discernable reason for a nega-
tive outcome. For example, perhaps there was nothing wrong with the product or marketing
design handed in by Geri’s team; perhaps the deciding project manager simply felt it was not
right for the market or that another ideation round might produce an even better solution.
In that case there was no overt error or tangible reason for the rejection—the team itself did
nothing wrong.
Reality Check: Examining In-Group-Out-Group Hostilities
Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have played a part in the most profoundly disturb-
ing group clashes in history. Social exclusion, enslavement, forced encampment, denial of basic
human and civil rights, psychological and physical abuse, and horrendous acts of extermina-
tion all seem to have these infernal cognitive barriers at their root. But are they really the cause
of such behavior?
In the 1970s psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted a study now generally known
as the Stanford prison experiment, which sought to determine the psychological effects of
becoming either a prisoner or a guard. After carefully eliminating candidates with medical or
psychological issues, criminal history, or drug abuse problems, Zimbardo (1999) and his team
selected 24 college students from the United States and Canada and arbitrarily divided them
into two groups. Half were assigned to be guards, and the others were designated as prisoners.
The experiment was meant to be as realistic as possible (Zimbardo, 1999). Consultants helped
construct a realistic ‘prison’ and ‘yard’ (including an area for solitary confinement) in the
basement of the Stanford psychology building. ‘Prisoners’ were publically arrested on charges
of armed robbery and burglary. They were searched, handcuffed, and taken to the Palo Alto
Police Department, where they were booked, blindfolded, and placed in cells. They were then
transported to the constructed prison area. There, the students acting as guards—dressed in
uniform and wearing dark sunglasses—systematically stripped and searched the prisoners.
They also doused the prisoners with spray—an act meant to convey the idea that they may be
riddled with vermin. Prisoners were issued a humiliating smock and stocking cap and given
a number that became the only name by which they were known. A chain was also wrapped
around each prisoner’s ankle to increase the sense of captivity.
The guards were told to do whatever they felt necessary, within reason, to maintain law and
order and to command the prisoners’ respect (Zimbardo, 1999). Researchers were somewhat
shocked by what took place. The guards became abusive, and as many as one third engaged
in behavior described as sadistic. Some prisoners had severe psychological reactions, others
rebelled against the guards, and some abandoned the experiment entirely. Interestingly, none
of the guards quit, left early, called in sick, came late for their shift, or demanded pay for over-
time work. Though the experiment was set to last 2 weeks, it had to be halted after only 6 days.
So what happened during the Stanford prison experiment? Psychologists tend to treat ste-
reotypes and other ideological factors held by individuals as causes for hostility toward out-
groups. However, social psychology has shown that if people change their behavior (perhaps
due to outside forces, like conditions in an experiment) and feel committed to that change,
attitudes often follow suit. This suggests that, while some conflict involving out-groups stems
from preexisting negative attitudes toward a particular group, it is also possible that because
we treat members of a group poorly, we develop hostile attitudes toward them (Jussim et al.,
2005). This shift results in new sets of norms consistent with the altered behavior. Zimbardo’s
(1999) test subjects were randomly divided into prisoners and guards. There were no preex-
isting negative attitudes between the two groups, but the guards became increasingly hostile
as they treated their fellow test subjects like prisoners. These attitudes and behaviors gener-
ated a new set of norms through which they perceived their poor treatment of the prisoners
as expected, acceptable, and even deserved.
The full story of the Stanford prison experiment, including multimedia and the prisoners’ plot
to escape, can be found at http://www.prisonexp.org.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Zimbardo concluded that the treatment in prisons dehumanizes people. Do you think he
was talking about the prisoners or the guards? Explain your answer.
2. Zimbardo noted that his decision to stop the experiment was made during a wake-
up-call moment in which Christina Maslach, newly graduated from the Stanford PhD
program, came in from outside the experiment to conduct unbiased interviews with
the guards and prisoners. Upon observing the participants, she confronted Zimbardo,
exclaiming, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Do you think the scientists
also experienced a shift in norms while observing the participants’ altered behavior?
Explain your answer.
3. What if group norms in the workplace called for you to treat someone else poorly?
Would you do so, and what do think would happen over time if you continued to do so
on a regular basis?
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
In the overview on member diversity in Chapter 1, we separated member qualities into two
basic categories: demographic characteristics and individual attributes. Demographic charac-
teristics represent a surface-level diversity that is fairly overt and readily observable, either
as physical and behavioral characteristics (that is, gender, language, ethnicity, or handicap-
ping conditions) or as socially acknowledged identifiers (that is, social position, education
level, nationality, and religion) (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale,
2006). Social networking platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn have normalized online
profiles that announce surface-level diversity, making even less obvious characteristics (such
as sexual orientation or educational background) easier to perceive. In contrast, individual
attributes, interests, and needs represent deep-level diversity, or characteristics that can
only be perceived over time by engaging in verbal and nonverbal interactions (Harrison,
Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Phillips et al., 2006). Figure 4.2 provides a graphic representa-
tion of surface-level and deep-level diversity.
Figure 4.2: Levels of member diversity
There are two levels of member diversity: surface-level diversity, which consists of observable
characteristics, and deep-level diversity, which consists of less readily perceived characteristics.
ExpertiseWorldview
Individual
Interests
& Needs
Personality
Nationality
Gender
Age
Culture
Language
Social
Class
Social
Position
Sexual
Orientation
Ethnicity
Religion
Education
Level
Handicapping
Conditions
Surface Level
Deep-Level
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Research on group dynamics in organizational settings takes the existence of both sur-
face- and deep-level diversity as a given, focusing instead on the relevance of each of these
dimensions for group performance and their influence on positive and negative outcomes
(Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). So far, this perspective suggests that while surface-level diver-
sity immediately impacts group cohesion and conflict, long-term effects and performance
outcomes were mainly dependent on the existing deep-level diversity between group mem-
bers (Harrison et al., 2002; Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998),
for example, observed that gender differences initially divided their study groups. Over time,
however, group members developed positive interrelations based on the successful mesh-
ing of individual attributes. This led to increased cohesion, a sense of mutual respect among
group members, and overall satisfaction with the groups.
In essence, surface-level diversity promotes division and conflict that can be either strength-
ened or resolved, depending on group members’ ability to find common ground within deep-
level diversity characteristics. Table 4.1 outlines this concept.
Table 4.1: Effects of surface-level and deep-level diversity
Diversity level Basic dynamics Long-term effects
Surface level • This level activates stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination
between members.
• This level fosters factions
and in-group and out-group
subdivisions.
Negative interactions caused by
surface-level diversity can be miti-
gated and resolved over the long term
if members connect over similar or
complementary deep-level diversity
characteristics.
Deep level • This level is less overtly
noticeable, and therefore less
likely to generate conflict at the
beginning of group work.
• Differences tend to be more
profound and personal in nature,
resulting in conflict that is more
emotional and less easily resolved.
• Diversity in expertise almost
always has a positive effect on
group work.
Deep-level diversity may go unnoticed
for the duration of the group perfor-
mance. If and when it does become
tangible, differences can seem irrec-
oncilable because elements such as
worldview and personality are deeply
ingrained in members’ sense of self.
High diversity in these areas can break
up the team.
Member diversity can take on many forms. The forms of diversity that are particularly sig-
nificant for today’s workplace groups and teams include cultural and skill-based diversity,
personality differences, and the dynamics of members’ individual interests and needs. We
discuss these various forms of diversity throughout this section.
Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is often construed as referring only to differences in nationality. How-
ever, culture is more loosely defined as the shared attitudes, values, customs, practices, and
behavioral norms that are characteristic of a particular society, social category, organiza-
tion, or group. From this viewpoint, cultural diversity in the workplace can reflect diver-
sity across members’ previous or existing national, organizational, and/or group cultures.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
An organization itself can encompass one or many cultural identities, each representing
the total construct of an entity’s culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences
(Chao, 2000).
So how does cultural diversity play out in groups and teams? First, let’s consider cross-
cultural teams. These have members who are culturally diverse and may cut across organi-
zational and/or national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013). Members may have different back-
grounds and affiliations, whether they are individual cultural identities and nationalities or
distinct organizational cultures (Earley & Erez, 1997; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Cross-cultural
team members face broad diversity issues, since each person can bring an entirely differ-
ent set of cultural identities to the group. Interactions within cross-cultural teams typically
involve conflict, since members exchange diverse information and viewpoints (Paul & Ray,
2013). However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, inviting that wealth of exchange to
encourage constructive controversy, a concept we will cover further in Chapter 6, is often the
point of building a cross-cultural team.
Imagine the cultural clash that occurred when Microsoft and Apple collaborated to include
Microsoft’s Bing- as the default search engine in Apple’s iOS7 (McLaughlin, 2013). Each of
these organizations possess a strong and dynamically opposing cultural identity. Their cul-
tures are so distinctive that they have even spawned cultural followings among their clients,
as Apple’s 2006 “get a Mac” campaign (http://youtu.be/p5Yt30wrbl4) humorously capital-
ized on. Still, any cultural conflict they may have experienced during their collaboration was
put to good use in their efforts to take market share away from their mutual rival, Google.
Of the various forms of cultural diversity, national diversity among team members is per-
haps the most potentially negative. National diversity is more complex than other forms of
cultural diversity because, along with differences in culture, team members must deal with
differences in language proficiency. This is of particular concern for today’s multinational
organizations. Multinational teams tend to be temporary in nature and feature members who
have neither worked together before nor expect to work together in the same context again
(Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). Team members may rarely engage in face-
to-face in-person interactions and are typically drawn from across organizational, functional,
and national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013). Although members of multinational teams typi-
cally speak a common language, they frequently encounter language barriers, conceptual dif-
ferences based on cultural background and norms, and cultural conditioning specific to their
country of origin. Add the fact that multinational teams are predominantly virtual, and mem-
bers face contextual diversity as well.
So how does cultural diversity affect group performance? Cultural diversity can bring an
increasingly necessary range of cultural backgrounds and knowledge to a group or team,
but positive performance outcomes depend mainly on members’ ability to generate mutual
understanding and shared vision. Effective communication and conflict resolution are critical
tools for making these positive connections between members and gaining value from cul-
tural diversity in a group or team.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Skill Diversity
Member differences related to functional or departmental background fall under the heading
of skill-based diversity. Though it names only one of its elements, the term skill diversity
typically encompasses individual attributes related to expertise, including KSAs and relevant
experience. KSAs represent a common competency model for evaluating an employee’s abil-
ity to perform a job. Let’s take a closer look at the elements that constitute KSAs:
• Knowledge refers to any information or subject matter familiarity possessed by the
employee at the outset of the performance that can be directly applied to undertak-
ing tasks and activities.
• Skills represent learned and observable competencies in the manual, verbal, or
mental manipulation of people, ideas, or things. Skills fall into four basic categories:
hard, soft, critical-thinking, and problem-solving skills (for more on these, see Chap-
ter 2).
• Abilities represent the power and capacity to perform tasks or functions and to
carry out activities while applying or utilizing relevant skills and knowledge. Abili-
ties can be physical—for example, an employee who is hired to lift heavy stock must
be physically able to do so. They can also be mental. An employee may be a very fast
typist, for example, but the ability to clearly and concisely outline points, organize
information, and put together a project proposal is far more valuable than the speed
at which it is typed up.
As we know from Chapter 1, skill-diverse memberships drawn from different functional or
departmental backgrounds are referred to as cross-functional. Cross-functional teams have
become popular across all team variations and settings as a viable way to enhance creativity,
flexibility, and functionality of collaborative work processes and products. Diversity based on
differences in members’ KSAs tends to improve the group’s performance outcomes, particu-
larly when they involve complex group processes or tasks (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000).
Members who vary in type or level of KSAs will naturally complement each other during
properly managed group work and teamwork, enhancing performance levels for the entire
team. Homogenous groups, which are based on similarities between members, tend to miss
out on this important advantage. In such cases the primary benefit of group work devolves
from the ability to collaborate and pool useful knowledge, skills, and abilities toward effective
performance to a simple efficiency boost based on strength in numbers.
So how does skill diversity affect group performance? Unlike cultural diversity, there is no
evidence that skill diversity is ever a drawback. However, its positive value depends mainly
on two factors:
1. Effective team building for relevant and complementary expertise.
2. Members’ ability to work past other diversity characteristics to effectively collaborate.
This includes surface-level diversity as well as deep-level diversities such as personal-
ity differences and individual interests and needs.
We will examine the dynamics attached to these diversity characteristics next.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Personality Differences
Personality represents another type of diversity. Personality refers to individual differences
in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving based on individual cognitive and
behavioral styles (McCreary, 1960; George & Jones, 2002). These differences tend to be rela-
tively stable across time and situation. This definition makes intuitive sense; when we label
an individual as a “grump,” we insinuate that he or she is habitually in a bad mood, pessimis-
tic, and unhappy, regardless of the situation.
Like skill-based diversity, personality differences represent a deep-level diversity. Although
some aspects of personality can be more obvious than others (like extreme confidence or
shyness), member personality as a whole is complex and not readily observable. Rather, one’s
personality may only surface after substantial interaction and discussion among team mem-
bers. In fact, some aspects of personality can be so deeply hidden or subtle that they can go
completely unnoticed, despite significantly influencing our interactions.
Like other forms of diversity, personality can be either an asset or a drawback to both group
work and teamwork. Because personality is complex and its expression can highly depend
on the situation, individual personality differences can be hard to define. We may not even
be aware that we possess a particular set of personality traits. For this reason, personality
differences can lead to serious miscommunication and dysfunctional conflict in teams (Utley,
Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). It is therefore good practice for groups and teams to become
aware of individual personality differences by taking personality tests and understanding
that these differences can impact interaction.
Cognitive style reflects our habitual preferences for perceiving and processing information;
our approach to knowledge retrieval and use; and our preferred ways of thinking, solving
problems, and dealing with change (Chilton & Bloodgood, 2010). As a dimension of personal-
ity, cognitive style affects our tendency to be more or less independent, attentive, impulsive,
reflective, adaptive, and innovative. It also affects our ability to learn and recall information,
and it influences our attitudes, values, and behavior in social interactions. Likewise, behav-
ioral style reflects habitual patterns of behavior developed over time and influences our ten-
dency to be task or relationship oriented; prefer fast or slow pacing; and be more or less
dominant, expressive, supportive, or calculating in social interactions (McKenna, Shelton, &
Darling, 2002). Together, cognitive and behavioral styles make up the dimensions of our per-
sonality (Robbins, 2001).
The Big Five and Myers–Briggs
Psychologists organize personality into specific dimensions, referred to as traits (McCrae &
Costa, 1997). While hundreds of traits have been identified and observed since personality
theory was introduced, five traits have emerged as cardinal in their ability to influence behav-
ior and social patterns. These five traits form the five-factor (or Big Five) model of personal-
ity (Goldberg, 1990). They include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 4.2).
Another tool for examining personality is the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980), which identifies four dual-poled dimensions of personality. The four
dimensions include: extroversion -introversion, sensing -intuition, thinking -feeling, and
judging -perceiving. The MBTI personality dimensions are outlined in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits
Trait Description Example
Openness to
experience
A person’s degree of intellectual
curiosity, creativity, and preference
for novelty; includes how imaginative
or independent a person is and the
degree to which one prefers to engage
in a variety of activities over a strict
routine
Members with a high level of openness
to experience are less likely to perceive
diversity as negative, more likely to
voluntarily engage in cross-cultural
interactions, and view differences as
interesting rather than threatening.
Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level
of discipline, and how prone he or she
is to taking risks
Highly conscientious group members
will likely respond to all messages by
the end of each day, maintain impecca-
ble work areas, and make comprehen-
sive and detailed reports. They might
also avoid taking risks, challenging
boundaries, or breaking with norms.
Extroversion The degree to which a person dem-
onstrates energy, positive emotions,
positive engagement, assertiveness,
sociability, and talkativeness and seeks
stimulation in the company of others
Highly extroverted group members are
more likely to volunteer and discuss
ideas, seek out other members for col-
laboration, and prefer to socialize with
coworkers outside of work, as opposed
to staying in and watching a movie.
Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind,
dependable, and cooperative
Highly agreeable group members
are typically more interested in
doing things for the common good,
as opposed to fulfilling their own
self-interests.
Neuroticism A person’s tendency toward unpleas-
ant emotions, such as anger, anxiety,
depression, and vulnerability; also
refers to a person’s tendency to be
nervous, anxious, and suffer from low
self-confidence and self-contentment
Members with a high degree of neu-
roticism tend to view interaction in a
negative light and to perceive and/or
start conflict, but they may be just as
quick to shy away from difficult con-
versations needed to resolve it. Anxiety
or lack of self-confidence can also lead
to poor participation in group efforts.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Personality Differences
Personality represents another type of diversity. Personality refers to individual differences
in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving based on individual cognitive and
behavioral styles (McCreary, 1960; George & Jones, 2002). These differences tend to be rela-
tively stable across time and situation. This definition makes intuitive sense; when we label
an individual as a “grump,” we insinuate that he or she is habitually in a bad mood, pessimis-
tic, and unhappy, regardless of the situation.
Like skill-based diversity, personality differences represent a deep-level diversity. Although
some aspects of personality can be more obvious than others (like extreme confidence or
shyness), member personality as a whole is complex and not readily observable. Rather, one’s
personality may only surface after substantial interaction and discussion among team mem-
bers. In fact, some aspects of personality can be so deeply hidden or subtle that they can go
completely unnoticed, despite significantly influencing our interactions.
Like other forms of diversity, personality can be either an asset or a drawback to both group
work and teamwork. Because personality is complex and its expression can highly depend
on the situation, individual personality differences can be hard to define. We may not even
be aware that we possess a particular set of personality traits. For this reason, personality
differences can lead to serious miscommunication and dysfunctional conflict in teams (Utley,
Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). It is therefore good practice for groups and teams to become
aware of individual personality differences by taking personality tests and understanding
that these differences can impact interaction.
Cognitive style reflects our habitual preferences for perceiving and processing information;
our approach to knowledge retrieval and use; and our preferred ways of thinking, solving
problems, and dealing with change (Chilton & Bloodgood, 2010). As a dimension of personal-
ity, cognitive style affects our tendency to be more or less independent, attentive, impulsive,
reflective, adaptive, and innovative. It also affects our ability to learn and recall information,
and it influences our attitudes, values, and behavior in social interactions. Likewise, behav-
ioral style reflects habitual patterns of behavior developed over time and influences our ten-
dency to be task or relationship oriented; prefer fast or slow pacing; and be more or less
dominant, expressive, supportive, or calculating in social interactions (McKenna, Shelton, &
Darling, 2002). Together, cognitive and behavioral styles make up the dimensions of our per-
sonality (Robbins, 2001).
The Big Five and Myers–Briggs
Psychologists organize personality into specific dimensions, referred to as traits (McCrae &
Costa, 1997). While hundreds of traits have been identified and observed since personality
theory was introduced, five traits have emerged as cardinal in their ability to influence behav-
ior and social patterns. These five traits form the five-factor (or Big Five) model of personal-
ity (Goldberg, 1990). They include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 4.2).
Another tool for examining personality is the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980), which identifies four dual-poled dimensions of personality. The four
dimensions include: extroversion -introversion, sensing -intuition, thinking -feeling, and
judging -perceiving. The MBTI personality dimensions are outlined in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits
Trait Description Example
Openness to
experience
A person’s degree of intellectual
curiosity, creativity, and preference
for novelty; includes how imaginative
or independent a person is and the
degree to which one prefers to engage
in a variety of activities over a strict
routine
Members with a high level of openness
to experience are less likely to perceive
diversity as negative, more likely to
voluntarily engage in cross-cultural
interactions, and view differences as
interesting rather than threatening.
Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level
of discipline, and how prone he or she
is to taking risks
Highly conscientious group members
will likely respond to all messages by
the end of each day, maintain impecca-
ble work areas, and make comprehen-
sive and detailed reports. They might
also avoid taking risks, challenging
boundaries, or breaking with norms.
Extroversion The degree to which a person dem-
onstrates energy, positive emotions,
positive engagement, assertiveness,
sociability, and talkativeness and seeks
stimulation in the company of others
Highly extroverted group members are
more likely to volunteer and discuss
ideas, seek out other members for col-
laboration, and prefer to socialize with
coworkers outside of work, as opposed
to staying in and watching a movie.
Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind,
dependable, and cooperative
Highly agreeable group members
are typically more interested in
doing things for the common good,
as opposed to fulfilling their own
self-interests.
Neuroticism A person’s tendency toward unpleas-
ant emotions, such as anger, anxiety,
depression, and vulnerability; also
refers to a person’s tendency to be
nervous, anxious, and suffer from low
self-confidence and self-contentment
Members with a high degree of neu-
roticism tend to view interaction in a
negative light and to perceive and/or
start conflict, but they may be just as
quick to shy away from difficult con-
versations needed to resolve it. Anxiety
or lack of self-confidence can also lead
to poor participation in group efforts.
The Big Five traits and the MBTI are often used to evaluate employees’ potential personality
dynamics as new hires or for group work and teamwork. Though the results are not defini-
tive, they can help raise our awareness of our personality traits and dimensions and the way
these may affect our interactions. Ideally, this can help individuals better understand team-
mates who differ from them, and adjust their expectations and behavior to accommodate
these differences.
For instance, extroverts and introverts have different preferences when it comes to answer-
ing questions. Extroverts like to think out loud, while introverts tend to prefer quiet time to
gather their thoughts. In groups, extroverts can crowd out introverts by occupying a domi-
nant position in the conversation, disrupting introverts’ thought processes, and not allowing
them enough time to answer questions. Groups that are aware of these tendencies can work
to address them by:
Deals with how people direct their
attention and gain energy
Extrovert: directs attention outward,
toward people and objects
Introvert: directs attention inward,
toward concepts and ideas
Sensing–intuition Deals with how people gather
information
Sensing: prefers information that can
be understood by the five senses and
that is in the present, tangible, and
concrete
Intuitive: prefers information that
comes from hunches; tends to instinc-
tively build patterns that provide a big-
picture view of a situation or problem
out of isolated facts
Thinking–feeling Deals with how people tend to make
decisions
Thinking: tends to make decisions
from a detached standpoint, measuring
the decision by what seems reasonable,
logical, causal, consistent, and to match
a given set of rules
Feeling: tends to come to decisions by
associating or empathizing with the
situation and weighing it to achieve
the greatest harmony, considering the
needs of those involved
Judging–perceiving Deals with preferences for using either
the judging function (thinking or feel-
ing) or perceiving function (sensing or
intuition) when relating to the outside
world
Judging: tends to have her life orga-
nized and under control; likes to meet
deadlines and be on time
Perceiving: tends to be spontaneous
in attitude and action; may often be
late and seem disorganized to judg-
ing types because he likes to keep his
options open until the last minute
• making conversational space for introverts and inviting them to share ideas;
• structuring group process to include time for both active discussion and quiet reflec-
tion; and
• employing techniques like the round robin, where everybody takes turns speaking.
A good group facilitator can also help manage such a process.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Personality and Effectiveness
Beyond developing sensitivity to avoid miscommunication and conflict, teams can benefit
from diverse personalities in the same way they can benefit from diverse skills. For instance,
in a project team composed of both intuitive and sensing types, the intuitive types will tend to
focus on the big-picture aspects of the project, whereas the sensing types will pay attention to
and manage its details. Both of these aspects are important to the project’s successful comple-
tion. Furthermore, they are complementary.
Similarly, both thinking and feeling types can be useful and complement each other when
teams make decisions. Imagine, for instance, that one member of a team experiences an
adverse allergic reaction during a lunch meeting. Thinking types are likely to focus on logic to
deal with the situation (for example, throw the food away, call 911, and search for medication
in their colleague’s belongings). Feeling types are more likely to offer physical and psycho-
logical comfort (for example, holding the team member’s hand, telling her it will be alright,
distracting her with a witty story). Both types react usefully to the situation.
While it is generally desirable to have diverse personality types within a group or team,
research has shown that certain personality traits are more beneficial than others. Agree-
ableness can significantly enhance group cohesiveness and cooperation levels and can
facilitate attachment between members and conflict resolution (Greene, 1989; Neuman &
Wright, 1999; Klein et al., 2006). Conscientiousness has been found to be a fairly potent posi-
tive predictor of team effectiveness (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Neuman &
Wright, 1999). However, it is more strongly related to effectiveness for performance and
planning tasks than for creativity and decision-making tasks (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neu-
man & Wright, 1999). Furthermore, when decisions require adaptability, the rule following
and risk avoidance associated with conscientiousness becomes a negative, and openness to
experience is the more relevant positive predictor of effectiveness. Therefore, the type of per-
formance required by the group or team determines whether conscientiousness will be a
desirable personality trait in its members. Finally, extroversion can have a positive impact
on group performance, since the tendency to “think out loud” is conducive to communica-
tion and knowledge sharing between members. However, its impact on team effectiveness is
greater for decision-making tasks than for performance or planning tasks, possibly because
the former involve a greater degree of persuasion and personal influence (Barry & Stewart,
1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999).
Overall, personality is an important facet of diversity that influences the effectiveness of
groups and teams. While certain traits (such as agreeableness) are desirable in all team mem-
bers, it is also important to have a mix of different personality traits that complement each
other and maximize group effectiveness. It is also advantageous for team members to become
aware of their own personality traits and those of their teammates—this helps avoid destruc-
tive miscommunication and conflict. They can do so by taking personality tests such as the
MBTI or the Big Five personality test. Next, we look at individual interests and needs, another
sometimes invisible diversity characteristic that can have a very visible impact on group and
team performance.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Concepts in Action: Are You an Introvert or Extrovert?
Take the Lemon-Drop Test!
Can a drop of lemon juice tell you if you are introvert or extrovert? In 1967 Dr. Hans Eysenck
pioneered a series of experiments examining introversion and extroversion in relation to exci-
tation of the nervous system. Have you ever noticed that your mouth begins to water at your
first bite of dinner after a long day? This has to do with a part of our brain that responds to
stimuli like food, noise, and social contact. Working from the idea that introverts are more
sensitive to sensory stimulus, Eysenck devised the lemon-drop test to quickly and easily test
those sensitivity levels (Little, 2014):
Here’s what you do: Get an eyedropper, a piece of thread, a double-tipped cotton swab, and
concentrated lemon juice. Attach the thread to the middle of the cotton swab so that when
you hold it by the end of the thread it balances horizontally. Swallow about four times, then
hold one end of the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds. Take it out and place five drops of the
lemon juice concentrate on your tongue. Swallow the juice then place the remaining dry end of
the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds, take it out, and let it dangle. What do you see? Some
people will end up with a horizontal swab. Others will watch one end (the after-juice side) dip
down. What does it mean?
When Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck 1967a, 1967b) placed four drops of lemon juice on a test
subject’s tongue for 20 seconds, extreme extroverts salivated a little or not at all. Extreme
introverts had a massive response. These and other subsequent recreations of the lemon-drop
test (Corcoran & Hajduk, 1980) found that generally:
• introverts salivated more than extroverts, and
• most people salivated more heavily in response to noise during the test and in the
morning, as opposed to afternoon.
Although later studies found this method to be inconclusive (Ramsay, 1969), the lemon-drop
test is still a fun and easy experiment you can perform at home by yourself or with family and
friends. Try the test at different times of the day and in both a quiet and a noisy environment. If
your swab remains level, you might be biogenically predisposed to extroversion. If your swab
dips, you have a stronger response to sensory stimulation, making you more biogenically pre-
disposed to introversion (Little, 2014).
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. How did the results of your test correlate to your own expectations about your
personality?
2. Discuss the results and expectations you had for the test with family members or
friends. How do their assessments of your personality compare to your own?
3. Although the lemon-drop test is not a formal evaluation of your personality traits, it does
represent a step toward self-awareness. Based on the Big Five and Myers–Briggs person-
ality traits and dimensions described in this section, what other observations can you
make about your own personality and how it might impact group work and teamwork?
Individual Interests and Needs
Though they unite around some common interest or purpose, group members do have indi-
vidual interests and needs. Some of these they hope to fulfill via the group experience, and
others will inevitably affect the group’s dynamics. In 1954 Dr. Abraham Maslow published a
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
game-changing book titled Motivation and Personality. This seminal work introduced a foun-
dational model of human needs, organized in a pyramid. The needs at the base of the pyramid
represent the most critical and undeniable, such as basic physiological survival needs. Each
subsequent level represents higher aims that we are motivated to satisfy only after fulfilling
the ones below. While later versions of the hierarchy (Maslow, 1969a, 1969b) added layers to
the top, the first four levels remain the same. As shown in Figure 4.3, these include, in ascend-
ing order, our basic survival needs, our safety needs, our desire to belong, and our desire to
enhance our self-esteem through acceptance, as well as through personal achievement and
respect from others.
Figure 4.3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: The four foundational needs
In Maslow’s final hierarchy of human needs, belongingness and esteem rank just after basic survival
and safety needs, taking precedence over our desire to know and understand and the drive to find
personal fulfillment.
Source: Based on Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. Boston: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Contrary to the dimensions of diversity that impact group and team performance, it is not
the differences in our individual interests and needs that are most significant. It is expected
that members—especially when they come from different organizations or departments—
will hold vested interests, and for the most part these are dealt with by following organiza-
tional procedure regarding hierarchy, processes, and cooperative practices. It is generally the
human needs we hold in common, such as the desire for belongingness and esteem, that are
unplanned for and impact us most, as we find our own individual way of expressing and real-
izing them within the group (Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer, 2012).
Belongingness
Belongingness refers to our psychological and emotional need to feel—and sense of being—
accepted, valued, sheltered, and cared for by a specific group and to reciprocate acceptance,
value, protection, and caring in turn (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). More than simple compan-
ionship, most people want to feel a sense of belongingness within a specific group or com-
munity of others. The desire to identify with and belong to a cohesive group is arguably an
evolved species survival trait (DeWall, Deckman, Pond, & Bonser, 2011). The comparative
luxury of even the most modest modern lifestyles makes it easy to forget that in early civi-
lizations and primitive cultures, exile from the group was equated with both physical and
spiritual death.
Physically, an individual is severely disadvantaged when competing against a group; resource
procurement, allocation, protection, and sharing are all more easily accomplished within a
cooperative group. Failure to belong is known to be psychologically and emotionally dam-
aging as well. Many of our positive emotions (triumph, elation, contentment, serenity) are
linked to our perceived acceptance, inclusion, and welcome by others. Rejection, exclusion,
and being ignored foster anxiety, depression, anger, and despair. Acceptance and value within
a group are often denoted by a group member’s status within the group, which is associated
with esteem needs within Maslow’s hierarchy.
Status
Status is an informally or formally conferred social ranking or position in relation to oth-
ers. Status can be awarded in two ways: from outside the group and carried into it (for
example, designated leadership), or granted by other members of the group (for example,
emergent leadership). Formal status involves specific titles and responsibilities or rewards
(for example, project manager or Miss America). Informal status grants no special titles or
overt responsibilities and rewards, but it may come with more subtle versions of these (for
example, influence among peers or respect and deferment). When status is granted, it can
be based on an individual’s actual KSAs or on his or her perceived or assumed KSAs. Experts
tend to be given more status and be deferred to when their area of expertise comes into play.
Members with greater experience in a particular area enjoy similar effects. If group members
have not worked together before and do not take the time to get to know one another’s KSAs,
they might incorrectly assume that skills are present (or are lacking). We often assume, for
example, that older group members have more job-specific experience and knowledge, but
this is not always the case. People enter the job market at various times and stages in their
lives. Assuming an older group member has significantly more knowledge and experience
than he or she does can lead a group to follow unrealistic suggestions or may create personal
conflict and bad feelings on both sides should the group member be unable to fulfill others’
expectations.
Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
Status differences can affect the emergence of leadership and responsibility roles and influ-
ence how team members interact (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977). For example,
higher status members tend to interrupt more often, sometimes using this as a tool to control
a conversation—and thereby hold greater influence in the interaction (Farley, 2008). We tend
to believe that higher status individuals are more trustworthy and competent than members
with lower status. If group members act on these beliefs, such assumptions can become self-
fulfilling and potentially impede group achievement. In today’s workplace, formally trained
expertise is not a given—nor does it always lead to greater skill. Elon Musk, for example,
typically hires the best students from the top schools—but he makes a point of disregarding
the educational level or background of new hires when they can prove unique KSAs in rel-
evant areas (Vance, 2015). Not everybody is so practical, however. Group members can dis-
count informally trained colleagues, rallying around those with official titles and degrees. The
expectation of skill can be so strong that even when formally educated members prove to be
less knowledgeable or skilled than others, this tends to be overlooked as members with rel-
evant skills pick up the slack. However, unless the members in power admit their lack of rel-
evant input or contributions—or other group members break their cycle of expectation and
recognize who is making the most effective contributions—those doing the actual work will
not be credited. Letting members who are doing real and valuable work go unacknowledged
invites resentment, sets up false expectations about the value of each group member, and cre-
ates a situation in which some members are working for others, rather than with the group.
The tendency to assign status based on false assumptions can involve stereotyping. Group
or team members may use surface-level characteristics to infer what someone’s skills, expe-
rience, or attitudes may be in group roles or tasks, thereby affecting the individual’s abil-
ity to achieve status within the group or team. For instance, stereotypes related to certain
characteristics—such as gender, ethnicity, or age—can factor into role assignments within
groups. Women—who are often viewed as more intuitive and conciliatory then men (Carli,
1989)—may be expected to take on mediation or facilitation duties for the group. Likewise,
nonnative-language speakers may be disregarded or not given equal attention during discus-
sion because members assume they will not be very good at expressing themselves. Mem-
bers may also hold expectations about the way interactions will play out, expecting higher
status members to speak more and set agendas. If such expectations are based on assumed
rather than actual KSAs, members with worthy ideas or implementation experience may feel
squelched or unappreciated.
All of these problems are associated with assigning status based on unfounded assumptions
and can result in damaging the sense of belongingness and esteem of some—if not all—of a
group’s members. Acknowledging and rewarding real contributions and KSAs is critical to
effective performance. Discovering who our group mates really are and what they know is a
key step in:
• avoiding errors and negative dynamics caused by false assumptions,
• strategically planning for and making good use of members’ actual KSAs,
• helping the group move through the status-balancing process,
• overthrowing stereotypes and their associated negative effects,
• flattening status hierarchies as members develop positive relations, and
• maintaining members’ sense of belongingness and esteem.
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
Individual needs for belongingness and esteem can affect group interaction in other ways.
A desire for acceptance, for example, can cause some group members to avoid disagreeing
with others or identifying problems, even when knowledge or experience suggests that they
should. This is a common pitfall in groups and teams in which members lack the confidence
to engage in open knowledge sharing and conflict, and many team failures are attributed to
this (Jelphs, 2006; Salas et al., 2000). The desire for personal achievement or recognition can
likewise lead some members to view those who do bring up potential problems as imped-
ing group progress, rather than raising important concerns. If they can activate other group
members’ desire for achievement by rapidly accomplishing the group’s objectives, the team
may fall into groupthink, a process dysfunction that can have disastrous results. We will exam-
ine groupthink and other decision-making downfalls in Chapter 6. For now, we will focus on
strategies for managing diversity to achieve positive outcomes.
4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
In the workplace, group diversity primarily impacts performance via the functional dimen-
sions of member interrelations, namely interdependence, communication, and group pro-
cesses. Fundamentally, this is because diverse groups tend to be less cohesive and more prone
to conflict (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Depending on how these conditions play out, they
can have either positive or negative results. The tendency toward greater conflict, for exam-
ple, is generally regarded as conducive to creativity, innovation, and increased quality in solu-
tion finding and decision making (Agrawal, 2012). However, poorly managed conflict tends to
lead to more process loss than gain (Kolb, 2013).
To successfully coordinate and collaborate within group endeavors, both socioemotional and
task interdependence demand a certain level of cohesiveness and the ability to air and resolve
conflicts between team members. Effective communication is the primary means by which
members can achieve these ends, yet diversity can damage the development of shared per-
ception and understanding required for effective communication. This in turn has a profound
effect on group processes and generates negative diversity effects. Conversely, positive diver-
sity effects (such as increased ideas and viewpoints) can enhance group discussion, which
increases the quality of group problem-solving and decision-making outcomes. This in turn
enhances the group’s motivation and satisfaction across both dimensions of interdependence.
The effects of group diversity, acting in concert with the functional dimensions of member
interrelations, create a self-sustaining cycle that continuously generates and reinforces posi-
tive or negative effects and outcomes (see Figure 4.4). It is therefore of utmost importance to
conscientiously manage member diversity and its associated dynamics.
Perception and Diversity Management
Perception is critical to managing diversity for positive outcomes. The perception of diver-
sity—that is, whether it is viewed as positive or negative—dramatically affects how we engage
it and its overall impact (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In the workplace, diversity perceptions
begin with the organization.
Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity from one of four perspectives
(Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):
Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity
and interrelations
The effects of diversity and the functional dimensions
of member interrelations can generate a self-
enhancing cycle of either positive or negative effects
and outcomes.
Diversity Effects
Communication
Group Processes Interdependence
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
1. Reinforcing homogeneity: The
organization tends to avoid,
reject, and even drive out
diversity within its workforce.
This can be explicit and overtly
designed, as in the case of a
casting call looking for a par-
ticular type of actor. Or it can
be implicit, wherein managers
use highly specific criteria to
select and promote employees.
For example, hiring criteria that
require applicants to know the
local social and business scene,
have long-term residency, and
be able to access certain net-
works would implicitly rein-
force homogeneity by screening
out recent immigrants (Flam,
2008; Podsiadlowski & Ward,
2010).
2. Discrimination and fairness: The
organization advocates treating
people equally no matter what.
However, it does so from a point of intentional blindness that neither acknowledges
differences nor the need for supportive measures to address them (Ely & Thomas,
2001; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013).
3. Access: The organization views diversity as a business access strategy, in which orga-
nizational employees reflect the diversity of the client and market base.
4. Integration and learning: The organization believes that both it and its employees
benefit from a diverse workforce. Diversity is viewed as fostering a learning environ-
ment in which all parties mutually adapt.
An organization’s perspectives on diversity inform the attitudes and behaviors of its manag-
ers and employees. Organizational perspectives also inform the diversity strategies (ranging
from nonexistent to comprehensive) that communicate the perceived significance of diversity
within the organization (Bhawuk, Podsiadlowski, Graf, & Triandis, 2002). If the organization
does not view diversity as a relevant factor, managers and employees will be less likely to do
so as well. Even those who want to address employee diversity will find it difficult to do so if
strategic organizational support is insufficient or absent.
Whatever perspective an organization adopts will be reflected in its employees’ perception
and reaction to diversity within workplace groups and teams. Of the four perspectives out-
lined previously, the access and integration and learning perspectives are the most proactive
and useful for promoting positive diversity outcomes, since they acknowledge the strategic
benefits and advantages of diversity that competitive organizations call for today (Podsiad-
lowski et al., 2013).
Individual needs for belongingness and esteem can affect group interaction in other ways.
A desire for acceptance, for example, can cause some group members to avoid disagreeing
with others or identifying problems, even when knowledge or experience suggests that they
should. This is a common pitfall in groups and teams in which members lack the confidence
to engage in open knowledge sharing and conflict, and many team failures are attributed to
this (Jelphs, 2006; Salas et al., 2000). The desire for personal achievement or recognition can
likewise lead some members to view those who do bring up potential problems as imped-
ing group progress, rather than raising important concerns. If they can activate other group
members’ desire for achievement by rapidly accomplishing the group’s objectives, the team
may fall into groupthink, a process dysfunction that can have disastrous results. We will exam-
ine groupthink and other decision-making downfalls in Chapter 6. For now, we will focus on
strategies for managing diversity to achieve positive outcomes.
4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
In the workplace, group diversity primarily impacts performance via the functional dimen-
sions of member interrelations, namely interdependence, communication, and group pro-
cesses. Fundamentally, this is because diverse groups tend to be less cohesive and more prone
to conflict (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Depending on how these conditions play out, they
can have either positive or negative results. The tendency toward greater conflict, for exam-
ple, is generally regarded as conducive to creativity, innovation, and increased quality in solu-
tion finding and decision making (Agrawal, 2012). However, poorly managed conflict tends to
lead to more process loss than gain (Kolb, 2013).
To successfully coordinate and collaborate within group endeavors, both socioemotional and
task interdependence demand a certain level of cohesiveness and the ability to air and resolve
conflicts between team members. Effective communication is the primary means by which
members can achieve these ends, yet diversity can damage the development of shared per-
ception and understanding required for effective communication. This in turn has a profound
effect on group processes and generates negative diversity effects. Conversely, positive diver-
sity effects (such as increased ideas and viewpoints) can enhance group discussion, which
increases the quality of group problem-solving and decision-making outcomes. This in turn
enhances the group’s motivation and satisfaction across both dimensions of interdependence.
The effects of group diversity, acting in concert with the functional dimensions of member
interrelations, create a self-sustaining cycle that continuously generates and reinforces posi-
tive or negative effects and outcomes (see Figure 4.4). It is therefore of utmost importance to
conscientiously manage member diversity and its associated dynamics.
Perception and Diversity Management
Perception is critical to managing diversity for positive outcomes. The perception of diver-
sity—that is, whether it is viewed as positive or negative—dramatically affects how we engage
it and its overall impact (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In the workplace, diversity perceptions
begin with the organization.
Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity from one of four perspectives
(Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):
Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity
and interrelations
The effects of diversity and the functional dimensions
of member interrelations can generate a self-
enhancing cycle of either positive or negative effects
and outcomes.
Diversity Effects
Communication
Group Processes Interdependence
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
We have discussed how our perception, or viewpoint, on diversity affects our response, but
perceiving diversity comes into play in another way as well. Perceiving other members as
similar or different depends on our ability to notice similarities and differences and accu-
rately screen out those that are imagined or assumed. Differences that are not perceived may
not overtly affect the group. On the other hand, they can affect our motivations and responses
during group interactions; if group members are not aware that these differences exist, mis-
understandings can occur. This may seem to suggest that we attempt to hide our differences.
However, differences that are not readily perceived cannot be planned for or used as a basis
for members to understand and accept each other. Furthermore, differences can be perceived
whether they are actually there or not (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Because perception is
largely subjective, group members may selectively interpret what they see, feel, or experi-
ence. In doing so, they can easily assume or imagine differences that do not really exist. None-
theless, because they are treated as being present, assumed or imagined differences can have
the same effect on group dynamics as real diversity (Harrison et al., 2002; Riordan, 2000).
Likewise, members may have hidden areas of similarity that could help them find common
ground; however, they will not able to use them to this end if these similarities go unnoticed.
The fundamental challenge underlying interactions between highly diverse group members
is unfamiliarity. When conducting business across cultures, for example, we are faced with
ideas, materials, knowledge, language, and behavioral norms that may seem confusing and
strange when compared to our own. Keep in mind that the novelty and confusion goes both
ways. Each culturally distinct team member feels comfortable within his own culture and
finds others different and strange. Being mindful of this can help mitigate culture shock, or
the disorientation, confusion, and fear we sometimes feel when dealing with ideas, circum-
stances, people, or things that are unfamiliar and/or outside of our own cultural conditioning
and experience. Reminding ourselves that others find our own culture just as strange is a
good way to change perspective.
Next, we discuss strategies for identifying and developing similarities within diverse groups.
Finding and Building on Similarities
No matter how homogeneous a group appears, no two members will be exactly alike. The
reverse is true as well. Regardless of how different group members may seem, we can all find
some basis for similarities—and use this to build more. Similarity refers to the shared char-
acteristics, situation, attitudes, outlook, or state engendering feelings of relative closeness,
comfort, and familiarity.
So why is similarity important? To begin with, similarity is comfortable. We find it easier to
start a conversation with people who seem to be like us, because we believe we will have
interests and conversational topics in common. We are more likely to understand and be able
to predict the behavior of others who are similar, which tends to relax us (Leonard et al.,
2004). Members of highly diverse groups may initially feel uncomfortable (Hansen, Owan, &
Pan, 2006), in part because they do not quite know what to expect from members who appear
different.
But why do we find comfort in similarity? Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1954) and his
mid-20th-century contemporaries took a highly cognitive approach to group processes, sug-
gesting that we find similar others more comfortable and attractive because we use them as a
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
touch point to process our own experience with the world. Similar others tell us what is rea-
sonable to expect, show us how well we are performing compared with our peers, and help us
feel less embarrassed about anxiety-provoking situations. This facilitates the formation and
acceptance of both social and task-related group norms. Consider that in a given workplace,
employees who are of similar ages, attended the same university, or grew up in the same
area may feel more confident discussing work-related issues with each other than with less
similar others—even if they were all hired at the same time. Because of the bonds formed by
similarity, employees are more likely to regard information gleaned from similar cohorts as
trustworthy. They are also likely to cultivate an environment in which this kind of communi-
cation becomes more frequent (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001).
There are several benefits that come with finding and developing similarities in workplace
groups and teams. Although formal groups form around a specific task or agenda, perceived
similarities between members impact the speed and level at which interrelations develop
(Phillips et al., 2006). Finding similarity within diverse memberships can foster solidarity
and understanding within a group or team (Curry & Dunbar, 2013). Additionally, building
bonds of similarity across diverse members can help ease tension when perspectives come
into conflict and can encourage team members to see those different perspectives as relevant
and useful to the group (Leung et al., 2003).
So how do we find and build on similarities between team members from highly diverse back-
grounds? The primary point of similarity for members in a workplace group or team is mem-
bership in the group or team itself. Team leaders and managers can reinforce this point of
similarity from the outset of group work by:
• effectively communicating performance needs;
• demonstrating the call for the team; and
• introducing members as valuable components, highlighting how special back-
grounds or KSAs will be useful to the collaboration—being sure to neither miss nor
overemphasize any one member (Agrawal, 2012).
To ease tension and help team members view their differences as useful, team leaders and
managers should also set positive examples and norms for constructive controversy through-
out the duration of the group. They might achieve this by:
• showing openness and regard for others’ viewpoints;
• viewing debate as a constructive tool for ideation, knowledge sharing, and identify-
ing problems;
• maintaining focus on task- and process-orientated paths;
• defusing the tendency toward personal conflict in debate; and
• working collaboratively to solve interpersonal conflicts that do arise.
By enacting these dynamics within the group or team, leaders and managers actively dem-
onstrate the idea that team members are all in this together. Similarity is activated around
identification with the group, members’ mutual ability to respect each other’s ideas and con-
tributions, and the shared motivation and efforts to collaborate. Differences become easier to
accept when viewed as assets to the team’s collective performance.
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
As diverse members get to know one another, they will discover other, more personal points
of similarity. Managers and team leaders can help this along by initiating informal interac-
tions such as eating together; going on impromptu work-related field trips; using project-
based, in-team humor and concepts; and so on. However, developing cross-cultural psycho-
logical capital can also enhance the spirit of cooperation between team members and bolster
positive relations. We discuss this topic next.
Cross-Cultural Psychological Capital
Psychological capital (PsyCap) refers to our positive state of psychological development.
It consists of four psychological resources: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience
(Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). These resources act synergistically to enhance human
functioning across a variety of settings and domains (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013). In
the workplace, PsyCap has been a demonstrably important element in enhancing job perfor-
mance, employee satisfaction and engagement, organizational commitment, and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors such as altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness (Reichard et
al., 2014; Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Besides the obvious relevance of such
behaviors to group work and teamwork, PsyCap has been recognized as a necessary element
for being able to effectively deal with workplace diversity and culturally diverse group mem-
berships (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011; Clapp-Smith, Luthans, & Avolio, 2007). Cross-cultural
PsyCap, a relatively new term referencing PsyCap within the domain of cross-cultural interac-
tions (Dollwet & Reichard, 2014), is composed of four major components: cross-cultural self-
efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Let’s take a closer look at each of these.
Cross-Cultural Self-Efficacy
Cross-cultural self-efficacy represents group members’ belief in their own ability to suc-
cessfully navigate cross-cultural interactions (Reichard et al., 2014). This has been found
to be a particularly powerful resource for working across cultures and in diverse groups
(Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio, 2006). High levels of cross-cultural efficacy, for example, have been
correlated to willingness to learn new ways of thinking and acting when living in a foreign
country (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Research suggests that high levels of cross-cultural effi-
cacy have similar effects on employees’ motivation to understand and adapt to new environ-
ments (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Hope
Hope represents a motivational cognitive state that enables group members to set goals
that are realistically achievable through self-directed behavior. It also increases their will
and capacity to generate alternate strategies for obstacles they encounter (Snyder, Irving, &
Anderson, 1991). Studies on authentic leadership have correlated hope to self-awareness and
self-knowledge (Avolio & Luthens, 2006), suggesting that those of us with high hope may be
more aware of our culturally conditioned assumptions, which allows us to see more clearly
where we can move beyond these assumptions to learn from other cultures.
Hope increases resourcefulness, autonomy, and independent thinking, all qualities positively
associated with successful work performance in a culturally diverse setting (Luthans et al.,
2007). Resourcefulness and increased will and capacity for finding alternate strategies are of
particular importance in culturally diverse groups and interactions, since members typically
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
deal with language barriers and normative differences that may obstruct communication and
knowledge sharing. Hope increases the likelihood that group members will both pursue and
achieve objectives that involve working with people from diverse cultures (Reichard et al.,
2014).
Optimism
Optimism represents our expectation for positive outcomes. Expecting the best, optimistic
group members strive continuously toward their goals, even when they encounter difficulties
typical of cross-cultural interactions such as language barriers, confusing attitudes, behav-
ioral differences, misunderstandings, and lack of shared context (Peterson, 2000). Leaders
and managers who adopt an optimistic explanatory style when discussing cross-cultural
interactions, or the challenges associated with such interactions, inspire group members to
maintain positive expectations for cross-cultural interactions—even when faced with set-
backs or failure (Luthans et al., 2007). Of special importance to cross-cultural interactions,
optimism is associated with the ability to handle ambiguity and uncertainty, take risks during
interactions, and learn from mistakes (Rhinesmith, 1996). When optimism is strong in cross-
cultural interactions, group members are less likely to blame setbacks and failures on others
(scapegoating). They are more likely to attribute these to external causes and ideate new
strategies for success in subsequent interactions (Reichard et al., 2014).
Resilience
Resilience represents the adaptive capacity to bounce back from the impact of negative—or
even positive—events (Masten, 2001). Resilience is a major psychological resource for over-
coming stressful events and interactions in any setting. When working in a cross-cultural set-
ting, high resilience can help group members continue to perform well even when dealing
with culture shock, differences in custom and norms, language barriers, or diversity-based
conflict (Bird, 2013; Bird & Stevens, 2013). Resilience promotes proactive learning—even
when working under adverse conditions. It also supports coping and adaptive abilities,
including broadened thinking, which helps people flourish outside their habitual comfort
zones (Luthans et al., 2007; Clapp-Smith et al., 2007).
The four components of cross-cultural PsyCap work together to create the basic psychological
resources needed to successfully navigate, collaborate within, and even enjoy cross-cultural
interactions. Taken together, they represent a powerful tool for diversity management. But
how do we build cross-cultural PsyCap? Can we train hope and optimism? Next, we briefly
look at diversity training and training for cross-cultural PsyCap.
Diversity Training
Today’s multinational business environment needs not only individuals and team members
who can effectively work across cultures, but methods that can foster more generalizable
diversity skills in all employees. Most diversity training courses focus on increasing employ-
ees’ knowledge about differences. For example, they might encourage employees to learn
about other cultures (such as defining moments in history, cultural movements, or politi-
cal and economic systems) and to work on language proficiency. This method can be use-
ful if employees consistently deal with only a few cultural groups (for example, a sales rep
based in Hong Kong or a member of a long-term cross-cultural work team with membership
originating from only two or three distinct cultures). However, this method is not an effec-
tively scalable strategy for fostering more general diversity awareness and proficiency in an
employee base as a whole (Reichard et al., 2014). So, what is an alternative?
Positive results have been garnered by adding developmental interventions that target cross-
cultural PsyCap to existing diversity and global leader development training courses (Oddou &
Mendenhall, 2013). Featured training has been grounded in PsyCap (Luthans, 2012; Luthans
et al., 2007) and focused on the development of cross-cultural PsyCap by strengthening its
component psychological resources. This was achieved through carefully targeted exercises
focused on relevant processes such as generating self-awareness, reframing past events, prac-
ticing interpersonal relations skills (such as mindfulness, effective listening, and communica-
tion), and identifying multiple strategies for success within cross-cultural interactions and
role play (Reichard et al., 2014).
While psychological resources like cross-cultural efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience can-
not exactly be trained, they can be instilled via training experiences. By navigating a variety
of role-playing interactions in culturally diverse groups, for example, we can experience suc-
cessful cross-cultural encounters, represented by working through both positive and negative
exchanges together. These experiences can increase the psychological resources that are held
by individuals and the group as a whole. At the same time, the positive dynamic of collabora-
tive learning will strengthen these resources as well. Members of these training groups will
find common ground in the need to learn how to deal with their differences.
Chapter 4 Summary and Resources
Leveraging workplace diversity is now viewed as a critical factor in achieving both imme-
diate and long-term organizational objectives. Increasingly, organizations are looking to
management to effect positive diversity outcomes. Treated positively, diversity enriches an
entire organization. The training and experience that allows us to let go of cultural condi-
tioning and be more open to other perspectives enhances all our interpersonal interactions.
These same capacities have a beneficial effect on the quality of our problem-solving and
decision-making skills. Chapter 5 delves into the group problem solving process, exploring
the elements and steps involved, and its application in contemporary organizations.
Chapter Summary
• Diversity is increasingly unavoidable in today’s world, and inviting and managing
positive diversity is a key factor in addressing contemporary organizational needs.
• Whether diversity leads to positive or negative outcomes in group interaction or
performance largely depends on the type of differences between members, our
perception of them, and our ability to recognize and moderate the internal cognitive
barriers (such as egocentrism, prejudice, and stereotyping) that get in the way of
building communication and positive relations between diverse members.
• Surface-level diversity characteristics (such as demographic differences) tend to
have a more immediate divisive effect on the group, but this may be mitigated by dis-
covering similarities or by complementing one another in deep-level characteristics,
such as expertise, worldview, personality, and so on.
• Deep-level diversity characteristics are not as easily perceived as surface-level
characteristics, so they may cause less conflict at the outset of group performance.
Because deep-level characteristics tend to be personal in nature, however, when
conflict does arise based on these, it can be more difficult to navigate and resolve.
• Cultural and skill diversity, personality differences, and individual interests and
needs are major diversity elements that commonly affect integration and perfor-
mance in workplace groups.
• Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are interrelated cognitive barriers that
can have a profoundly negative effect on group interactions, member relations, and
performance.
• In managing diversity for positive outcomes, perception is key.
• Positive or negative perceptions of diversity and its potential effect on performance
begin with the organization’s view of these.
• Finding and building similarities that mitigate or transcend our differences, and
developing cross-cultural PsyCap that allows us to better handle these differences,
are key strategies for building positive diversity perceptions in individual employees
and group members.
Posttest
1. Which of the following is FALSE about personality traits and dimension?
a. They represent a deep-level diversity characteristic.
b. They can be unknown even to ourselves.
c. They are relatively easy to discern from the outset of group work or teamwork.
d. They can be good and bad for team performance.
2. Which of the following is FALSE about stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination?
a. They represent limiting preconceptions activated by our perception of diversity.
b. They can be consciously or unconsciously erected.
c. They are associated with the concept of in-group-out-group bias.
d. They are only a factor in highly dysfunctional settings.
3. Which of the following is FALSE about low diversity groups?
a. They tend to engage in lower levels of conflict.
b. They tend to generate higher quality decisions.
c. They tend to regenerate existing strategies.
d. They tend to come up with fewer strategic options.
4. Properly managed diversity is a critical organizational asset, enabling an organiza-
tion to __________.
a. resist organizational change
b. specialize in a target clientele
c. maximize human resources
d. meet legislated guidelines
5. Which of the following is FALSE about similar others?
a. They are more likely to be unpredictable.
b. They are perceived as being more trustworthy.
c. They help us process our own experiences.
d. They make us feel more comfortable.
6. In-group-out-group bias refers to our __________.
a. desire for belongingness within a group
b. need to attain status within a group
c. tendency to champion our own groups
d. tendency to use stereotypes to categorize others
7. Cultural identity refers to the total construct of our __________.
a. sense of what is “natural” and “right”
b. shared attitudes, values, customs, and behavioral norms
c. previous or existing national, organizational, and/or group culture
d. culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences
8. In managing diversity for positive outcomes, __________ is key.
a. diversity training
b. perception
c. similarity
d. cultural conditioning
9. The primary focus of diversity in the modern workplace is to __________.
a. counteract discrimination against minorities
b. promote political correctness
c. improve performance
d. create an organizational melting pot
10. Scapegoating involves __________.
a. taking credit for someone else’s contributions
b. discriminating against a group member based on differences
c. unfairly singling out a group member for blame
d. treating a group member poorly due to lower status
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. One does not have to be part of an ethnic minority to be discriminated against; con-
sider the case of obesity. Since the 1980s worldwide prevalence of obesity has more
than doubled. Obesity discrimination is prevalent in the workplace—obese people of
all genders and ethnicities are perceived as less qualified, are less likely to be inter-
viewed, receive lower starting salaries, work longer hours, and are labeled as less
able to lead and succeed than slimmer employees). Using the concepts discussed
in this chapter, explain how stereotyping, prejudice, and cultural conditioning are
contributing to this growing discrimination issue.
2. Similarity is an important factor in bringing people together. Although it is some-
times hard to see, even the most different or diverse people can find similarities
among one another. Describe three people you think are very different from yourself,
being sure to outline those differences. Now, find and outline 5 ways in which each is
similar to the others and 10 ways in which they are similar to you.
3. Working in an online classroom, surface-level diversity can sometimes be difficult to
identify. Which diversity characteristics have you noticed in your classmates? Which
have they voluntarily shared—and which have you voluntarily shared with the class?
• How to Signal That Your Company Cares About Diversity:
https://hbr.org/2015/12/make-your-company-more-appealing-to-more-employees
• Measure Your Team’s Intellectual Diversity:
https://hbr.org/2015/05/measure-your-teams-intellectual-diversity
• Diversity Is Useless Without Inclusivity:
https://hbr.org/2014/06/diversity-is-useless-without-inclusivity
• How Diversity and Inclusion Are Driving the Bottom Line at American Express:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2015/04/23/how-diversity-and-inclu-
sion-are-driving-the-bottom-line-at-american-express/#575cd7bb724c
• When Ethnic Diversity Hinders Team Productivity:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2016/01/14/
when-ethnic-diversity-hinders-team-productivity/#31d8ff385e5e
• Diversity: Burden or Boon?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2015/07/01/
diversity-burden-or-boon/#25ca788b4b6d
Videos
• How Diversity Fuels Group Emotional Intelligence:
https://hbr.org/video/2851426213001/
how-diversity-fuels-group-emotional-intelligence
• How Asian Americans Break the Bamboo Ceiling:
http://www.forbes.com/video/4712257907001
• Felicia Day on Why Diversity in Gaming Matters:
http://www.forbes.com/video/4474029531001
Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest
1. False. Although equalizing job opportunities has been a major focus of diversity in
the past and remains relevant, contemporary diversity emphasizes the busi-
ness advantages of accessing multiple perspectives and skills.
2. False. Diversity is actually a key element in maintaining organizational effective-
ness, as it addresses three core needs within contemporary organizations:
developing mutual understanding, maximizing human resources, and culti-
vating ability and innovation.
3. False. Not all stereotypes are negative. Some—such as all Asians are high achiev-
ers—may be positive preconceptions. However, all stereotypes are limiting
in that they tend to block our perception of who our teammates really are, as
well as what KSAs they actually have.
4. False. While some diversity characteristics, such as demographic differences, may
be readily observable, others—including individual KSAs, worldview, and
individual interests and needs—are not as easily recognized. These are
revealed over time via interaction between group members.
5. True. Differences do not have to be real to influence group interactions and perfor-
mance. Any differences that members believe exist—real or imagined—will
have an impact.
1. Personality traits and dimensions represent differences in team member personal-
ity, a deep-level diversity characteristic that can be unknown even to ourselves. Like
most diversity characteristics, they can have both good and bad effects on group
performance.
2. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination represent internal cognitive barriers or
limiting preconceptions activated by our perception of differences between our-
selves and others. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers can occur any-
where and affect our interactions. They are associated with the concept of in-group-
out-group bias, wherein we tend to view our own groups as superior to others.
3. Low diversity groups tend to more easily find and hold similar perceptions and
viewpoints regarding the competitive environment, come up with fewer strategic
options, and are more prone to solutions that essentially regenerate existing strate-
gies. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and higher quality decisions and
solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant knowledge, viewpoints,
experience, and skills.
4. Diverse groups and teams have an inherently broader range of knowledge, skills,
abilities, and experience to draw from in response to changing circumstances. This
allows organizations to maximize their human resources by capitalizing on a diverse
range of employee capabilities.
5. We find similar others more comfortable and attractive because we use them as
a touch point to process our own experience of the world. We are more likely to
understand and predict the behavior of others who are similar, which tends to relax
us. Because of the bonds formed by similarity, we tend to consider the information
gleaned from similar others to be more trustworthy than that obtained from those
who are dissimilar.
6. In-group-out-group bias refers to our tendency to champion our own groups and to
perceive the members, efforts, and products of in-groups as relatively superior to the
members, efforts, and products of out-groups.
7. Cultural identities represent culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes, and
experiences.
8. The way in which diversity is perceived by the organization and individuals is key to
managing diversity for positive outcomes.
9. The goal of diversity in modern organizations is to bring together the right mix of
traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications—regardless of one’s superficial diver-
sity characteristics—to improve performance.
10. Scapegoating occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is unfairly singled out
and blamed, in order to release the group’s pent-up anger and frustration.
abilities The power and capacity to per-
form tasks or functions and to carry out
activities while using relevant skills and
knowledge.
belongingness The human psychologi-
cal and emotional need to feel—and sense
of being—accepted, valued, sheltered, and
cared for by a specific group and to recip-
rocate acceptance, value, protection, and
caring in turn.
blaming the victim A phenomenon that
occurs when we ascribe a negative outcome,
such as prejudice or discrimination, to the
personal characteristics and actions of the
victim.
causal attribution A natural part of our
learning process wherein we analyze events
and interactions and infer causes.
cross-cultural self-efficacy Group mem-
bers’ belief in their own ability to success-
fully navigate cross-cultural interactions.
cultural conditioning The conditioned
belief that our own cultural beliefs, attitudes,
and behavioral norms are natural or correct
and that dissimilar cultures are unnatural or
wrong.
cultural diversity Diversity across mem-
bers’ previous or existing national, organiza-
tional, and/or group culture.
cultural identity The total construct of our
culturally specific norms, beliefs, attitudes,
and experiences.
culture The shared attitudes, values,
customs, practices, and behavioral norms
characteristic of a particular society, social
category, organization, or group.
culture shock The disorientation, confu-
sion, and fear we sometimes feel when
dealing with ideas, circumstances, people,
or things that are unfamiliar and/or out-
side of our own cultural conditioning and
experience.
deep-level diversity Characteristics that
can only be perceived over time by engaging
in verbal and nonverbal interactions—for
example, personality, worldview, specific
KSAs, and individual interests and needs.
discrimination Negative, unfavorable, or
harmful treatment of others based on ste-
reotypical thinking and prejudice.
ethnocentrism The tendency to regard
ethnic characteristics associated with our
own groups as superior or more natural and
correct than others.
hope A motivational cognitive state that
enables group members to set goals that are
realistically achievable through self-directed
behavior and increases their will and capac-
ity for generating alternate strategies for
obstacles that are encountered.
in-group-out-group bias The tendency
to perceive the members, products, and
efforts of in-groups as relatively superior
to the members, products, and efforts of
out-groups.
internal cognitive barriers Negative pre-
conceptions, such as stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination, activated by our percep-
tion of differences between ourselves and
others.
knowledge Any information or familiarity
with the subject matter possessed by the
employee at the outset of the performance
that can be directly applied to the perfor-
mance of tasks and activities.
personality Individual differences in char-
acteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving.
prejudice Unjustified negative attitudes
toward others based solely on their mem-
bership in a particular group or subgroup.
psychological capital (PsyCap) A positive
state of psychological development that con-
sists of four psychological resources: self-
efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience.
resilience The adaptive capacity to bounce
back from negative—or even positive—
events that impact us.
scapegoating A phenomenon that occurs
when a group member (the scapegoat) is
unfairly singled out and blamed or aggressed
against for something, in order to release the
group’s pent-up anger and frustration.
similarity The shared characteristics, situa-
tion, attitudes, outlook, or state engendering
feelings of relative closeness, comfort, and
familiarity.
skill diversity Individual attributes that
fall under the heading of expertise, including
KSAs and relevant experience.
skills Learned and observable competen-
cies in the manual, verbal, or mental manip-
ulation of people, ideas, or things.
status An informally or formally conferred
social ranking or position in relation to
others.
stereotypes Conscious and unconscious
beliefs about the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual
members.
surface-level diversity Differences that are
fairly overt and readily observable, either as
physical and behavioral characteristics (such
as gender, language, ethnicity, or handicap-
ping conditions) or as socially acknowledged
identifiers (such as social position, educa-
tion level, nationality, and religion).
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
