The impact of status conflict and team climate on the relationship between team diversity and performance

Transcription

1 The impact of status conflict and team climate on the relationship between team diversity and performance Guido van der Linden Superior de Beerstraat HC Tilburg ANR: s Master Thesis Human Resource Studies Supervisor: Drs. H. van Dijk Period: September 2010 May 2011

2 Abstract This study examines the relationship between team diversity and team performance, and how this is mediated by status conflict and moderated by team climate. Results revealed that diverse teams with high perceived status differences and with a clear team vision and objectives experience less status conflicts and perform better than diverse teams with high perceived status differences that lack this vision. This finding supports already existing literature. Furthermore, high tenured diverse teams experience less status conflicts and have a higher team performance than less tenured diverse teams. No relationship was found between demographic diversity measures and status conflict. Finally, team climate for innovation seems to be a strong predictor of both status conflicts and team performance and may therefore be valuable to measure as independent variable as well. Keywords: team diversity, status, status differences, status conflicts, team performance, team climate for innovation. 1

3 Table of contents 1. Abstract Introduction Theoretical Framework Method Results Discussion and Conclusion Literature Appendix A Scales Appendix B Factor Analysis Appendix C Additional Analysis

4 Introduction The last decade there has been a considerable increase in studies of how work group diversity affects performance. One important reason for this is that the global workforce is becoming more and more diverse and organizations increasingly rely on cross-functional teams to carry-out significant tasks (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Another reason why diversity research is a current topic is that the relationship between work group diversity and team performance still appears to be ambiguous. After the conclusion of Milliken and Martins (1996) that diversity has positive as well as negative effects on team performance, much research about the diversityperformance relationship has been done. However, most of this research still showed inconsistent and inconclusive results (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2009; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O Reilly, 1998). To explain the contingencies of the effects of diversity, researchers recently suggested that much of the diversity-performance relationship can be accounted for once status is taken into consideration as status differences between team members play an essential role in all diverse work groups (Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Harrison & Klein, 2007; van Dijk & van Engen, 2009). In this paper the focus is to examine if and how status differences mediate the relationship between work group diversity and team performance, moreover because empirical research about status as a mediator has not been done yet. Next to examine the diversity-performance relationship with status as mediator, in this paper it is argued that team climate plays a pivotal role as well. Team climate refers to the shared perceptions of team members of how things are done in an organization (Bower, Campbell, Bojke, & Sibbald, 2003). This means that these shared perceptions of team members define the context where they are working and therefore may influence the extent to which status 3

5 differences are perceived to be present in a diverse work group. Overall, the aim of this paper is to answer the following research question: To what extent does status conflict mediate the relationship between team diversity and team performance and how is this moderated by team climate? The findings in this paper are interesting for organizations because it will help them to clarify how team climate affects the extent to which status differences in diverse work groups are perceived and yield positive or negative consequences. Furthermore, organizations will get insight how team diversity is related to the efficiency of teams and how this can be translated to the management of diversity to improve the performance of diverse work groups. 4

6 Status as Mediator in the Diversity Performance Relationship Research on the relationship between diversity and team performance has been done for over 50 years resulting in both negative and positive relationships (Jackson et al., 2003; van Dijk et al., 2009; van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). Diversity is defined as differences between individuals in gender, age, ethnicity, tenure, educational background, and functional background, which may lead to the perception that another person is different from self (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). In other words, it relates to visible and non visible differences between individuals and the way these differences are perceived. Team performance is the function of what team members do as individuals and how they interact (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Explanations for the positive effects of diversity on performance stem from the informational resource perspective (Harrison & Klein, 2007). This means the more people differ on their demographic, job-related or other characteristics, the more differences there are in task-relevant knowledge, expertise, and perspectives (Tsui & O Reilly, 1989). As a consequence, the exchange, discussion, and integration of task-relevant information and perspectives may be better in heterogeneous teams and therefore they outperform homogeneous teams. On the other hand, social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and similarity/attraction (Byrne, 1971) perspectives provide a reasonable account of the negative effects on performance, because these theories suggest that people respond more favorable to more similar others. Based on perceived similarities and differences, group members tend to feel more attracted to others who are similar to them (ingroup, us ), than members who are different (outgroup, them ) (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Consequently, intergroup bias may arise which means that ingroup members have more trust in each other and have greater 5

7 willingness to cooperate with ingroup members than with outgroup members, thereby causing homogeneous teams to perform better than heterogeneous teams (van Dijk et al., 2009). In conclusion, there are thus two different perspectives important in order to explore the relationship between diversity and performance. However, clear empirical evidence that underlie the effects of diversity is lacking (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). To explain this relationship several researchers argue that more attention to the mediators and moderators of diversity s effects is needed (van Knippenberg et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; van Dijk & van Engen, 2009). An important mediator which could clarify the diversity-performance link is status. Status is regarded as the extent to which team members are respected or admired and the way they have high expectations of each other (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). According to the status characteristics theory (Wagner & Berger, 1993), derived from the expectation states theory (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Fisek, Berger, & Norman, 1991), these expectations are based on inequalities in the group and influence group s decisions. This means the more team members have different quantity and/or quality of (informational) resources and differ on their demographic (age, gender, ethnicity), job-related (educational background, functional background, tenure) or deep-level (personality, attitude, values) characteristics, the more these differences lead to different expectations and to status differences (van Dijk & van Engen, 2009). In diverse work groups these status differences are consequently more present than in homogeneous groups. These status differences are however not necessarily perceived as positive by team members. Several researchers (Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Bunderson, 2003; van Dijk & van Engen, 2009) argued that task responsibilities need to be distributed according to expertise, competence and/or 6

8 experience of team members, otherwise respect and admiration is lacking and status conflicts may be experienced more often. Status conflicts are defined as disputes team members have over their relative status positions in the social hierarchy of the group (Bendersky & Hays, 2010). But as task-relevant expertise is hard to observe, team members believe that physical characteristics and social category differences such as gender, ethnicity and age provide information about competence and expertise in work groups (Bunderson, 2003). Such status differences, based on observable diversity characteristics, are however, not accurate and in the course of time status conflicts may occur. This means that lower status members start to compete for status and try to manipulate the social construction of status relations, as they lack admiration and respect according to their competence level (Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Ridgeway & Correll, 2006). In diverse work groups these status conflicts are expected to be experienced more often, as team members differ more on their personal characteristics and/or associated (informational) resources than in homogeneous groups. Hypothesis 1 is therefore: Hypothesis 1: Diverse teams perceive more status conflict than homogeneous teams Team Climate and Status Conflicts There is much attention in existing literature for the relationship between diversity and status, however the role of the organizational context in which people are working is still neglected. Therefore, in the following part the focus is on the organizational context to see if this can help to explain the relationship between diversity and status conflicts. An important context moderator in this relationship is team climate. Team climate refers to the shared perceptions of team members of how things are done in an organization (Bower et al., 2003). These perceptions are related to the themes and goals that describe their workplace and 7

9 stem from policies, practices and procedures that an organization has in place (Kyrillidou & Baughman, 2009). As individuals daily interact with colleagues at work, they develop common experiences and may identify themselves with their team. This means that team members are likely to develop shared patterns of understanding and norms of behavior, particularly when they have a common goal and task interdependence, and especially in organizations that are large, divisionalized and multilayered in its formal structure (Anderson & West, 1998; Dansereau & Alutto, 1990). Consequently, team climate may influence how status differences and conflicts derive, as it represents the team perception of the important values and norms that describe what characteristics (e.g., functional background, age, tenure, expertise, conscientiousness, taskspecific skills) are highly valued in the organization (Schein, 1996). In order to measure team members shared perceptions several researchers argue to apply the concept of team climate with a particular referent (e.g. climate for change, climate for innovation, etc.), as generalized climate instruments show inconsistent operationalization of climate and lack reliability and validity (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998; Wilderom, Glunk, & Maslowski, 2000). In this paper the focus is on climate for innovation because innovation is becoming more and more important as organizations have to meet the changing needs of their environment (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009). Furthermore, teams with an innovative team climate are characterized by a high cohesion between team members, high levels of support and challenge, good sharing and implementing of new ideas, and clarity of tasks and objectives (Anderson & West, 1998; Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001). Teams with shared perceptions of a high innovation climate are therefore more likely to work well and status conflicts are expected to be experienced less. Because team climate for innovation consists of four sub dimensions, and in order to give a more complete explanation of how team climate for innovation moderates the 8

10 relationship between team diversity and status conflict, all four sub dimensions are explained in the following. Vision: The first dimension of team climate for innovation is vision. Vision is an idea of a valued outcome which represents a higher order goal and a motivating force at work (West, 1990, p. 310). According to West (1990) work group vision consists of four components: clarity, visionary nature, attainability and sharedness. Clarity refers to the way in which the vision is understandable. Visionary nature declares the valuable outcome and the related commitment of individuals in the team. Furthermore, attainability refers to the extent in which visions are realistic and achievable, and the fourth component sharedness refers to the way vision is accepted by individuals in the team. If vision is clear, work groups have focus and direction and they are capable to reach their goals and objectives. However if vision is not clear, and group members have different means toward a cooperative goal, status conflicts will arise (Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2009), which in turn can negatively affect team performance (Bendersky & Hays, 2010). Consequently, this means that in diverse work groups, when vision and objectives are clear, status differences are perceived more positive and status conflicts are thus reduced. Hypothesis 1 is therefore the following: Hypothesis 2: The higher the extent of a clear vision and objectives in diverse teams, the less status conflicts will be perceived Participative safety: According to West (1990) participative safety relates to active involvement and participation in group interactions in the interpersonally atmosphere where trust and support is perceived as nonthreatening and non-judgmental. In a participative safety climate all members feel able to 9

11 come with new ideas and solutions without being judged, expectations between group members are clear and differences between ingroup and outgroup are less perceived (Chizhik, Shelly, & Troyer, 2009). In contrast, when trust and support is lacking, group members inadequately exchange information and start competing for influence. In threatening climates, status may thus be dysfunctional and status conflicts may occur (van Dijk & van Engen, 2009; Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005). Consequently, hypothesis 3 is as follows: Hypothesis 3: The higher the extent of a participative safety climate in diverse teams, the less status conflicts will be perceived Task orientation: The third dimension of team climate for innovation is task orientation. Task orientation is the shared concern to maximize quality of task performance in relation to shared vision or outcomes (West, 1990). To maximize quality of task performance, exchanging and integrating diverse information, knowledge, and perspectives is needed (Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, & Neal, 2003; Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005). Further, contributions of all group members on group tasks need to be clear, group members must be able to improve established policies, procedures and methods, and decision-making process must be perceived as fair by all group members (Alexander et al., 2009). In a climate where task orientation is perceived as high, status conflicts are therefore expected to be reduced as task responsibilities are distributed according to expertise, competence and/or experience, and all group members are willing to contribute to the group tasks (van Dijk & van Engen, 2009). Hypothesis 4 is therefore: Hypothesis 4: The higher the extent of task orientation in diverse teams, the less status conflicts will be perceived 10

12 Support for innovation: Finally, support for innovation refers to the expectation, approval and practical support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing things in the work environment (West, 1990, p. 318). According to De Dreu (2002) this support for new ideas and team performance is high under high levels of minority dissent, but only when team reflexivity is high as well. This means that minority members who are low in status are able to oppose the beliefs, attitudes, ideas, procedures, and policies assumed by the majority of the group in publicly, without being judged. In a high supportive climate for innovation their dissenting opinions are voiced, discussed and respected and individuals self are not the target of the dissent (Troyer & Youngreen, 2009). In situations where low status and high status members respect each other, status differences are considered accepted, because status members are not competing for influence and different opinions are not status position related. This results in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: The higher the extent of support for innovation in diverse teams, the less status conflicts will be perceived Status Conflicts and Team Performance Thus far, it is hypothesized that status conflicts are perceived more often in diverse work groups than homogeneous work groups and that team climate is an important moderator in this relationship. The next important step is to explain the relationship between status conflicts and team performance. 11

13 In the past years there has been more and more attention to how status conflicts are related to team performance, however most of this literature is theoretical and empirical evidence is missing (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005). But according to research of Bendersky and Hays (2010) and some recent theoretical reviews (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005), status conflicts restrict information sharing and therefore negatively affect team performance. Specifically, Bendersky and Hays (2010) concluded that status conflicts induce competitive behavior. When status conflicts are experienced, group members believe they deserve more status than they currently have, or that other group members deserve less status than they have. As a consequence, group members start to change their behavior. This means that they assert their dominance over others, start to compete for influence, challenge the importance of other s contributions, favor to communicate shared information over unshared information and form coalitions (Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005). Because status differences are related to relative positions in the social hierarchy, such competitive behaviors reduce group information sharing and ultimately inhibit the team performance (Toma & Butera, 2009). Accordingly, this will lead to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 6: Status conflicts negatively affect team performance In conclusion, it is expected that diverse work groups perceive more status conflict than homogenous groups and that these status conflicts negatively affect team performance. However, team climate for innovation might influence this relationship. Vision, participative safety, task orientation and support for innovation define team climate for innovation, and the higher the score on each dimension the lower status conflicts will be experienced. As mentioned before, the lower the status conflicts the better the team performance. To conclude, the last hypothesis is: 12

14 Hypothesis 7: In diverse teams where there is a high team climate for innovation status conflicts will be perceived less and team performance will be better than in diverse teams where there is a low team climate for innovation Conceptual Model The relationships between the different variables that will be examined in this study are represented in the following conceptual model. Team climate for innovation - Vision - Participative safety - Task orientation - Support for innovation Team diversity (+) (-) (-) Status conflict Team performance Figure 1: Conceptual model 13

15 Method Research Design In this research diverse teams in a medium-to-large technology company in the Netherlands are analyzed. This study can be classified as a cross-sectional, quantitative design. Procedure and Sample This research focuses on a medium-to-large technology holding in the Netherlands, Simac Technoloy NV. The Simac holding consists of 19 small and large business units who are working in different IT segments. Data for this research is collected in the largest business unit of the Simac holding: Simac ICT Netherlands. Simac ICT Netherlands consists of four different departments: staff, sales, professional services, and operations & engineering. Data is collected in 36 different teams from all four departments, as team climate for innovation in these departments was expected to be different. Before the questionnaires were distributed, consultation with managers took place to define the team compositions. Afterwards, the questionnaires were ed by using the program Questionnaire, preceded by an accompanying letter. Teams were labeled as teams when they had at least two team members who had task interdependence with interaction on a regular basis. As a consequence, the sample of this study consists of 148 respondents coming from 27 different teams. In total 331 questionnaires were sent. The response rate was 44.7 percent. The average response rate per team in this study was 55.9 percent. Furthermore, 86.0 percent of the respondents was male and 14.0 percent was female. Their ages ranged from 20 to 62 years with an average of 39 years and six months (sd= 9.03). The average organizational tenure of the respondents was 11 years, ranging from zero months until 37 years (sd= 8.60). The average team tenure of the respondents was five years with a range from zero 14

16 months until 20 years (sd= 4.04). With regard to the team size the average was five persons, with the smallest team consisting of two team members and the largest team with 13 team members. Measures To examine the research questions, a questionnaire of 47 questions is used (see Appendix A). The total questionnaire is divided into six scales in order to measure the following variables: Diversity measures: In this research objective work group diversity is divided by demographic diversity (age and gender) and job-related diversity (team tenure, organizational tenure and functional background). To measure both diversity types two indices are used, namely one for numeric demographic data and another one for categorical data. Following an approach recommended by Allison (1978) for numeric variables, the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) to measure age diversity and tenure diversity was used. This means that age diversity within teams is measured by dividing each team's standard deviation of age by the team's mean age. Similarly, tenure diversity within teams is assessed by dividing each team's standard deviation of company tenure by the team's mean company tenure. The age diversity of all respondents was 0.23, the organizational tenure was 0.78 and the team tenure Values lower than 1.0 are hereby considered as low-variance, while those with a score of higher than 1.0 are considered highvariance. To compute team diversity for categorical variables (gender and functional background) the heterogeneity index recommended by Teachman (1980) is used. Teachman s index (H) is calculated as where the total number of categories of a variable equals I, and Pi is the fraction of team members falling into category 1. The greater the distribution across categories, the higher Teachman s heterogeneity index score. This means that for gender 15

17 diversity only two categories were possible (male and female). The average gender diversity of all respondents in this study was 0.41, while the maximum a value of gender diversity could have is For functional background the number of categories was 10. This means that the maximum a value could have is However, in this study the average functional background diversity was Perceived diversity: As noted before, diversity consists of visible and non visible differences between individuals, which lead to the perception that people are different. In this study therefore perceived diversity, besides objective work group diversity, is measured as well. This was one done by a 13-item scale that is recently developed (van Dijk & van Engen, 2009). An example was: In my team, members belong to different subgroups within the team, and items were answered on a sevenpoint Likert scale (to no extent to a great extent). In order to check the validity of this scale principal component analysis has been done (PCA) (Appendix B). This analysis showed that perceived diversity is clearly comprised of three components: Perceived task-relevant differences, perceived belonging to subgroups and perceived status differences. As a consequence, the Cronbach s Alpha coefficient for each of the components was measured. For perceived taskrelevant differences this value was.90, for perceived belonging to subgroups this value was.73, and for perceived status differences.93. According to Pallant (2005) values above.7 are considered acceptable. All three scales showed good internal consistency reliability and could therefore be used separately. Status conflict: Status conflict was measured by a scale with four items, developed by Bendersky and Hays (2010). Team members were asked how they perceived status conflicts. A sample item is, My 16

18 team members frequently took sides (i.e. formed coalitions) during conflicts. The items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale varied from to no extent to to a great extent. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach s alpha of.84 and as shown in Appendix B, PCA revealed good validity as well. Team performance: The variable team performance was rated on a five-item scale and measured by subjective ratings of all group members, covering efficiency, quality of technical innovation, work excellence, work productivity and adherence to schedules (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Team members were asked how they rate the performance of their team on those items. To ensure more objective measurement, supervisor ratings, whenever possible, were added too. A sevenpoint Likert scale (poor - excellent) was provided to answer the questions. Principal components analysis revealed that a single measure of team performance emerged with a Cronbach s alpha coefficient of.86, which is considered as very good internal consistency reliability of this scale (see Appendix B). Innovativeness: This scale consisted of five indicators of innovative performance, addressing aspects such as innovativeness compared to the team s potential and compared to other teams with similar tasks. Cronbach s alpha for this scale in previous research was.77 (Kearney & Gebert, in press). A sample item is, In our team, creative and innovative ideas are voiced frequently. The items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree strongly agree). Validity is checked with PCA (Appendix B) and the Cronbach s alpha coefficient was.78, an acceptable value. 17

19 Team climate: To measure this variable the four-factor theory, as presented in the theoretical framework, is used. This consists of a developed survey instrument, the Team Climate Inventory (TCI; Anderson & West, 1994), which had acceptable levels of reliability and validity across different occupational samples and countries (Kivimäki & Elovainio, 1999). However, this instrument consists of 38 items and in certain circumstances this is considered to be too long. Therefore Kivimäki and Elovainio (1999) developed a more practical short version with 14 items, later supported by Loo and Loewen (2002). This short version was tested by two large samples which showed acceptable predictive validity in their research. The alpha coefficients for the 14-item short version ranged from.90 to.92 in the two samples and from.79 to.86 for the four shortened scales. Since the questionnaire in this study already includes five other scales the short, practical version is used. The items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale (not at all completely). As this scale consists of four sub-constructs PCA has been done to check the validity (Appendix B). This analysis confirmed the constructs of vision, participative safety and support for innovation by showing high loading items on these components. The items belonging to task orientation were however not validated. This was confirmed by another PCA without the items of task orientation. For that reason these items were deleted. Finally, reliability was checked for vision, participative safety and support for innovation. These alpha coefficients were respectively.85,.89 and.81., which is considered as good internal consistency reliability. Control variables To test if there are other effects on the research variables two control variables were included in this study. Team size was measured as large teams have more potential for dissimilarity. To measure team size a single item was used: the number of team members, as defined by the 18

20 organization chart and team leaders. Team tenure was measured by the length of time each team member had been in his or her current team. It was created by averaging the individual scores of team members on the question How many years are you working in your current team?. Table 1 Number of categories, number of answering categories, internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha and ICC1/ICC2) for the questionnaire scales, N=148 respondents, N=27 teams Number of items Number of answering categories Cronbach's alpha ICC1 ICC2 Questionnaire scale Perceived Diversity Perceived Task Relevant Differences Perceived Belonging to Subgroups Perceived Status Differences Team Climate Team Climate (without task orientation) Vision Participative Safety Support for Innovation Status conflict Team Performance Innovativeness Data Aggregation The data was gathered on individual level, but should be analysed on team level since this study is concerned with diversity, status conflicts and performance within teams. In order to find out if data aggregation from individual level to team level was allowed, ANOVA analysis has been done to calculate the ICC1 and ICC2 values. These two statistical parameters refer to the internal consistency between and among group members and therefore predict the reliability of the data aggregation. More specific, the ICC1 shows how much variance is shared within groups and the ICC2 shows how reliable comparisons between groups will be. According to Bliese (1998) ICC(1) values of.10 are considered as small, values of.25 are medium, values of.50 are large, and values of.75 and higher are regarded as very large. For ICC(2) these values should 19

21 be.6 or higher to conclude that acceptable levels of mean score reliability exist (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). In Table 1 the results of this study are represented. Hereby is shown that data aggregation is allowed in this study, but the results are certainly not very strong. Data Analysis With respect to the data analysis in this study, first of all, the variables were checked for scores that were missing or out of range. Therefore the data was checked for outliers (very high or very low scores) 1. Before doing the actual analysis of the data, some assumptions were made. First, multicollinearity of the data was checked to see whether the independent variables are not highly correlated (r>.6). Secondly, normality, linearity and homoscedasticity were checked. Linearity can be detected from the Normal P-P scatterplot (Pallant, 2005). The data was analyzed using the standard procedure for mediating effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986), because the conceptual model consists of hypothesis about mediating effects. This was done in the following steps. First, to test the first hypothesis the direct effect between team diversity and status conflicts was analyzed. Regression analysis was done with team diversity as the independent variable whereas the status conflict was the dependent variable. Secondly, the moderator variable team climate for innovation was added. This was done with vision, participative safety and support for innovation. Analysis was done by testing the direct effect of team diversity on status conflicts, the direct effect of team climate for innovation on status conflicts, and the interaction effect of team diversity and team climate for innovation on status conflict. The moderator hypotheses (two, three and five) will be supported if there is a significant effect between the interaction of team diversity and team climate on status conflict. Thirdly, regression analysis between team diversity (independent variable) and team 1 Pallant (2005) defines outliers as cases that have a standardized residual of more than 3.3 or less than -3,3. 20

22 performance (dependent variable) was done, and the moderator variable was added to measure how team diversity and team climate affect team performance. In the final steps analysis of the mediator variable has been done. To check whether this indirect effect differed significantly from zero, a Sobel test was performed. The conditions for the Sobel test are as follows, if the z-value > 1.96 then the p-value <.05. Furthermore, the mediation conditions of Baron and Kenny (1986), and the moderated mediation approach of Müller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005) were examined. This means that the independent variable (team diversity) must affect the mediator (status conflict) in the first equation. The independent variables should affect the dependent variable (team performance) in the second equation. And thirdly, the mediator (status conflict) should affect the dependent variable in the third equation, whereby the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable should be less in the third equation than in the second equation. The same conditions were applied when the moderator was added. Team diversity Status conflict Team performance After the first series of multiple regression analyses were done, this was repeated by adding control variables to compare effects of explanatory variables before and after controlling for extraneous variables. 21

23 Results The means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables used in this study are presented in Table 2. The relationship between the variables is indicated by Pearson s correlation. This correlation indicates the strength and direction of each relationship between the variables (Pallant, 2005). When checking the correlations between the diversity measures (age, gender, organizational tenure, team tenure and functional background) and status conflicts, team climate and team performance most relationships were not significant. Only functional background diversity and participative safety (r=.404, p<.05) and the control variable team tenure diversity and team performance (r=.445, p<.05) showed a significant relationship. Regarding the perceived diversity measures it is shown that perceived status differences correlated positive, significant with status conflicts (r=.439, p<.05). This indicates that the more team members perceive status differences, the more status conflicts will be experienced, and vice versa. Vision, participative safety and support for innovation, which represents team climate, has each shown a positive correlation with team performance as well as innovation, which is in line with earlier research (Bain et al., 2001). Furthermore, negative significant effects were found between participative safety and status conflicts (r= -.565, p<.01) and between support for innovation and status conflicts (r= -.555, p<.01). 22

24 Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables and control variables, N=27 Mean SD Age Diversity Organizational Tenure Diversity Gender Diversity Functional Background Diversity Perceived Diversity Perceived Task Relevant Differences 7. Perceived Belonging to Subgroups 8. Perceived Status Differences ** **.606** **.635**.587** 1 9. Team Climate Team Climate (without task orientation) ** Vision **.806** Participative Safety * **.954**.655** Support for Innovation **.847**.450*.799** Status Conflict * * -.608** -.555** ** -.555** Team Performance **.728**.480*.710**.716** -.746** Innovation **.668**.385*.643**.734** -.405*.694** Team Size * Team Tenure Diversity * Note: **P<.01 *P<.05 23

25 Hypothesis 1: Team Diversity and Status Conflicts The first hypothesis assumed that diverse teams perceive more status conflicts than less diverse teams. In Table 3, the results for the regression are presented. It can be deduced that only for perceived status differences hypothesis 1 can be supported (β=.651), but only when the control variables team size and team tenure diversity are added (F=2.176, p<0.10). This means the more people perceive status differences in their team, the more status conflicts will occur. Table 3 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 1 Status Conflict Model 1 2 Age Diversity Organizational tenure Diversity Gender Diversity Functional Background Diversity Perceived Task Relevant Differences Perceived Belonging to Subgroups Perceived Status Differences ** Team Size Team Tenure Diversity ** R² R² 0.220** F * Hypothesis 2: Team Diversity, Vision (Team Climate) and Status Conflicts Hypothesis 2 proposed that in diverse teams where there is a clear vision and objectives less status conflict will be perceived than diverse teams where they lack this clear vision and objectives. In order to test this hypothesis, moderation analysis has been done for each of the diversity measures, which is shown in Appendix C. This moderation analysis revealed that only vision significantly moderated the relationship between perceived status differences and status conflicts. In Table 4 is shown that the second model explained 39.3 percent of the variance (F=4.969, p<0.05), with a positive relationship of perceived status differences on status conflict 24

26 (b=.601) and negative relationships of both vision (b= -.407) and the interaction variable on status conflicts (b= -.402). In the multiple regression equation this is written as Y= b 0 + (b 1 + b 3 )X + b 2 = Status conflicts (Y) = ( ) This means that if perceived status difference in diverse work group stay equal and vision and objectives in teams get clearer, status conflicts will be reduced (Figure 2). Hypothesis 2, in the case of perceived status differences as diversity, is therefore supported. Table 4 Unstandardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 2 Status Conflict Model (Constant) 3.019* 2.749* Perceived Status Differences 0.495** 0.601** 0.758** Vision * PerceivedStatus*Vision ** ** Team Size Team Tenure Diversity ** R² R² 0.129** 0.178** F 4.317** 4.969** 1.802** Figure 2. 25

27 As shown in table 4 a negative relationship was found between vision and status conflict. In table 5 therefore this relationship was tested separately whereby this finding was confirmed (β= -.328). Besides, the model fits the population from which the data is sampled (F=3.018, p<0.10). Table 5 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 2 Status Conflict Model 1 2 Vision * Team Size Team Tenure Diversity R² R² F 3.018* Hypothesis 3: Team Diversity, Participative Safety (Team Climate) and Status Conflicts It was hypothesized that diverse teams in a higher participative safety climate perceive less status conflicts than diverse teams in a lower participative safety climate. To confirm this hypothesis, moderation analysis has been done for each of the diversity measures (shown in Appendix C). According to these analyses no moderation has been found between team diversity and participative safety. In all analyses participative safety was negatively related to status conflict, which is shown as well in Table 6. Without controlling for team tenure diversity and team size this means that a higher participative safety climate in a team is related to less perceived status conflicts (β= -.565). Participative safety hereby explains 31.9 percent of the variance in status conflict and fits the population from which the data is sampled (F=11.725, p<0.05). However, as no moderation has been found between team diversity and participative safety hypothesis 3 is rejected. 26

28 Table 6 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 3 Status Conflict Model 1 2 Participative Safety ** ** Team Size Team Tenure Diversity R² R² F ** 5.052** Hypothesis 5: Team Diversity, Support for Innovation (Team Climate) and Status Conflicts In order to test hypothesis 5, the higher the support for innovation in diverse teams the less status conflicts will be perceived, multiple regression was used. This was done with moderation analysis again, see Appendix C. In line with the moderation findings of hypothesis 3, no moderator effects were found. For that reason hypothesis 5 cannot be supported. Tabel 7 shows the direct effect of support for innovation on status conflicts. In both models the effect of support for innovation shows a significant negative effect, which means teams with a high support for innovation perceive less status conflicts than teams with a low support for innovation. However, the direction of support for innovation in model 1 is stronger (β= -.555) than in model 2 (β= -.496). And besides, model 2 doesn t provide a better estimate of the true population value. Table 7 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 5 Status Conflict Model 1 2 Support for Innovation ** ** Team Size Team Tenure Diversity R² R² F ** 4.534** 27

29 Hypothesis 6: Status Conflicts and Team Performance Hypothesis 6 proposed that status conflicts negatively affect team performance. According to Table 8 this hypothesis can be confirmed. Status conflict negatively influence team performance (β= -.746) and model 1 explains 55.7 percent of the variance in team performance, which fits the population (F=31.777, p<0.05). When the control variables team size and team tenure diversity are added this relationship becomes weaker (β= -.686) (F=11.862, p<0.05). Furthermore, a negative significant trend between status conflicts and innovation is found as well (β= -.405). Table 8 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 6 Team Performance Innovation Model Status Conflict ** ** ** * Team Size Team tenure Diversity R² R² F ** ** 4.901** Hypothesis 7: Team Diversity, Team Climate, Status Conflicts and Team Performance In order to test the last hypothesis, diverse teams with a high team climate for innovation perceive less status conflicts and perform better on team performance than diverse teams with a lower team climate for innovation, first the mediation conditions of Baron and Kenny (1986) were applied. In Table 9 is shown that perceived status differences (β= -.651) and team tenure diversity (β= -.528) both significantly affect status conflict in the first equation, and both significantly affect team performance in the second equation (β= and β=.621, respectively). Furthermore, status conflicts is significant negatively related to team performance in the third equation (β= -.618) and the effect of perceived status differences and team tenure diversity is 28

30 less in this third equation than in the second equation. To confirm mediation two sobel-tests with the unstandardized regression coefficients were performed (see Table 10 and 11). As shown, the tests only confirmed the mediation effect of team tenure diversity, through status conflicts, on team performance because this z-value is larger than 1.96, however the z-value of perceived status differences is close to this level and thus shows a tendency. This means that the more team members differ in team tenure, the less status conflicts they perceive and the better their team performance is. Table 9 Standardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Status Conflict Team Performance Innovation Model Age Diversity Organizational tenure Diversity Gender Diversity Functional Background Diversity Perceived Task Relevant Differences Perceived Belonging to Subgroups Perceived Status Differences ** * Team Size Team tenure Diversity ** 0.621** Status Conflict ** R² R² 0.220** 0.276** 0.178** F * * 3.923** Tabel 10 Sobel Test Hypothesis 7 Perceived Status Differences b-value z-value Sobel Aroian Tabel 11 Sobel Test Hypothesis 7 Team Tenure Diversity b-value z-value Sobel Aroian

31 In Table 5 it is shown that only vision moderated the effect of perceived status differences on status conflict. To measure this moderator variable in the relationship with regard to hypothesis 7, the moderated mediation approach of Müller et al. (2005) is followed. This means that the direct effect of perceived status differences and the interaction variable PerceivedStatusDiff*Vision both significantly needs to be related to status conflicts, which is confirmed in table 4 (b=.601 and b= -.402, respectively). Furthermore, in Table 12 it is shown that the interaction variable is significantly related to team performance as well (b=.336), and that the mediator status conflicts is significantly related to team performance (b= -.410). PerceivedStatusDiff*Vision a3 PerceivedStatusDif f a1 Status Conflicts b1 Team Performance As illustrated above the indirect effect of perceived status differences and vision, via status conflicts, on team performance is therefore: Y=b1(a1+a3). = -.410( ) = This signifies that if the indirect effect of perceived status differences and vision (a1 + a3) increase with 1, Y (team performance) will increase with.199. It can therefore be concluded that diverse teams with high perceived status differences and with a clear team vision and objectives will experience less status conflicts and perform better than diverse teams with high perceived status differences who lack this vision. Hypothesis 7 is thus partial confirmed. 30

32 Table 12 Unstandardized regression coefficients, R-square, r-square change and F-values Hypothesis 7 Team Performance Model (Constant) 4.009** 5.136** 5.136** 5.140** Perceived Status Differences ** Vision 0.469** 0.303** 0.303** 0.287* PerceivedStatus*Vision 0.336** Status Conflict ** ** * Status Conflict*Vision Team Size Team Tenure Diversity R² R² 0.191** F 6.614** ** 7.956** 6.673** Discussion and Conclusion The aim of this study was to answer the following research question: To what extent does status conflict mediate the relationship between team diversity and team performance and how is this moderated by team climate? This study contributed to the existing literature, since research to the relationship between diversity and performance still appears to be ambiguous and empirical research with status as a mediator and team climate as moderator of diversity s effects had not been done yet. To answer the research question seven hypotheses are stated and tested. Results show that the hypotheses can only be confirmed partially. The only hypothesis which is confirmed straightforward is the relationship between status conflicts and team performance. This finding supports already existing literature on the effect of status conflicts on team performance. It can be concluded that status conflicts are detrimental to the performance of a team. Furthermore, the 31