A status perspective on the consequences of work group diversity

Hans van Dijk · Marloes L. Van Engen

66 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Team Dynamics and Performance Gender Diversity and Inequality Social Power and Status Dynamics

Abstract

In accounting for the positive and negative consequences of work group diversity, researchers have generally relied on the information/decision‐making (i.e., diversity as variety) and the social categorization (i.e., diversity as separation) perspective, respectively. In this conceptual paper we argue that there is a need to integrate status‐related processes (i.e., diversity as disparity) as key to understanding the outcomes of work group diversity. Based on expectation states theory, we argue that status differences between group members automatically emerge when group members differ in their characteristics and/or associated (informational) resources. These within‐group status differences lead to the formation of a status configuration, an informal social order that serves a coordination function. We propose that the effect of a status configuration on group performance depends on the interplay between the veridicality, the legitimacy and the stability of a status configuration. We discuss how our propositions can be tested and how our status perspective relates to the information/decision‐making and the social categorization perspective. We close with a discussion on the implications of our status perspective for practitioners. Practitioner Points In diverse groups, group members tend to attribute competence (i.e., status) based on the differences between group members. These perceived status differences in the group serve a tacit coordination function, informing group members on who is the (potentially) right person for a job. Status differences result in detrimental performance of the group if the status that is attributed is not based on actual task competence, but enhances group performance when status aligns with competence. When group members feel that their status in the group is lower than it ought to be, this has a negative impact on their commitment and functioning.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 66 citations exist upstream.

References

1954Nature of Prejudice 1979The Social psychology of intergroup relations 1986Psychology of intergroup relations 1987Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self‐Categorization Theory 1982Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 2013Handbook of Social Psychology 2002A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.2002Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Cited by

2015How diversity contributes to academic research teams performance 2022Leveraging Knowledge Diversity in Hierarchically Differentiated Teams: The Critical Role of Hierarchy Stability 2019The Glass Pyramid: Informal Gender Status Hierarchy on Boards 2022What do they think of me? Professional diversity, meta‐stereotype negativity, suspicion, and counterproductive work behaviour 2020The performance of researchers in multidisciplinary research groups: does social capital matter?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.