Teams and Leadership

Lesson 2. Prejudice, discrimination and diversity in teams

- Prejudice and discrimination

- What?
- Why?
- Different types of diversity and team performance
- Cultural diversity and team outcomes (Wang et al., 2019; Stahl & Maznevski, 2021; Homan et
al., 2015)
- Reducing prejudice and discrimination
- Contact hypothesis
- Other techniques
- Ethnic discrimination in recruitment (Adamovic, 2022)

Diversity in Mathieu ........................................................................................................................

We can find diversity among the compositional features of the model.

Diversity in Robbins and Judge (2009)..............................................................................................

We can find ‘’diversity’’ in this model in the

composition of the team.

1
 Teams and Leadership

Prejudice and discrimination............................................................................................................

Both of them are intertwined, prejudice often lead to discrimination:

Prejudice: a negative attitude or orientation towards a group, solely based on their group
membership. Prejudism usually leads to discrimination. Prejudice is the prejudgement (vibes believe)
while discrimination is a pound of discrimination. PRE-JUDGEMENT / PRE-BELIEVES.

Discrimination: the actual unfair or unequal treatment based on prejudice. Eg: a man who is offering
help to a woman who is struggling with her computer, treat differently a woman.

Resume studies (Adamovic, 2022):

- A field experiment: allows reserachers to investigate discrimination in recruitment in a real

work environment or context.
- organizations and their recruiters do not know that they are part of the
study
- researchers send out paired resumes in response to real job advertisements
- to identify discrimination against (e.g., cultural) minorities: the name is
manipulated (to signal membership to a (e.g., ethnic) group), while other
characteristics of the resume are the same (or very similar).

An advantage of these studies is that you can generalize it in a real life context.

Example: Results of a Belgian resume study - Turkish names were more discriminated.
Discrimination only occurred in small organisations, we only saw it in smaller companies.
Discrimination decreases when experience increases. When people have more experience we do not
see unequal treatment.

Why prejudice?....................................................................................................................

Some mainly cognitive explanations:

- Group categorization
- Stereotype content model
- Minimal group and social identity

Group categorization ....................................................................................................................

The cognitive process through which individuals categorize people into social groups based on
common characteristics or attributes.

- age (”young”, “old”), ethnicity (“black”, “white”), sex (”men”, “women”), gender (“male,
female, trans, non-binary,…), occupations (“doctors”, “teachers”, “artists”), social roles
(“parents”, ”students”),…

2
 Teams and Leadership

Accentuation effect (is a phenomenon):

When there is a connection between a characteristic (length) and group (Japanese - Swedish),
similarities within the group will be overestimated (homogeneity) and differences between the
groups will be overestimated. This leads to stereotyping.

Connection between Japanese people vs. Swedish people. In reality there is a larger variability:

Real Perceived

- Social stereotypes

> Cognitive representations of groups along with its associated characteristics

> Simplifies social perception, makes information-processing easier.

e.g., “Men are better in spatial perception” , “Women are better in language”, “Women are not as
good at leadership as men”.

If we add ‘’On average’’ to these quotes are true. The third one is completely false. This contribute to
a ‘’glass sealing’’. Sometimes, a “kernel of truth” but often, not evidence-based.

- Stereotype content model:

Stereotype are often based on a standing in two different access: Warmth and competence.

3
 Teams and Leadership

EXAMPLE: Strinic et al. (2022) → Recruiters’ (reclutador- proceso de selección de trabajadores)

occupational stereotypes.

They asked real-life recruiters in 30 different occupations to describe them in therms on warmth or
competence, the results were these 5 clusters. Recruiters itself also have stereotypes and often they
guide their decisions.

Minimal group ................................................................................................................................

* Demo A / B categorisation. You had to chose a group of numbers for your group and also for the
other group. People normal choose a higher number for their group although they don’t know who
their partners are.

Minimum group paradigm

- random categorization (e.g., “preference” for painting A or B, but actual assignment to A or B

happens random)
- anonymous

4
 Teams and Leadership

- no communication
- no personal benefit (to rule out self-interest): you do not give points to yourself, you give it
to another person of your group.

YET ingroup bias:

- ingroup favoritism: treating the ingroup more positively.

- outgroup derogation: treating the outgroup less positively or more negatively
- e.g., “max. difference strategy”: max. difference between own and other group, even
if more ingroup rewards could have been obtained (44-24 vs. 47-32)

This group effect is usually explained by the Social identity theory:

That part of our self-concept corresponding to group memberships and the value and emotional
significance attached to these memberships.

- We all strive for a positive social identity

- Through positive differentiation: making the group positively different compared to
outgroups (“we are better than them”) → self-esteem↑ (e.g., Aberson et al., 2000)

Diversity- Diversity and team performance...............................................................................

Important nowadays. Age, sex, culture, disabled people…

- Little seems to have changed over the past few years. Case example: Google.

Why is this important? As globalization proceeds further and further, diversity at work will be the
norm rather than the exception.

Effective team design harnesses the benefits of diversity while avoiding its pitfalls (issues)

- Diversity is an inherently controversial – and ideological – topic that has been associated
with both benefits and drawbacks in group work

Advantages and disadvantages of having a diverse team

There is usually less cohesion in a diverse group, which may be a disadvantage. Diversity in teams:
What could be potential advantages and disadvantages?

5
 Teams and Leadership

Definitions

‘’Team diversity refers to to the distributional differences among members of a team with respect to
a common attribute”

Belle et al. (2011): how can we define diversity? We can define diversity in many different ways:

- Separation: differences between team members on one attribute dimension.

- Examples: attitudes, values, beliefs within a team; personality.
- Variety: categorical differences among team members.
- Examples: functional backgrounds (sales, marketing, R&D) or surface-level
demographics (sex)
- Disparity: : “vertical” differences (in resources) within a team.
- Examples: organizational tenure or power

Spoiler: these distinctions largely do not matter for effects on diversity.

Belle et al. (2011): DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY VARIABLES

Tast-related or deep-level diversity: you can not observe it

1. Functional and educational background

2. Educational level
3. Organizational tenure: How long are you working or operating in an organisation or specific
team.
4. Team ternure: How long the team exists.

Biodemographic or surface

5. Race
6. Sex
7. Age

Results:

● Functional/educational background diversity IN RELATION TO team performance

The first 3 variables / 3 types of team performance, 3 different ways of conceptualising ‘’team
performance’’: Efficiency, general performance and creativity and innovation.

95% CI: Confidence Intervals. When they include 0, a relationship is not significance.

6
 Teams and Leadership

- A positive relationship between functional background variety and team performance → If a

team consists out of people with different functional backgrounds, they all add to a
knowledge base - different perspectives which has a positive impact on team performance.
- Positive relationship in design/cross- functional

In therms of educational backgrounds (what people have studied):

- Positive effects on creativity and innovation

● Educational & level organisation / team tenure diversity IN RELATION TO team

performance

These relationships all include 0. So for all of them there is no significance relationship with team
performance.

● Racial / gender / age diversity IN RELATION TO team performance

A small but significance negative effects for variety of different races of ethnicities in relation to team
performance.

- -.13 significant
- Sex: -.09
- Age: non -significance relationship

7
 Teams and Leadership

What does it mean: having diversity in terms of surface level ethnicities and different sex, do not
contribute to team performance. There is no significance relation with age.

Main findings - Bell et al. (2011)

- Functional background variety is positively related to general team performance (ρ = .12),

team creativity and innovation (ρ = .18)
- Also to team performance for design and cross-functional teams (ρ = .16)
- Educational background variety is positively related to team creativity and innovation (ρ =
.23)
- Also to team performance for top management teams (ρ = .13)

- Education-level diversity, team tenure diversity, and organizational tenure diversity are
unrelated to team performance.
- Race and sex variety diversity have small negative relationships with team performance (ρ =
-.13 and -.09 respectively), only in field settings.
- Age diversity is unrelated to team performance.

Cultural diversity and team outcomes..............................................................................................

Cultural diversity- team performance

Why do meta-analyses indicate no relationship (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007) or a negative one (Bell et
al., 2011) with team performance?

- Cultural diversity as a ‘’mixed blessing’’ (Stahl et. al, 2021). In a team you have processes:
- Process gains
- Process losses

8
 Teams and Leadership

Results of a meta-analysis that mainly focused on the relationship between cultural diversity and
team performance, but also on intermediate outcomes:

- No significance relationship between cultural diversity and team performance

- Cultural diversity leads to more creativity, but also increases tasks conflicts and less social
integration.

In 2019, Wang et. al did another meta-analysis (k=40): Prior meta-analyses (k ≤ 8), and reported
mixed findings: ES from -.18 (n.s., Bell et al., 2011) to .16 (Stahl et al., 2010)

Social costs > lack of team identity (“out-group”members), less cohesion, other values, difficulties in
intercultural interaction

Informational benefits > diverse perspectives and knowledge

Cost-benefit ratio determines direction and strength of the relationship

Cultural diversity - team creativity

- Surface-level: : different countries/ethnicities → social costs?

- Deep-level: values, perspectives, cognitive frameworks→ informational benefits?

Moderators: Team virtuality, task interdependence, -complexity, and -intellectiveness. Moderators

were also considered: team virtually, as interdependence (how dependence the members are to
complete the goal or the task), task complexity and task intellectiveness.

Main findings - Wang et al. (2019)

Surface-level cultural diversity diversity (e.g., team members with different races), may not elevate
team creativity (-.02, n.s.)

9
 Teams and Leadership

- May even hurt creativity for simple tasks (-.23)

The critical factor for team creativity is whether team members differ in deep‐level attributes, such
as cultural values and worldviews! (.16)

- Only in collocated (=non-virtual) teams (.18)

- Only for high interdependent tasks (.19)

→ To have the “creativity-benefit” from culturally diverse teams, managers must pay attention to
team- and task design: Collocated teams working on complex, interdependent tasks 〜 boundary
conditions (!)

Homan et al. (2015)

Homan et al. (2015) were interested in the effects on diversity training. Does diversity training help
to obtain the “creativity-benefit” from culturally diverse teams?

Diversity training:

Diversity training increases team creativity, but: Teams with less positive diversity beliefs

- i.e., those who mostly ‘need it’

- Strongest positive effects of diversity training BUT only when the team’s nationality diversity
is high
- Negative effect for teams with low nationality diversity!

Teams with (already) more positive diversity beliefs

- Small positive effect of diversity training (regardless of nationality diversity)

Trainings can help to change diversity beliefs, but in either direction.

- In general: aims to increase trainees’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) needed to work
with individuals from different nationalities
- In this study: video that focused on how nationality diverse teams can make effective use of
their diversity

Importance of (pre-existing) diversity beliefs

e.g., “I believe that diversity is good,” “I enjoy working together with diverse people”

Main results- Homan et al. (2015)

10
 Teams and Leadership

These effects were mediated by contingent changes in perceived team efficacy (H3) (e.g., “with focus
and effort, this team can do anything we set out to accomplish.”)

- People with positive team-level beliefs / people with less positive team-level beliefs

PEOPLE WITH LESS POSITIVE TEAM DIVERSITY BELIEFS: The results are quite different whether they
are high or low on nationality diversity:

- The most positive effects on diversity training were on people who had less positive diversity
beliefs in advance but the ones that had high nationality diversity teams → creative levels
increase.
- In contrast, other people with less diversity beliefs in advance but were operating in a LOW
nationality diversity team, when they received training → creative levels DECREASE.
- So, actually, you can do harm by giving diversity training to the wrong people. The strongest
effects, then, are in those people with less diversity beliefs (they need the training) but they
have to be teams diverse in terms of nationality and culture.

PEOPLE WITH MORE POSITIVE TEAM DIVERSITY BELIEFS ALREADY: they also have positive effects
and results after the diversity training. It’s less strong but it’s positive (independientemente de la
nacionalidad del grupo).

This research also investigates mediating mechanisms and more specifically perceived team efficacy
which is a variable, similar to self efficacy, but on a team level. It refers to the confidence the team
has in itself to complete the task. So all (the complex interacting effects)1:11:05 could be explained
by this variable (PTE). It’s an explaining mechanism:

Conclusion: Diversity training increases team creativity, but:

- Teams with less positive diversity beliefs

- i.e., those who mostly ‘need it’
- Strongest positive effects of diversity training BUT only when the team’s nationality
diversity is high
- Negative effect for teams with low nationality diversity!
- Teams with (already) more positive diversity beliefs
- Small positive effect of diversity training (regardless of nationality diversity)

Trainings can help to change diversity beliefs, but in either direction

11
 Teams and Leadership

CULTURAL DIVERSITY - TEAM PERFORMANCE

Why do meta-analyses indicate no relationship (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007) or a negative one (Bell et
al., 2011) with team performance?...................................

- The positive effects are true, we have seen them in the results, for instance on team
creativity. They obtained these creative benefits.
- Moderating variables impact the main relationship, you need the right conditions to have a
positive relationship.
- Effects of study designs, sample characteristics. In some designs you get significant
relationships more easily and that’s mostly the case when using self reports, which are less
interesting compared to observed reports which are usually more reliable.
- Non linear effect on outcome variables: Too much of a good (thing? team? 1:15:15) effects.
This could be indeed the case, because when you are doing for instance a correlation or
regression analysis your are trying to capture lineal effects only. Should there be a courval in
your relationship? Then you don’t capture that by using a simple correlation or a lineal
regression. So, this quite often happens that courval in reality are in the data but researchers
don’t think about the possibility that could be a courval relationship so they don’t test it and
they don’t find a significant relationship. Even if it’s a strip and strong curve in the
relationships, it can not be detected if you use the wrong statistical analysis.

Discussion: what to do about diversity?.......................................................................................

Main takeaway: diversity is not just ‘’good’’ or ‘’bad’’, depends on:

> Variable of interest (e.g., it looks different if you're interested in the criteria of team performance,
compared, for instance, on creativity or conflict. When you are interested in obtaining a creative
solution, it may not be good to look at results for team performance). You need to be sure if you are
looking to the right criteria variable because sometimes there is a positive or negative effect with
these intermediate outcomes.

> The type of team (e.g., TMT). Sometimes we see a substantial positive relationships in top
management teams but not in cross functional teams for instance)

> The way diversity is conceptualized (e.g., deep-level vs. surface-level). When we look at
surface-level diversity, very often we don’t find a relationship or a negative one. But looking at
deep-level diversity, capturing these more incapt? variables, values for instance, we do find positive
relationships.

> Complex interactions with other variables (e.g., task design).

12
 Teams and Leadership

Reducing prejudice techniques........... .......-.....................................................................................

● Contact hypothesis
● Other prejudice-reducing techniques
● Ethnic discrimination in recruitment

Contact hypothesis

Allport (1954): CONTACT reduces prejudices, under specific conditions. If there is:

1. Adequate degree of acquaintance. Just saying hi may not be sufficient. You should ¡have a
substantial degree of interaction.
2. Equal status of members.
3. Cooperation for common purpose
4. Supporting social climate of authority

When you think about a team in a shared leadership structure who has a supporting organizational
culture, you should normally have the ideal circumstances to reduce prejudices.

> No necessary but facilitating elements that enhance a beneficial effect (meta-analysis, Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006). No los necesitas todos para reducirla pero definitivamente, lo facilitan y lo benefician.

> Experimental and longitudinal studies also show this positive effect (e.g., Swart et al., 2011)

> Generalization: Reduced stereotypes influence the entire outgroup (Wilder, 1984)

Other prejudice-reducing techniques

Extended contact hypothesis

> Mere knowledge that an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member can
reduce prejudice.

> Through friendship with people who know members of out-group.

This is an indirect effect. Simply knowing someone who knows someone of the outgroup with a
different culture background already helps. (r = -.17, MA, Zhou et al., 2019) -> meta analysis: They
controlled for the simple contact hypothesis. They controlled for the effect of direct contact and still
obtained a -.17 relationship (small but consistent and indirect effect that reduces prejudices levels).

Empathy and perspective taking of others

> Sit in wheelchair for an hour (Clore & Jeffery, 1972)

> Imagine a day in the life of an older person (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000)

When ethnic discrimination in recruitment is likely to occur and how to reduce it - Adamovic
(2022)

Important matter for HR managers to address because it’s both a business issue but also a human
rise issue.

13
 Teams and Leadership

- Economic perspective

- Human capital loss: They did not connect the right jobs with the right people /
culturally diverse people are all working at jobs under qualifications. This leads to a
human capital loss, a decrease in incomes for the organization but also for the
society in general.

- Expensive lawsuits that can destroy a firm’s reputation. For instance when someone
realizes he or she is being discriminated, there are these lawsuits that not only are
expensive but also they can destroy an entire firm due to reputation loss.

- Moral and legal perspective (even more important than the economic ones)

- Violates moral norms (e.g., sense of justice and equality).

- Forbidden by anti-discrimination laws of the EU and UN

- e.g., EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 21, Paragraph 1):
“Discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, color, ethnic or social
origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other
opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age,
or sexual orientation shall be prohibited”

When does it occur? - Ethnic discrimination recruitment

14
 Teams and Leadership

- Men with a foreign name were likely to suffer discrimination in a recruitment context. That’s
interesting because also male recruiters are more likely to conduct ethnic discrimination.
- Photos often don’t help. They increase the possibilities of discrimination
- It is more usual in jobs that require / jobs that are difficult to fulfill

How to reduce it?- Ethnic discrimination recruitment

> Using anonymous resumes seem to be an interesting thing to consider. In most studies actually we
find positive effects.

- Aslund & Skans (2012): less (sex and ethnic) discrimination

- There’s an exception: one study in France (Behaghel et al. (2015): more ethnic discrimination
This tip maybe needs more research to really take it into account

> Use a reference letter: In Belgium it’s not really the standard but in other countries it is. They ask
someone for the previous job including competences, skills, and tasks. That reduces prejudism.

>‘’Whitening’’ resumes: For instance, change their name (Asian people for example), skip
information that might be connected to cultural backgrounds.

> Add volunteer work to resume: Doing volunteer work kind of gets a signal that you are well
integrated in the community.

15
 Teams and Leadership

> Intervention after resume study: Get back to the people and give feedback.

Quick recap...... .......-..................... .......-..................................................................................

- Cognitive explanations for the existence of prejudice and discrimination

- Diversity is not always ‘good’: Think about empirical evidence before you introduce diversity
measures in teams
- Deep-level diversity (e.g., education level, functional background, cultural diversity)
is not or positively related to team performance
- Surface-level diversity (age, gender, race/cultural diversity) is not or negatively
related to team performance
- Boundary conditions!
- Cultural diversity leads to increased creativity in collocated teams working on
complex, interdependent tasks
- Diversity training leads to increased creativity, but it can backfire in teams with low
nationality diversity who have less positive diversity beliefs

Prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.

16