Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and ... - IngentaConnect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

EDI 31,2

Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment

124

Marcello Russo Management and Strategy Department, Rouen Business School, Mont Saint Aignax Cedex, France Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test a model in which diversity in goal orientation is associated with decreased team performance by virtue of reduced group information elaboration. In addition, the model considers the moderating role of internal team environment. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of an empirical research in which the hypothesized relationships are investigated using hierarchical multiple-regression analyses. Findings – The findings show that teams high in diversity in goal orientation report lower levels of performance because of the lower group information elaboration. However, in the presence of a supportive team environment the negative relationship of diversity in goal orientation on group information elaboration are reduced. Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on a cross-sectional design. Practical implications – The paper suggests management should consider goal orientation in team building, and provide interventions to improve team environment. Social implications – Diversity has relevant consequences on interpersonal relations, decision-making processes, and team performance. The results of the present study suggest ways in which teams might leverage the benefits of diversity and reduce coordination problems associated with it. Originality/value – This study contributes to the diversity team literature by expanding Nederveen-Pieterse and colleagues’ research on diversity in goal orientation by emphasizing the role of internal team environment as moderator in the relationship between diversity in goal orientation and group information elaboration. Keywords Team working, Team performance, Goal orientation, Team diversity, Information elaboration, Team climate, Decision making Paper type Research paper

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal Vol. 31 No. 2, 2012 pp. 124-143 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2040-7149 DOI 10.1108/02610151211202781

Introduction The majority of the literature suggests that diversity is a challenging issue for team interpersonal dynamics, decision-making processes, and performance ( Jackson and Joshi, 2010). Diversity refers to the presence of individual differences within a team in terms of age, gender, nationality, ethnicity, values, personality, goal orientation, mental models, etc. (Harrison and Klein, 2007). In particular, existing research distinguishes between surface and deep-level attributes of team diversity (Jackson and Joshi, 2010; Milliken and Martins, 1996). Surface-level attributes of diversity refer to the The author is grateful to Loriann Roberson, Filomena Buonocore and Yehuda Baruch for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article and would also like to thank Regine Bendl and two anonymous EDI reviewers for their valuable guidance in revising the work.

demographic characteristics such as gender, age or ethnicity that are easily detectable and might elicit discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices in a team (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Deep-level attributes refer to characteristics such as personality, values, beliefs, attitudes, mental models, or goal orientation that are less visible and might be unnoticed in a team (Bell, 2007). In virtue of these characteristics, deep-level attributes have been considered as less influential in comparison with surface-level attributes, and, as a consequence, they have systematically received less attention in the literature (van Dijk et al., 2009). This is a serious shortcoming since deep-level attributes have been shown to influence team interaction and outcomes in the long term (e.g. Antill, 1983; McGrath, 1984; Schilpzand et al., 2011; van Emmerik and Brenninkmeijer, 2009). Indeed, deep-level attributes are a relevant basis for the development of accurate, permanent, and non-stereotyped images of each team members (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002). Hence, van Dijk et al. (2009, p. 42) suggested not “jumping to this conclusion [deep-level attributes are irrelevant] and discard the potential influence of deep-level diversity”. They argued that it would be beneficial for team diversity research to conduct additional research on deep-level attributes that are more closely related to team performance or task achievement, such as goal orientation or mental models. In this study, I decided to focus on diversity in goal orientation since it has received lower attention in comparison with team mental models (see Mohammed et al., 2010 for a review on this concept). To date, in fact, only few studies have specifically focused on the effects of diversity (or low similarity) in goal orientation on teams (e.g. Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). In particular, Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) study is the first research that conceptualized goal orientation in terms of diversity. Even though this paper is a seminal contribution for the analysis of diversity in goal orientation in teams, it presents some shortcomings that need to be addressed. First, it relies on a bidimensional conceptualization of goal orientation that does not account for recent developments of goal orientation theory, which considers a third dimension of goal orientation (e.g. performance-avoid orientation (VandeWalle, 1997)). In addition, it makes use of a laboratory setting with the participation of students in a role-playing exercise. Although previous studies have shown that findings in the laboratory are not different from field studies (e.g. Brown and Lord, 1999), there is the need to investigate the role of diversity in goal orientations in real organizational settings, with participation of teams engaged in real work activities. In the current paper, I attempt to extend Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) research, by proposing and testing a mediator model in which diversity in learning, performance-prove and performance-avoid orientation are related to decreased team performance by virtue of the lower group information elaboration. In addition, using data collected from Italian teams in audit and consulting companies, this study aims to investigate wheatear internal team environment is an organizational feature that might moderate the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and group information elaboration. The theoretical framework Diversity in goal orientation refers to the presence of differences in individuals’ mental framework that might influence how teams approach tasks, goals, and achievement situations (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). The concept of diversity in goal orientation is grounded on the goal orientation theory, which posits that individuals might exhibit

Diversity in goal orientation

125

EDI 31,2

126

a learning, performance-prove, or performance-avoid goal orientation[1] (Dweck, 1986; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; VandeWalle, 1997, 2001). Roughly speaking, individuals who exhibit a learning orientation tend to set difficult goals and undertake challenging tasks through which they can develop new knowledge and abilities. Individuals who exhibit a performance goal orientation tend to set basic goals and undertake easy tasks that might be successfully achieved. More specifically, individuals who exhibit a performance-prove orientation tend to prefer visible tasks through which they can demonstrate favorable abilities to influential people in the workplace. Instead, individuals who exhibit a performance-avoid orientation tend to prefer tasks on which they have rehearsed extensively in order to avoid demonstrating unfavorable abilities or failures. Research on diversity in goal orientation is still at an early-stage. The studies conducted on this topic show that diversity in goal orientation is likely to induce a disagreement within a team with regard to goals, tasks, strategies or procedures performed, which, in turn, might have negative consequences on team processes and performance (Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011), for instance, have found that diversity in goal orientation is likely to inhibit processing of information within the team, and prevent agreement with strategies for task achievement, which, in turn, reduce team performance. In the current paper, building on similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971), I hypothesize that diversity in learning, performance-prove, and performance-avoid goal orientations are negatively related to team performance. The similarity-attraction theory has been frequently used to elucidate the negative effects of diversity in teams (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). It posits that individuals are more attracted to people similar to self in terms of values, attitudes, goals, personality and other personal characteristics. As a consequence, they tend to communicate, interact, and cooperate more frequently only with those people because they perceive this interaction as safe, easy, and satisfying (Byrne, 1971). Relying on these arguments, I assume that diversity in learning, performance-prove and performance-avoid orientation is associated with decreased team performance. Diversity in goal orientation nurtures the perception of low similarity between self and other members’ goal orientation (e.g. Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001). It is possible that team member with a dominant goal orientation (i.e. learning orientation) might be less likely to initiate an interaction with people having a different orientation (i.e. performance orientation), thereby reducing team discussion and interaction (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The presence of differences in goal orientations might also induce a strong disagreement among team members with regard to the nature of goals pursued, the tasks performed, and the strategies adopted, which might impede task accomplishment (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). Taken together these arguments are supportive of the idea that diversity in goal orientation might negatively relate to team performance. Accordingly: H1a. Diversity in learning orientation is negatively related to team performance. H1b. Diversity in performance-prove orientation is negatively related to team performance. H1c. Diversity in performance-avoid orientation is negatively related to team performance.

The mediating role of group information elaboration Group information elaboration has been recently introduced by van Knippenberg et al. (2004) as a newer team process that might elucidate the positive effects of diversity in decision-making processes and performance. It refers to the extent to which team members exchange, share, process, and integrate task unique information within the team. Specifically, group information elaboration consists of distinct activities that are responsible for a more accurate processing of information, such as individual processing of team information, feeding back the results into the group, discussing and integrating of the different perspectives brought to the team by each member (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This process has been introduced to overcome the shortcoming of the information/decision-making approach, which is traditionally used to explain the benefits associated with higher levels of diversity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The information/decision-making perspective assumes that diversity benefits team decisions and performance, because it expands the set of information, opinions, perspectives, orientations, and skills in the team ( Jackson and Joshi, 2010; van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). However, van Knippenberg et al. (2004) challenged this assumption, arguing that what is salient in teams is not only the availability of resources or information, but also how the team manages such resources. For example, if team members simply ignore the different perspectives and information present in heterogeneous teams, and continue to rely only on shared information to make their decision, the potential benefits of diversity in the decision-making process are discarded. Hence, they argued that how the team processes, elaborates, and integrates different information, opinions, and perspective is critical to made better decisions and achieve higher levels of performance (van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2010). Consistently, recent reviews on the topic have found that group information elaboration is a process that might explain how heterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous ones (e.g. Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011; van Dijk et al., 2009; van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2010). Numerous studies have found that groups that fully process internal information, and integrate unique perspectives held by each team member are likely to achieve a higher level of performance (e.g. Homan et al., 2007, 2008; Kearney and Gebert, 2009; Kearney et al., 2009; Nederveen-Pieterse, 2009; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011; van Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2008, 2009). In the current research, I hypothesize that group information elaboration mediates the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and team performance. Additionally, I posit that diversity in goal orientation is related to a lower group information elaboration. The presence of a different set of goal orientation might lead to the formation of different subgroups (i.e. learning versus performance-oriented members), which might prevent a complete processing of group information. For example, team members with a learning goal orientation might be less likely to share, elaborate, and integrate information with performance-prove or performance-avoid oriented colleagues. Additionally, they might perceive that the personal contribution is not valued and even criticized by other members, since their behavior diverts time and energies from relevant short-term activities (and vice versa). Accordingly: H2a. The process of elaborating task relevant information mediates the negative relationship between diversity in learning orientation and team performance.


127

EDI 31,2

128

H2b. The process of elaborating task relevant information mediates the negative relationship between diversity in performance-prove orientation and team performance. H2c. The process of elaboration of task relevant information mediates negative relationship between diversity in performance-avoid orientation and team performance. The moderating role of internal team environment Goal orientation has been frequently conceptualized as a situational variable that can be manipulated by intervening on internal or external organizational/team factors (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Dragoni, 2005; Dragoni and Kuenzi, 2010; Mehta et al., 2009). Similarly, major research on team diversity has shown that team characteristics (i.e. team climate) or organizational policies (i.e. a team-based reward system) might influence the positive and negative effects of diversity in teams (Roberge and van Dick, 2010). Taken together, these arguments are supportive of the idea that the effects of diversity in goal orientation on team process and performance might be moderated by intervening variables. Consistently, the study by Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011) has shown that team reflexivity (i.e. the tendency of a team to reflect on internal dynamics) reduces the negative effects of diversity in goal orientation on group information elaboration. In this paper, I posit that internal team environment moderates the relationship between diversity in goal orientation and group information elaboration. Internal team environment refers to the extent to which team members perceive internal climate to be supportive or unsupportive (Carson et al., 2007). Internal team environment is a function of three dimensions: shared purpose, social support, and voice. Shared purpose refers to the extent to which team members have a common representation of team goals and priorities. Social support refers to the extent to which team members voluntarily provide emotional and psychological support to their colleagues. Voice refers to the extent to which team members have the possibility to participate actively in team discussions and decision-making process (Carson et al., 2007). In particular, existing research has shown that a supportive internal environment reduces the salience of individual differences by leading team members to prioritize team needs, and take the right steps to ensure the achievement of team goals (Carson et al., 2007). Additionally, a supportive environment has been shown to lead team members to give up feelings of animosity and reduce task disagreement, by stimulating a higher level of internal coordination and a deeper process of information (Kirkman and Rosen, 1997; Liden et al., 2000; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). Hence, a supportive team environment might help teams to overcome coordination problems due to high levels of diversity in goal orientation, stimulating a higher participation in the internal discussion, and, as a consequence, a complete processing and elaboration of information. Accordingly: H3a. The relationship between the diversity in learning orientation and the process of elaborating task-relevant information is moderated by the internal team environment. The negative effects of the diversity in learning orientation on the process of elaborating task-relevant information are weaker when the internal team environment is supportive whereas they are stronger when the internal team environment is unsupportive.

H3b. The relationship between diversity in performance-prove orientation and the process of elaborating task relevant information is moderated by the internal team environment. The negative effects of diversity in performance-prove orientation on the process of elaborating task relevant information are weaker when the internal team environment is supportive whereas they are stronger when the internal team environment is unsupportive. H3c. The relationship between diversity in performance-avoid orientation and the process of elaboration of task relevant information is moderated by internal team environment. The negative effects of diversity in performance-avoid orientation on the process of the elaboration of task relevant information are weaker when the internal team environment is supportive whereas they are stronger when the internal team environment is unsupportive.


129

A model illustrating the proposed relationships is shown in Figure 1. Method Sample Data for the present study were collected from auditors and consultants working in two audit companies (belonging to the “Big Four” group) and a consultant company based in Italy. Audit and consultant teams define a compelling sample because goal orientation has a critical role for team decision-making processes and performance. Indeed, auditors and consultants are simultaneously motivated by performance goals for the necessity to satisfy customers’ needs and by learning goals for the necessity to achieve a steady professional growth, and be competitive on the job market. Sampled teams consisted of auditors and consultants in different stages of their career (i.e. senior manager, manager, assistant, junior assistant). Teams were responsible for tax, legal or financial consulting to organizations in different industries, such as public administration, shipping, automotive, energy, etc. Sampled companies were initially contacted via e-mail and, after gaining consent, visited to ask managers’ commitment, promising feedback about the individuals’ perception of team dynamics. Consistent with other studies on this topic (e.g. Simons et al., 1999; Tsui et al., 1992; Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005), “the informant sampling approach” was followed to select the participating teams. It requires internal support from HR managers in the selection of teams that have relevant characteristics fitting with research aims. Since members participated in multiple teams, they were asked to complete an online web survey related to the dynamics of a distinct team identified by the name of the customer. A coding system was proposed to companies to prevent the diffusion of

Figure 1. Conceptual model

EDI 31,2

130

confidential information (e.g. the name of the customer). Following suggestions for management of online web surveys provided by Dillman (1999) and Kraut (2005), several interventions were taken to ensure the participation of all team members, and increase the response rate. First, each team member was personally invited to complete the survey – the e-mail set out to explain both the research aims and to guarantee the confidentially of responses. Second, HR managers sent a further e-mail specifying the importance of the research for the company. Finally, two follow-ups (after two and four weeks) were sent to strengthen the complete participation of team members. A total of 262 team members and 40 supervisors were e-mailed with a web link that redirected to an online questionnaire. I received 174 (66.4 percent) members’ and 30 (75 percent) supervisors’ response. Inclusion in the final sample required a complete survey from both the supervisor of each team and at least 50 percent of the team members. The survey matching process reduced the sample to 124 (47.3 percent) team members who were rated by 24 (60 percent) supervisors. The average team size was 7.93 (SD ¼ 4:77); 70 percent of team members were male with an average age of 28.5 years (SD ¼ 3:05), and all members had a degree in economics or statistics. Team tenure was 12.43 months (SD ¼ 14:003); team familiarity, concerning how well team members knew each other before of project start, was 2.28 (SD ¼ 0:57) thereby reflecting a moderate level of team familiarity. Measurement Diversity in goal orientation. Goal orientation was measured using a 13-item scale developed by VandeWalle (1997). The scale allows partial values for learning, performance-prove, and performance-avoid orientations to be measured. Sample items are: “I enjoy changeling and difficult tasks at work where I’ll learn new skills” (learning orientation); “I try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others at work” (performance-prove orientation); “I’m concerned about taking on a task at work if my performance would reveal that I had a low ability” (performance-avoid orientation). The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scale are 0.86 for learning goal orientation; 0.82 for performance-prove goal orientation and 0.88 for performance-avoid goal orientation. Diversity was calculated as the standard deviation on each scale within each group (Harrison and Klein, 2007). Team performance. To avoid potential bias related to the utilization of a single source of information (i.e. common rater effect (Podsakoff et al., 2003)); team performance was measured using supervisors’ ratings of six performance criteria drawn from previous research on this topic (e.g. Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Established criteria were quality, efficiency, adherence to schedule, adherence to budget, overall achievement, and improved customer satisfaction. Each supervisor was asked to indicate whether team performance were higher, lower, or on average in comparison with the performance achieved by other teams engaged in similar projects in the company. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.84. Group information elaboration. Group information elaboration was measured using a four-item scale developed by Kearney et al. (2009). A sample item is: “Members of this team carefully consider the unique information provided by each individual team member”. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.71. Internal team environment. The internal team environment was measured using a ten-item scale including members’ rating to shared purpose, social support and voice.

Items for shared purposes and social support were developed by Carson et al. (2007). Items for voice were developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items are: “The members of my team discuss our team’s main tasks and objectives to ensure that we have a fair understanding” (shared purpose); “The members of my team give encouragement to team members who seem frustrated” (social support); “As a member of this team, I have a real say in how this team carries out its work” (voice). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.88. Control variables. Team size and team familiarity were included as controls since previous research has shown that these variables are significantly related to the effects of any underlying attributes of diversity on team processes and performance (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002). Team familiarity was measured using a scale introduced by Gruenfeld et al. (1996). Team members were asked to indicate how well they had known other colleagues before the project began. Interrater agreement and reliability. Group information elaboration and internal team environment were measured using data collected from each team member relying on the assumption that members’ ratings reflect a shared perception of team dynamics. If this assumption is supported, ratings from members of the same team need to be similar to one another, and significantly dissimilar from ratings provided by members of different teams (Bliese, 2000). Consistent with team research, this assumption was verified considering the average interrater agreement coefficient (rwgj ( James et al., 1984)) and the interclass correlation (ICC(1); ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000)). Mean values of rwgj were 0.94 for elaboration of task relevant information and 0.90 for internal team environment, which indicate a high level of agreement within the team. ICC(1) was 0.14 for the elaboration of task relevant information and 0.10 for perception of internal team environment, which suggest that a significant part of the variance was due to team membership (Bliese, 2000). Values for ICC(2) were 0.47 for the elaboration of task relevant information and 0.20 for the internal team environment. These values are lower than the values obtained in prior research; however, these differences might be due to different size of teams sampled in the present study in comparison with studies that established the cut-off values (Bliese, 2000). Analysis Hierarchical multiple-regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses (Cohen et al., 2003). This technique was used since all investigated variables are at team level. Mediation was tested following the procedure illustrated by Baron and Kenny (1986), which argues to verify three steps to establish the presence of a mediation effect. First, the presence of a direct effect between the independent and the dependent variable need to be established (step 1). Second, the mediator variable need to influence the dependent variable (step 2) and finally, this effect need to be verified by controlling for the independent variable. The moderating role of internal team environment was tested using the “simple-slope” procedure illustrated by Aiken and West (1991). It allows the significance of the changes of the dependent variable on the independent variable at higher, moderate, and lower levels of the moderator variable to be verified. Results Before all the proposed relationships were tested simultaneously, the discriminant validity of the measurement model through a confirmatory factor analysis was


131

EDI 31,2

132

verified. A measurement model where all items load on a single factor was compared with a measurement model where items load on the four factors: goal orientation, team performance, group information elaboration, and internal team environment. The results reported in Table I show that the four-factors model fits the data better, thus indicating support for the discriminant validity of the variables in the current study. A preliminary correlation analysis was then performed (Table II). The findings confirm that relations proceeded in the expected directions. Diversity in learning orientation, performance-prove orientation and performance-avoid orientation were negatively related to both team performance and group information elaboration. In addition, the internal team environment was positively related to group information elaboration. Tables III-V summarize the results of analyses for diversity in learning, performance-prove and performance-avoid goal orientation. The hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c, which assume that diversity in learning, performance-prove and performance-avoid orientations are negatively related to team performance, are supported by data. Diversity in learning orientation (b ¼ 24:99, p , 0:001), performance-prove orientation (b ¼ 21:44, p , 0:001), and performance-avoid orientation (b ¼ 20:03, p , 0:01) were all negatively related to team performance. The hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c, which assume that group information elaboration mediates the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and team performance, are supported by data. In particular, the findings show that diversity in goal orientation is negatively related to group information elaboration (b ¼ 20:67, p , 0:001), and that group information elaboration is significantly related to team performance after controlling for it (b ¼ 1:57, p , 0:001). Although diversity in learning orientation remained significant, the result of the Sobel test shows that the mediation effect was significant (Z ¼ 23:48, p , 0:001) (Table II). Regarding diversity in performance-prove orientation, the result of the Sobel test confirms the presence of a significant mediator effect (Z ¼ 24:77, p , 0:001) (Table IV). Finally, the results show that group information elaboration fully mediated the relationship between diversity in performance-avoid orientation and team performance (Z ¼ 22:34, p , 0:05) (Table V). The hypotheses H3a, H3b and H3c, which assume that a supportive internal team environment might moderate the relationships between diversity in goal orientation and group information elaboration, are supported by data only for the hypothesis H3a (see model 2 in Tables III-V). In particular, only the interaction term associated with diversity in learning orientation (diversity in learning orientation £ internal team environment) was significantly associated with group information elaboration (b ¼ 2:09, p , 0:001) (Table III). The simple-slope test confirms that, in teams with a supportive internal team environment, diversity in learning orientation was positively related to group information elaboration (b ¼ 1:07, t ¼ 3:87, p , 0:001). Instead, in teams with an unsupportive internal team environment, diversity in learning orientation was negatively related to group information elaboration Model

Table I. Results of confirmatory factorial analysis

1 factor 4 factors

x2

df

NFI

CFI

RMSEA

1,994.33 1,238.50

495 495

0.236 0.535

0.298 0.649

0.168 0.120

Team size Team familiarity Diversity in learning orientation Diversity in performance-prove orientation Diversity in performance-avoid orientation Team performance Elaboration of task relevant information Internal team environment

Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Variables 7.93 2.28 0.57 1.07 1.32 5.20 4.18 3.90

Mean 4.77 .57 0.12 0.27 0.31 0.86 0.29 0.27

SD 1

1 20.13 1

2

4 0.27 * * 2 0.23 * 0.14 (0.82)

3 0.57 * * * 0.16 * (0.86) 20.02 0.22 * 20.18 * 0.40 * (0.88)

5 20.45 * * * 0.13 20.66 * * * 20.54 * * * 0.01 (0.84)

6

8 2 0.40 * * * 0.13 2 0.34 * * * 2 0.13 2 0.01 0.58 * * * 0.63 * * * (0.88)

7 20.62 * * * 0.28 * * 20.53 * * * 20.49 * * * 20.10 0.71 * * * (0.71)


133

Table II. Means, standard deviations, and correlations

EDI 31,2 Variables

134

Table III. Coefficients of regression analyses for team performance and interaction of diversity in learning orientation and internal team environment

Table IV. Coefficients of regression analyses for team performance and interaction of diversity in performance-prove orientation and internal team environment

Step 1 Team size Team familiarity Elaboration of task relevant information Diversity in learning orient. Internal team environment F R2 Step 2: interaction effect Diversity in learning orientation £ internal team environment DR 2 F R2

Model 1: team performance b SE 20.004 0.36 * *

Model 2: elaboration of task relevant information b SE

0.01 20.01 * * * 0.004 0.10 0.12 * * * 0.03

24.99 * * * 0.64 20.67 * * * 0.18 0.42 * * * 0.07 35.11 44.77 0.48 0.62

Model 3: team performance b SE 0.03 * 0.13 1.57 * * * 23.60 * *

0.01 0.10 0.24 0.24

46.06 0.62

2.09 * * * 0.19 0.14 48.15 0.71

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance codes *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported


Variables

Model 1: team performance b SE

Step 1 Team size Team familiarity Elaboration of task relevant information Diversity in performance-prove orientation Internal team environment F R2

2 0.06 * 0.01 20.02 * 0.003 2 0.005 2 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.02 2 0.14 1.74 * 2 1.44 * 0.25 20.33 * 0.06 2 0.85 0.47 * 0.06 22.95 54.4 33.54 0.38 0.66 0.54

Step 2: interaction effect Diversity in performance-prove orientation £ internal team environment DR 2 F R2

Model 3: team performance b SE 0.01 0.10 0.27 0.23

0.001 0.01 0.28 43.1 0.66

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance code *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported

(b ¼ 20:2:52, t ¼ 28:86, p , 0:01). These findings are illustrated in Figure 2 where it can be observed the different relationship of diversity in learning orientation with group information elaboration at supportive, unsupportive and moderately supportive internal team environment.

Variables Step 1 Team size Team familiarity Elaboration of task relevant information Diversity in performance-avoid orientation Internal team environment F R2 Step 2: interaction effect Diversity in performance-avoid orientation £ internal team environment DR 2 F R2




20.08 * * * 0.01 20.03 * * * 0.004 0.003 0.11 0.13 0.12 * * 0.03 20.15 2.24 * * * 20.03 * 0.24 20.16 * 0.07 0.33 0.51 * * * 0.07 9.46 29.12 28.52 0.19 0.44 0.50

0.01 0.01 0.27 0.19

0.01 0.25 33.28 0.60

Notes: n ¼ 24; Significance codes *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001; adjusted R 2 are reported


135

Table V. Coefficients of regression analyses for team performance and interaction of diversity in performance-avoid orientation and internal team environment

Figure 2. Internal team environment as moderator of the relationship between diversity in learning orientation and the process of elaboration of task relevant information

EDI 31,2

136

Discussion The purpose of this paper was to investigate the effects of diversity in goal orientation on team processes and performance, especially considering how the presence of a supportive internal team environment might influence these relationships. The results of this study indicate that: . the three dimensions of diversity in goal orientation are related to decreased team performance; . group information elaboration mediates the relationship between diversity in learning, performance-prove, performance-avoid goal orientation and team performance; and . internal team environment reduces the negative effects of diversity in learning orientation on group information elaboration. This study contributes to team literature in several ways. First, this study contributes to emphasize the importance to consider and directly measure deep-level attributes of diversity, in addition to surface-level attributes, to favor a better understanding of team dynamics (van Dijk et al., 2009). So doing, it challenges the approach traditionally used by scholars who are likely to measure surface level attributes as a proxy for theoretical speculation on actual differences in deep-level attributes (e.g. Chatman et al., 1998). Second, this study expands Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’s (2011) seminal contribution on diversity in goal orientation in at least two ways. First, the current research uses an empirical study with a professional sample. Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) research made use of a laboratory setting with a student sample. Although they highlighted the validity of this approach, they claimed for further field studies that might address the issue of generalizability. Hence, the current research contributes to the literature by strengthen the reliability of these findings, and corroborating the importance to consider goal orientation as a relevant deep-level attribute of diversity in teams. Second, this study expands Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’s study since it considers a three-dimensional model of goal orientation in teams. Nederveen-Pieterse et al. (2011), in fact, focused on a two-dimensional model of goal orientation, considering the effects of diversity in learning and performance orientation only. This study considers the consequences for team processes and performance associated with diversity in performance-avoid orientation. So doing, it also challenges prior research that did not found a significant relationship between performance-avoid goal orientation and team performance (e.g. Mehta et al., 2009). Finally, this study makes a constructive contribution to team management literature, since it shows that the presence of a supportive internal environment might attenuate the negative consequences of diversity in goal orientation on group information elaboration. So doing, it illustrates a fruitful intervention that might allow managers to leverage the benefits of diversity in goal orientation, while at the same time minimizing the coordination problems associated with higher levels of diversity (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Hirst et al., 2009; Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011; Porter et al., 2010; Roberge and van Dick, 2010). A possible explanation for these findings might be found in the following arguments. First of all, diversity in goal orientation might induce in the team a strong disagreement with regard to goals pursued, tasks performed, and strategies adopted. For example, individuals with a learning orientation might exhort the team to raise the

level of goals, even suggesting the adoption of unexplored procedures to achieve them. Instead, individuals with a performance-prove or a performance-avoid orientation may exhort the team to set a lower level of goals, mostly suggesting the adoption of traditional and well-know procedures that reduce the likelihood of errors. Internal disagreement might generate interpersonal animosity, and immobility in task accomplishment, which negatively relate to team performance. Additionally, diversity in goal orientations might lead to interaction problems, and reduced group information elaboration. Team members might decide to intentionally reduce the communication with members having a different goal orientation, and to not share with them relevant information (Nederveen-Pieterse et al., 2011). This situation might depend on two reasons. First, human beings have a natural tendency to initiate interaction with people that share a common background, common memories, and a common goal orientation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). For example, members with a learning or performance orientation will be more likely to initiate an interaction with individuals having a similar goal orientation because such interaction is perceived as relaxed, understandable, and satisfying. Second, a state of anxiety is usually associated with interaction with people different from self because of potential misunderstanding, negative judgments, derision, and even insults (Berscheid and Walster, 1969; Byrne and Nelson, 1965; Singh and Ho, 2000; Singh and Tan, 1992). For example, individuals with a performance-avoid goal orientation might perceive a state of anxiety when interacting with colleagues learning oriented since they are concerned with not showing a lack of expertise, and avoiding possible negative judgments. Finally, an explanation for the moderating role of the internal team environment might lie in the positive consequences associated with the perception of a supportive team environment. The presence of a supportive team environment can stimulate a higher participation of all members in the decision-making process. It nurtures a higher involvement in teamwork, and induces among team members a positive mood that leads them to cooperate with others, regardless of different goal orientation. Indeed, the presence of a supportive internal environment might contribute to reduce the salience of individual differences by nurturing the perception that the achievement of common goals and high levels of performance are more important than individual differences (Carson et al., 2007). Managerial implications This study has several implications for management. In particular, it suggests the adoption of appropriate HR policies that stimulate a supportive team environment and help to leverage the benefits associated with higher levels of diversity. Diversity in goal orientation need to be encouraged more than dissuaded since, if properly managed, the simultaneous presence of members with a different goal orientation can generate benefits more than losses. For example, learning oriented individuals might exhort the team to dedicate greater attention to learning activities, such as the research of innovations in tasks and procedures. Instead, performance oriented individuals might exhort the team to dedicate greater attention to performance activities, such as adherence to deadline or budget. Since these activities have been shown to be equally relevant for the achievement of a higher effectiveness in internal strategies and performance (Mehta et al., 2009), it is clear that diversity in goal orientation is beneficial for teams. Team leaders can have a critical role in managing internal environment and


137

EDI 31,2

138

team diversity. Because of their status and experience, team leaders might help acknowledging the benefits associated with higher levels of diversity (DeRue et al., 2010; Maltbia and Power, 2009), and overcoming differences in goal orientation, thereby favoring a deeper elaboration and integration of information, perspectives and ideas among team members (Nederveen-Pieterse, 2009). Another fruitful intervention is the development of diversity training programs that might help to foster a better acknowledgment of the benefits associated with diversity ( Jackson and Joshi, 2010; Kulik and Roberson, 2008; Maltbia and Power, 2009). Topics worthy addressing might be the presence of high levels of diversity in apparently homogeneous teams; the importance of unique information held by each team members; the benefits of integrating multiple ideas and perspectives, conflict management, etc. Additionally, it might be beneficial to train teams using various techniques for group decision making and decision support system (DSS) (e.g. simulation models), which encourage team members to share and discuss openly information, and stimulate group information elaboration abilities. Finally, another fruitful intervention might concern the encouragement of cross-understanding among team members through task complexity. Cross-understanding refers to the extent to which team members have an accurate knowledge of one another’s mental model (Huber and Lewis, 2010). Huber and Lewis (2010) suggested that cross-understanding might reduce the salience of individual differences since it promotes integration and identification of similarities in personal characteristics. In particular, they argued that increased task complexity is useful to promote cross-understanding since it requires a closer interaction and interdependence among team members to accomplish with assigned tasks. Increased task complexity might help the team to overcome divergences associated with diversity, since it fosters team members to rely on each another, and discover shared perspectives and common mental frameworks, to solve difficult tasks. Limitations This research has several limitations. Firstly, it was conducted on a small sample (n ¼ 24) thus influencing the validity of assumption of interrater agreement and restricting the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the particular organizational context considered might have influenced the results. Audit and consultant teams’ performance strongly depend on customers’ evaluations; hence high levels of performance-prove or performance-avoid orientation might have been induced by the organizational context more than by individual differences. In such contexts, indeed, even the smaller error might have serious economic and legal consequences. Future research carried out on a larger sample is required to extend the understanding of the possible effects of diversity in goal orientation. Second, the utilization of subjective indicators of team performance might have influenced the relationship between diversity in goal orientation and team performance. van Dijk et al. (2009) argued that the use of subjective or objective indicators of team performance influences the level of statistical significance, and the magnitude of the relationship between diversity and team performance. Thus, even though team supervisors provided data on team performance, some bias might exist with the results because supervisors are directly involved in team dynamics, by managing strategic activities such as external team relationships with customers.

However, despite these limitations, this study makes a significant contribution to existing research since it extends Nederveen-Pieterse et al.’ (2011) seminal contribution on diversity in goal orientation, by emphasizing the importance of internal team environment in reducing the negative effects of diversity in goal orientation on team processes and outcomes. Note 1. Dweck (1986) introduced the construct of goal orientation by observing pupil reaction toward the assignment of tasks with different levels of complexity. He noticed that some pupils became depressed when coping with newer and more difficult tasks. They showed a lower interest in continuing the activity and adopted ineffective strategies to cope with them. On the contrary, other pupils were excited by newer and more difficult tasks, showed a higher interest and adopted more effective strategies to cope with them (VandeWalle, 2001). He argued that the first reaction reflects an individual disposition for performance achievement, whereas the second reaction reflects an individual disposition for learning and personal development. Hence, he defined the former disposition as “performance goal orientation” and the latter as “learning goal orientation”. References Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, 3rd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-41. Antill, J.K. (1983), “Sex role complementarity versus similarity in married couples”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 145-55. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82. Bell, S.T. (2007), “Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615. Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. (1969), Interpersonal Attraction, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Bliese, P. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-81. Brown, D.J. and Lord, R.G. (1999), “The utility of experimental research in the study of transformational/charismatic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 531-9. Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2003), “Management team learning orientation and business unit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 552-60. Byrne, D.E. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY. Byrne, D.E. and Nelson, D. (1965), “Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 659-63. Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1217-34.


139

EDI 31,2

140

Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S. and Neale, M.A. (1998), “Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 749-80. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. DeRue, S.C., Barnes, C.M. and Morgeson, F.P. (2010), “Understanding the motivational contingencies of team leadership”, Small Group Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 621-51. Dillman, D.A. (1999), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley, New York, NY. Dragoni, L. (2005), “Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational work groups: the role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1084-95. Dragoni, L. and Kuenzi, M. (2010), “The impact of a climate for learning: boundary conditions and facilitators”, paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Conference, Montreal. Dweck, C.S. (1986), “Motivational processes affecting learning”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1040-8. Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-73. Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y. and Neale, M.A. (1996), “Group composition and decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1199-228. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effect of surface versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H. and Florey, A.T. (2002), “Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of diversity on group functioning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1029-45. Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D. and Zhou, J. (2009), “A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 280-93. Homan, A.C., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and Ilgen, D.R. (2008), “Facing differences with an open mind: openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1204-22. Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007), “Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189-99. Huber, G.P. and Lewis, K. (2010), “Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition and performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 6-26. Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2010), “Work team diversity”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. II, APA, Washington, DC.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98. Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009), “Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 77-89. Kearney, E., Gebert, D. and Voelpel, S.C. (2009), “When and how diversity benefits teams: the importance of team members’ need for cognition”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 581-98. Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1997), “A model of work team empowerment”, in Pasmore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development: An Annual Series Featuring Advances in Theory, Methodology, and Research, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 131-67. Kraut, A.I. (2005), Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kristof-Brown, A. and Stevens, C.K. (2001), “Goal congruence in project teams: does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1083-95. Kulik, C.T. and Roberson, L. (2008), “Common goals and golden opportunities: evaluations of diversity education in academic and organizational settings”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-31. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-16. Maltbia, T. and Power, A. (2009), A Leader’s Guide to Leveraging Diversity: Strategic Learning Capabilities for Breakthrough Performance, Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam. McGrath, J.E. (1984), Group Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mehta, A., Field, H., Armenakis, A. and Mehta, N. (2009), “Team goal orientation and team performance: the mediating role of team planning”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1026-46. Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.J. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-33. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K. (2010), “Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 876-910. Nederveen-Pieterse, A. (2009), “Goal orientation in teams: the role of diversity”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Nederveen-Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D. and van Ginkel, W.P. (2011), “Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity and team performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 153-64. O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J. and Frink, D.D. (1994), “A review of the influence of group goals on group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1285-01. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method variance in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Porter, C.O., Webb, J.W. and Gogus, C.I. (2010), “When goal orientations collide: effects of learning and performance orientation on team adaptability in response to workload imbalance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 935-43.


141

EDI 31,2

142

Roberge, M. and van Dick, R. (2010), “Recognizing the benefits of diversity: when and how does diversity increase group performance?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 295-308. Schilpzand, M.C., Herold, D.N. and Shalley, C.E. (2011), “Members’ openness to experience and teams’ creative performance”, Small Group Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 55-76. Simons, T.L., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-73. Singh, R. and Ho, S.Y. (2000), “Attitudes and attraction: a new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 197-211. Singh, R. and Tan, L.S.C. (1992), “Attitudes and attraction: a test of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 227-38. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-79. Van der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), “Learning and performance in multi- disciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 532-47. VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”, Educational & Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015. VandeWalle, D. (2001), “Goal orientation: why wanting to look successful doesn’t always lead to success”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 162-71. van Dijk, H., van Engen, M.L. and van Knippenberg, D. (2009), “Work group diversity and group performance: a meta-analysis”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-19. van Emmerik, I.J.H. and Brenninkmeijer, V. (2009), “Deep-level similarity and group social capital: associations with team functioning”, Small Group Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 650-69. van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2008), “Group information elaboration and group decision making: the role of shared task representations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 82-97. van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2009), “Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: when and why does it work?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 218-29. van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Work group diversity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 515-41. van Knippenberg, D. and van Ginkel, W.P. (2010), “The categorization-elaboration model of work group diversity: wielding the double-edged sword”, in Crisp, R. (Ed.), The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1008-22. Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research”, in Staw, B. and Sutton, R. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 77-140.


143 About the author Marcello Russo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Strategy, Rouen Business School, France. He received his PhD at the University of Naples Parthenope, Italy. He has been a Visiting Scholar in the “Social-Organizational Psychology Program” at the Teachers College of Columbia University, New York City, USA. His current research interests include: work-life balance, diversity and stereotype, teams, and healthcare management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints