Blurred Lines: How the Collectivism Norm Operates Through Perceived Group Diversity to Boost or Harm Group Performance in Himalayan Mountain Climbing

Abstract

We develop and test a theory that reconciles contradictions regarding how collectivistic norms influence group performance. We draw on the perceived diversity literature to hypothesize that collectivistic norms cause group members to "blur" demographic differences, resulting in a shared perception that group members are more similar to one another than they actually are. Whether this benefits or harms group performance depends on the level of objective diversity in the group and the relevance of the perceived diversity attribute for accomplishing the group's task. For conjunctive tasks, the group's performance is determined by its weakest member, and high levels of cohesion are needed. Our theory suggests that collectivism benefits group conjunctive performance when objective national diversity is high by blurring divisive relational differences and has no effect in groups with low objective national diversity. In contrast, for disjunctive tasks, the group's performance is determined by its best member. Our theory suggests that collectivism harms group disjunctive performance when objective expertness diversity is high by blurring differences in task-relevant expertness and has no effects in groups with low objective expertness diversity. We find support for our theory in two studies, including an archival study of 5,214 Himalayan climbing groups and a laboratory experiment involving 356 groups. Our results show that collectivism is a double-edged sword for diverse groups, and that these contradictory effects can be understood by identifying how the collectivistic blurring of perceived group diversity helps or hurts groups based on the structure of the tasks on which they are working.

Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams.

“…We assume that the leader is motivated to understand the team’s needs and manage team diversity (see also Nishii, Khattab, Shemla, & Paluch, 2018). Additionally, as diversity has greater potential to benefit performance on complex and interdependent rather than simple and independent tasks (Bowers et al, 2000; Chatman, Greer, Sherman, & Doerr, 2019; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Wegge, Roth, Neubach, Schmidt, & Kanfer, 2008), our analysis focuses on interdependent teams working on more complex tasks (e.g., problem-solving, creativity, decision-making). Finally, we examine leader effectiveness at the team level.…”

Cultures of Genius at Work: Organizational Mindsets Predict Cultural Norms, Trust, and Commitment

“…1 These norms are considered central to defining an organization’s culture. Collaboration, which is a basic dimension of organizing (e.g., Chatman, Greer, Sherman, & Doerr, 2019), increases employees’ productivity by emphasizing the importance of coordinating with relevant others to accomplish group and organizational goals and promotes feelings of connectedness at work (Edmondson, 1999). Norms of innovation and adaptability encourage measured risk-taking and experimentation with novel ideas and approaches—leading organizations to develop new products and services (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; Chatman et al, 2014).…”

Using Sports Data to Advance Management Research: A Review and a Guide for Future Studies

“…Rather than being driven by the team's individual attributes, rivalry perceptions varied at the dyad level and were the highest when teams were similar, had a history of repeated interactions, and competed in evenly matched competitions. These findings were novel as they revealed that the underlying psychological components of rivalry were subjective and relational, which contrasted with prior work that had generally used the word rivalry and competition as synonyms or defined a subset of competitors as rivals based either on more objective features (such as threats) or on current—rather than past—features or events (such as the exchange of competitive moves; Chen, 1996).…”

“…Sports also present positive examples of inclusivity, for example, by providing equal opportunities to people with disabilities (as in sailing, where in the International 2.4mR boat class, both able-bodied and disabled athletes participate on equal terms, and where a disabled athlete became a world champion), by representing a way to help migrants integrate (e.g., teams of migrants playing in local soccer leagues), and by affording children in less-developed countries access to education (e.g., the UNICEF-supported program in Nigeria helping children and adolescents-especially girls-to get an education via specific academies that combine academics and soccer, thus increasing their chances of professional success). Recent work leveraging sports data has started to deal with and identify biases, differences in treatment, and more in general exclusion-as well as inclusion-based on a variety of dimensions, such as race (Ertug & Maoret, 2020;Pope et al, 2018;Timmerman, 2007;Zhang, 2017Zhang, , 2019, gender (Adriaanse, 2016;Micelotta, Washington, & Docekalova, 2018;Ortlieb & Sieben, 2019), nationality (Chatman, Greer, Sherman, & Doerr, 2019), and core-periphery position (Christie & Barling, 2010;Fonti & Maoret, 2016;Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009;Stuart, 2017). Some work has also highlighted how sports can provide a more inclusive environment (e.g., better career prospects across genders; cf.…”