Content uploaded by Franziska Jungmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Franziska Jungmann on Feb 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
What makes age diverse teams effective?
Results from a six-year research program1
Wegge, J.a*, Jungmann, F.a, Liebermann, S.a, Shemla, M.a, Ries, B.C.b, Diestel, S.b and Schmidt, K.-H.b
aWork and Organizational Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01069 Dresden,
Germany
bLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Technische Universität Dortmund,
Ardeystraße 67, 44139 Dortmund, Germany
Abstract. Based on a new model of productivity in age diverse tams, ndings from a six-year research program are reported in
which data from more than 745 natural teams with 8,848 employees in three different elds (car production, administrative
work, nancial services) were collected. Moreover, central assumptions of this model were tested with a representative survey
of the German workforce (N = 2,000). Results support both signicant advantages and disadvantages for age-mixed teams.
Based on the findings, the following preconditions for the effectiveness of age diverse teams are identied: high task complexi-
ty, low salience and high appreciation of age diversity, a positive team climate, low age-discrimination, ergonomic design of
work places, and the use of age differentiated leadership. Based on these insights, we developed a new training for supervisors,
which addresses the aforementioned aspects and seeks to improve team performance and health of team members. It was found
that the training reduces age stereotypes, team conflicts and enhances innovation. Thus, we can conclude that effective inter-
ventions for a successful integration of elderly employees in work groups are available and that combinations of measures that
address ergonomic design issues, team composition and leadership are to be strongly recommended for practice.
Keywords: age-diversity, team performance, health, age salience, appreciation of age diversity
1 This research was supported by six grants from the German research foundation (DFG, WE 1504/8-1/2/3 and SCHM 851-1/2/3).
*Corresponding author is Prof. Dr. Jürgen Wegge, tel. no: +49 351463-33784 (-33589 fax), E-mail: wegge@psychologie.tu-dresden.de
1. Introduction
Due to the demographic change in Germany and
most other European countries, the proportion of
elderly workers is increasing. It is expected that in
the future organizations will experience difficulties in
finding young workers and will have to rely more
heavily on older (50plus) workers. Therefore, human
resource management is called upon to find strategies
for the successful integration of older employees. In
this article, the possibility of using age-mixed teams
as a potential strategy is discussed, updating also
what is known about the effects of age diversity.
Based on theories of social categorization
processes [22] and models of information processing
[24], age diversity in teams may result in advantages
(e.g., utilization of differences in experience for
problem solving) as well as disadvantages for team-
work (e.g., intensification of emotional conflicts in
groups). Recent review articles [30] and meta-
analytic studies [12] have shown, however, that nega-
tive effects of age diversity in teams are more likely
than positive effects. Thus, more research is needed
to identify the conditions favorable for utilizing age
diverse teamwork.
In line with this idea, a new model (Figure 1),
which describes different paths linking team compo-
sition in terms of age with group effectivity, was de-
veloped. This model explains why prior diversity
research has often found contradicting effects for the
impact of age diversity on team performance and
other outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, health). In the fol-
lowing, the theoretical foundation of this model is
outlined. Next the empirical basis of the project is
summarized and the key findings are presented.
1051-9815/12/$27.50 © 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserve
d
5145
Work 41 (2012) 5145-5151
D
OI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0084-5145
I
OS Press
Age diversity
in teams
low
age salience
high age
salience
cognitive
conflicts
emotional
conflicts
finding new solutions
complex task demands
implementing solutions
routine tasks
synergy
disruption
positive team climate
high appreciation of
age diversity
negative team cllimate
low appreciation of
age diversity G
R
O
U
P
E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
Fig. 1: A new model of group effectivity in age-diverse teams
2. Theoretical background
Diversity research has mainly been guided by two
psychological traditions: the social categorization
perspective [9,22] and the information processing
perspective [33]. The starting point for the social
categorization theory is the idea that individuals are
assumed to have a desire to maintain a high level of
self-esteem. This is often achieved through a process
of social comparison with others. In making these
comparisons, individuals first define themselves
through a process of self-categorization in which they
classify themselves and others into social categories
using salient characteristics that are relevant in a spe-
cific context. Similarities and differences between
team members form the basis for categorizing oneself
and others into groups, distinguishing between simi-
lar in-group members and dissimilar out-group mem-
bers. As people tend to favor in-group members over
out-group members, trust in-group members more,
and are more willing to cooperate with in-group
members [25] diversity may thus lead to cognitive
biases, discrimination, and emotional conflict in
teams. The second perspective is much more optimis-
tic. Based on cognitive theories of information
processing, it is assumed that more diverse groups
hold a broader range of task-relevant knowledge,
skills, and abilities. Furthermore, they are more likely
to consist of members with different experiences,
opinions, and viewpoints. Accordingly, diversity may
improve team functioning through an increased range
of knowledge and expertise. Specifically, the use of
different knowledge sources might facilitate task-
relevant elaboration [24] and lead to task-related con-
flicts (cf. [11]), which may consequently result in
more mature decisions and improved performance.
This positive impact of diversity can be expected
especially when tasks benefit from multiple perspec-
tives and diverse knowledge [3]. Thus, diversity may
enhance group functioning in tasks that require inno-
vation and complex decision-making.
Wegge [27] and van Knippenberg et al. [24] have
suggested that these theoretical formulations are not
conflicting but address different aspects of the psy-
chological processes by which diversity may influ-
ence work unit outcomes. In other words, it is sug-
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective?
5146
gested that the effects of team diversity can be ex-
plained and described by both theories, and that work
unit diversity may exert either or both positive and
negative effects simultaneously. The model in Figure
1 therefore integrates both perspectives and indicates
the main moderating and mediating variables regard-
ing potential benefits and risks related to age diversi-
ty [19,31]. The authors propose that – ceteris paribus
– age diversity in work groups will have negative
effects on group performance, motivation and health
of group members because objective age diversity in
teams increases the salience of age diversity (i.e.
whether diversity is indeed observed by group mem-
bers). When the salience of age diversity is high,
team conflict increases and this yields low team ef-
fectiveness. However, it is further postulated that,
under favorable conditions, beneficial effects should
be observed, too. High appreciation of age diversity
(i.e. positive judgments regarding the value of age
diversity in team work), a positive team climate and
high team task complexity (novelty) are considered
as favorable moderating variables. Thus, in testing
the model, corresponding measures of age diversity
salience, age diversity appreciation and team climate
were developed. Moreover, we examined the mediat-
ing influence of conflicts and differentiated between
age diversity in groups that engage in complex or
more routine team tasks.
3. Empirical basis of the research project
Five independent studies were conducted to ex-
amine the validity of the research model. Due to re-
strictions in data collection in some fields, it was not
always possible to assess the complete set of va-
riables. In the following, an overview of the specific
research designs and measures is given. All measures
used in these studies were sufficiently reliable (see
single publications for detailed information).
3.1. Types of teams and research designs
Three different types of teams were analyzed in
this project: (i) Administrative teams working in tax-
offices (222 teams in an archival study, n = 4,538;
155 of those teams were also observed longitudinally
over 2 years, t1 = 155 teams with n = 722, t2 = 69
teams with n = 397) and pension-offices (67 teams
with n = 435 in a longitudinal study over 2 years), (ii)
245 nancial service teams (n = 2514 over a period
of four years, only demographic and performance
data were available), and (iii) 56 car production
teams (n = 639, demographic data and data on absen-
teeism and performance over one year were availa-
ble). In addition, in order to test the generalizability
of the core assumption of our model (i.e. the link
between age diversity, age diversity salience, age
discrimination and health disorders), we also con-
ducted a representative survey of the German work-
force (N = 2,000) [28].
3.2. Measures
Age diversity was calculated using either the
standard deviation of objective age within the
team [8] or the Blau-index (see [6]). In the
representative survey of the German work-
force age diversity was assessed with a single
question regarding the age distribution within
the participants` own work team.
Age-diversity salience was measured with a
newly developed questionnaire comprising
six items (e.g., “The age difference between
my colleagues is very conscious to me”; “The
different age of the members in our group is a
topic which is discussed”) [20].
Appreciation of age diversity was assessed
with six newly developed items (e.g., “My
group benefits from input from younger as
well as older members” and “A group works
better if it consists of members from different
age groups”) [32].
Team climate was measured with nine items
presented by Moltzen and van Dick [14]. A
sample item is “We support each other in our
group, so we can do our work as good as
possible “.
Emotional and task conflicts in teams were
assessed with scales presented by Jehn [11].
Sample items are “It is obvious that there are
personal conflicts in our group” and “Con-
flicts concerning tasks occur in our group fre-
quently”.
Task complexity was controlled for in one
large study (archival tax office study, n =
4,500) where employees had the same job le-
vels and basic task requirements but either
worked on routine or complex tax declara-
tions [29].
Age discrimination was measured in the rep-
resentative survey of the German workforce
with eight items [28] based on the Nordic
Age Discrimination Scale [7]. Participants
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective? 5147
indicated the degree of age discrimination in
their workplace with regard to promotion,
training, development, appraisals, wage in-
creases and change processes. A sample item
is “Older workers have less opportunities for
training at work“.
Ergonomic workload was measured in the au-
tomotive study with the “Automotive Assem-
bly Worksheet” [6].
Several dependent variables were assessed in
the studies:
Performance was measured with objective
processing times in tax offices, with objective
goal attainment scores regarding annual
commission targets of consultants, or with the
number of assembly errors in automotive pro-
duction.
Team identification was assessed with five
items drawn from Haslam [9]. A sample item
is “When I talk about our group, I usually say
‘we’“.
Job satisfaction was measured with seven
items drawn from Neuberger and Allerbeck
[15], e.g. “How satisfied are you with work as
a whole?”.
Health was measured with questionnaire
items related to a list of 13 specific health
disorders (e.g. pain in arms and hands, fatigue
of legs, weariness, inner tension) [34], five
items assessing emotional exhaustion (e.g. “I
feel emotionally drained by my work”) [5]
and data on absenteeism in automotive pro-
duction. In the representative survey four
items were used to assess subjective health
and self-reported absenteeism due to sickness.
Innovation was measured with seven items
from Janssen (e.g. “Our group creates new
ideas concerning solutions for difficult prob-
lems”) [10]. In two studies, data on conflicts
and innovation were also collected from team
supervisors.
In the following, we summarize the seven key con-
clusions of this research project by illustrating the
main findings and by referring to individual articles
that describe the corresponding results in more detail.
4. Recommendations for utilizing age diverse
team work in organizations
4.1. Offer complex tasks without time pressure
The influence of age composition on group per-
formance and health disorders was examined using
data from 4,538 federal tax employees working in
222 natural work teams [29]. As hypothesized, age
diversity correlated positively (resp. negatively) with
performance in groups solving complex (resp. rou-
tine) decision making tasks. This finding was repli-
cated when analyzing performance data collected one
year later. Age diversity was also positively corre-
lated with health disorders, but only in groups work-
ing on routine decision-making tasks. The findings
provide support for information processing models
positing that diversity can have positive effects on
performance outcomes when tasks require complex
decision-making. In our view, this pattern of results
is also consistent with other models (e.g., the theory
of Baltes [2] and the taxonomic approach of Warr
[26]) that propose that age-related deficits may be
reduced by high task variety and be compensated for
through selection, optimization and compensation
strategies under conditions of complex task require-
ments without much time pressure.
In support of this general idea, we also found a
significant correlation (r = .13) between age diversity
in financial consultant teams and average team per-
formance [21]. This effect was hypothesized because
selling a large number of different financial products
to private and small enterprise customers requires
complex and creative decision making. Interestingly,
further analyses revealed that the benefits of team
resources associated with increased age could be ex-
plained by organizational tenure (i.e. experience).
The results further suggest that the performance en-
hancing effect of tenure diversity was stronger the
more women worked in a team.
4.2. Reduce age diversity salience in teams and
related conflicts
In two studies [16,28] it was found that age differ-
ences in teams are positively correlated with age di-
versity salience (r = .55 in [16] and r = .24 in [28]).
In addition, the findings show that the negative rela-
tionship between age diversity salience and innova-
tion (rated by employees) as well as burnout was
fully mediated by conflicts within groups [16], and
that high age diversity salience was positively corre-
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective?
5148
lated with age discrimination (r = .14) and the activa-
tion of stereotypes against older workers (r = .20)
[28]. The significant correlation between objective
age diversity, age diversity salience and conflicts
strongly supports the social categorization perspec-
tive. Thus, in order to enhance the effectiveness of
age diverse teams it is recommended to act towards
the reduction of age diversity salience (e.g. by estab-
lishing a balanced age distribution or by leadership
training, cf. below).
4.3. Promote high appreciation of age diversity
Ries et al. [17] investigated the moderating effect
of appreciation of age diversity in a subsample of 140
tax-office teams. It was expected that the negative
associations between age salience and group effec-
tiveness should be more (less) pronounced in groups
where group members have a low (high) level of ap-
preciation of age heterogeneity. In addition, it was
hypothesized that team conflicts mediate this mod-
erating effect. In support of this idea, results from a
moderated mediation regression analysis indicate that
the moderating effect of appreciation of age diversity
is based on different levels of conflicts within groups.
In the same vein, Wegge et al. [32] found in a cross
lagged panel design with 69 teams from pension-
offices that high appreciation of age diversity yields
higher job satisfaction, lower conflicts, and higher
innovation.
4.4. Promote a positive team climate
The expected moderating effect of team climate on
the relationship between age diversity and team effi-
ciency was tested in a field study including 66 work
teams from the administrative sector [17]. Results
confirm the expected moderating effect. In particular,
whereas in teams with a positive team climate, an
increase in age heterogeneity leads to increments in
innovative performance, in teams with a negative
team climate, age heterogeneity contributes to a de-
crease of innovative performance. Moreover, based
on a multilevel design, we also found team climate to
exert moderating effects on the cross-level relation-
ship between age diversity as a group characteristic
and burnout as an individual health outcome. In case
of a good team climate, increasing age diversity re-
sults in a decrease of burnout, whereas age diversity
is positively related to burnout when team members
report a bad team climate. In summary, a good team
climate has been revealed as a crucial component of
high age diverse teams amplifying beneficial effects
of age diversity on performance and health. Thus, in
managing age diversity, team leaders should enhance
team climate by giving clear definitions of objectives
and visions, supporting innovation and focusing on
refinement of team outcomes [1].
4.5. Reduce age-discrimination (ageism) at work
The representative survey of the German work-
force (N = 2,000) [28] also examined potential inte-
ractions between the salience of age diversity in
teams and the strength of age discrimination (ageism)
experienced at the workplace. It was found that the
association between age diversity salience and health
of employees was moderated by age discrimination.
When employees perceived high age-discrimination
at work, the salience of age diversity in teams had a
significant negative impact on health (ß = -.14). This
effect was not observable in employees with low
levels of age discrimination (ß = .06, n.s.) Thus, the
detrimental effects of age diversity salience seem to
be most prominent under conditions of high age dis-
crimination.
Interestingly, a closer inspection of this data shows
that these links also vary for different age-groups
[13]. Following the arguments of the social identity
theory, the negative influence of age diversity on an
individual’s health depends on the extent to which
one identifies with the age-subgroups in the team.
Employees that are positioned in the middle of the
age-continuum should be able to identify with both
younger and older employees. In contrast, team
members positioned at the extreme ends will have
difficulties identifying with the group at the other end.
Additionally, for those at both extreme ends of the
continuum, age is a more noticeable characteristic
than for those positioned at the middle. Thus, it can
be concluded that both younger and older employees
will be more affected by working in age-diverse
teams than middle-aged employees. Indeed, separate
regression analyses for three age-groups indicated
that while age diversity had negative impact on the
health of young and old employees, there was no
relationship between age diversity and health for
middle-aged employees.
4.6. Improve ergonomic design for teamwork
Prior research suggests that appropriate team com-
position regarding age and ergonomics workplace
design may reduce the decline of productivity in ag-
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective? 5149
ing employees working at paced assembly lines.
Fritzsche et al. [6] investigated the simultaneous ef-
fects of both team level factors on individual absen-
teeism (time lost and frequency) and team perfor-
mance (22,821 errors) over one year in a sample of
56 natural car-manufacturing teams (N = 623). Re-
sults show that age was positively associated with
absenteeism and mistakes in work planning. In con-
trast, controlling for physical workload, it was found
that age diverse teams were more effective than age
homogenous teams, but only if diversity was meas-
ured as a balanced mix across age categories (Blau-
index) rather than as separation of old and young
(standard deviation, SD). Hierarchical linear model-
ing (HLM) analyses further demonstrated that prod-
uctivity was most strongly affected by workplace
ergonomics because high physical workload ampli-
fied age-related increases in absenteeism and was
associated with more assembly errors. Once again, it
was also found that gender diversity had a perfor-
mance enhancing effect. Considered together, these
results indicate that both team diversity and ergo-
nomic workplace design may reduce age-related
productivity risks in manufacturing by maintaining
the work ability of older employees and improving
production quality.
4.7. Promote age-differentiated leadership of
supervisors
Based on these findings, a modular training for su-
pervisors was developed to address these recommen-
dations and to improve team performance. In the first
training module, information about age related
changes in performance and work motivation were
presented to supervisors. Additionally, the develop-
ment and consequences of age stereotypes as well as
appreciation of age differences were explained and
discussed. Building on this theoretical background,
the supervisors deepened these topics in the second
training module by discussing strategies and drawing
practical implications for their everyday work life.
The training was conducted with 32 supervisors (209
employees) working in a tax office [18]. The evalua-
tion design consisted of training and waiting control
groups. Data were collected before and four months
after training. An additional follow up measure was
conducted 12 months after the training. It was found
that the training reduces age stereotypes, team con-
flicts, and enhances innovation.
5. Conclusions and future research
The main goal of this project was to analyze the
influence of age diversity on team effectivity, includ-
ing satisfaction, innovation and health of employees.
Mediating and moderating variables like attitudes
towards age diversity in teams and task complexity
were also part of the analyses. Based on the consis-
tent findings we can conclude that effective interven-
tions for the successful integration of elderly em-
ployees in work groups are available and that combi-
nations of measures that address ergonomic design
issues, team composition and leadership processes in
teams are to be strongly recommended.
Future research should attempt covering the com-
plexity of diversity in teams more appropriately by
including more than one diversity attribute at the
same time (e.g., [6,21]) and by analyzing also the
alignment of multiple characteristics between team
members based on the faultline approach (hypotheti-
cal dividing lines that may split a group into sub-
groups; see [23]). Using existing data from 232 em-
ployees working in 58 natural tax office groups with
four team members each, Breu, Wegge and Schmidt
[4] calculated faultlines regarding age, sex and tenure
of team members. The results support the assumption
that stronger faultlines lead to more cognitive con-
flicts in teams and also to more burnout. Importantly,
these results were found when controlling for tradi-
tional diversity indicators. Hence, it can be concluded
that the faultline concept is indeed fruitful and ex-
tends traditional research on team composition.
References
[1] N.R. Anderson and M.A. West, Measuring climate for work
group innovation: development and validation of the team
climate inventory, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19
(1998), 235-258.
[2] P.B. Baltes, On the incomplete architecture of human ontoge-
ny. Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation,
American Psychologist 52 (1997), 366-380.
[3] C.A. Bowers, J.A. Pharmer, and E. Salas, When member
homogeneity is needed in work teams – A meta-analysis,
Small Group Research 31 (2000), 305-327.
[4] C. Breu, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Alters-, Geschlechts-
und "Tenure"-diversität in Verwaltungsteams - Erklären Fault-
lines mehr Varianz bei Teamkonflikten und Burnout als tradi-
tionelle Diversitätsindikatoren? [Age-, gender- and tenure-
diversity in administrative teams: Do faultlines explain more
variance in team conflicts and burnout compared to traditional
diversity indicators?], Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 64
(2010), 174-159.
[5] A. Büssing and K.-M. Perrar, Die Messung von Burnout.
Untersuchung einer deutschen Fassung des Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI-D) [Measuring burnout: A study of a German
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective?
5150
version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D)], Diag-
nostica 38 (1992), 328-353.
[6] L. Fritzsche, J. Wegge, M. Schmauder, M. Kliegel, and K.-H.
Schmidt, Team diversity, workplace ergonomics and age-
related declines in health and performance of car manufactur-
ing teams (submitted).
[7] T. Furunes and R.J. Mykletun, Age discrimination in the
workplace: Validation of the Nordic Age Discrimination Scale,
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51 (2010), 23-30.
[8] D.A. Harrison and K.J. Klein, What’s the difference? Diver-
sity constructs as separation, variety, and disparity in organi-
zations, Academy of Management Review 32 (2007), 1199-
1228.
[9] S.A. Haslam, Psychology in organizations: The social identity
approach (2nd ed.), Sage, London, 2004.
[10] O. Janssen, Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness
and innovative work behavior, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 73 (2000), 287-302.
[11] K.A. Jehn, A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict, Administrative Science
Quarterly 40 (1995), 256-282.
[12] A. Joshi and H. Roh, The role of context in work team diversi-
ty research: A meta-analytic review, Academy of Management
Journal 52 (2009), 599-627.
[13] S. Liebermann, J. Wegge, F. Jungmann, and K.-H. Schmidt,
Age diversity as a health hazard for specific age groups (sub-
mitted).
[14] K. Moltzen and R. van Dick, Arbeitsrelevante Einstellungen
bei Call Center-Agenten: Ein Vergleich unterschiedlicher Call
Center-Typen [Work-relevant attitudes among call center
agents: Comparison of different call center types], Zeitschrift
für Personalpsychologie 1 (2002), 161-170.
[15] O. Neuberger and M. Allerbeck, Messung und Analyse von
Arbeitszufriedenheit [Measurement and analysis of job satis-
faction], Huber, Bern, 1978.
[16] B.C. Ries, S. Diestel, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Die Rolle
von Alterssalienz und Konflikten in Teams als Mediatoren der
Beziehung zwischen Altersheterogenität und Gruppeneffekti-
vität [The role of age salience and conflicts in teams as media-
tors on the relationship between age heterogeneity and group
effectivity], Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsycho-
logie 54 (2010), 117-130.
[17] B.C. Ries, S. Diestel, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Altershe-
terogenität und Gruppeneffektivität – Die moderierende Rolle
des Teamklimas [Age diversity and group effectiveness – The
moderating role of team climate], Zeitschrift für Arbeitswis-
senschaft 64 (2010), 137-146.
[18] B.C. Ries, S. Diestel, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Konzep-
tion, Durchführung und Evaluation eines Trainings zu ‚Al-
tersheterogenität im Team als Ressource erkennen und nutzen’
[Conceptualizing, conducting and evaluating a training on
‘identifiying and using age heterogeneity in teams’], in:
Mensch, Technik, Organisation – Vernetzung im Produktions-
und Herstellungsprozess, GfA, eds., GfA Press, Dortmund,
2011, pp. 93-96.
[19] C. Roth, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Konsequenzen des
demografischen Wandels für das Management von Humanres-
sourcen [Consequences of demographic changes for the man-
agement of human resources], Zeitschrift für Personalpsycho-
logie 6 (2007), 99-116.
[20] K.-H. Schmidt and J. Wegge, Altersheterogenität in Arbeits-
gruppen als Determinante von Gruppenleistung und Gesund-
heit [Age heterogeneity in workteams as determinant of group
effectivity and health], in: A. Dehmel, H.H. Kremer, N. Scha-
per, and P.F.E. Sloane, eds., Bildungsperspektiven in altern-
den Gesellschaften, Lang, Frankfurt, 2009, pp. 169-183.
[21] M. Shemla, M. Thies, J. Wegge, and K.-H. Schmidt, Effects
of diversity on performance in financial service teams: The
joint impact of age-, tenure- and gender diversity (submitted).
[22] H. Tajfel and J.C. Turner, The social identity theory of inter-
group behaviour, in: S. Austin and W. G. Austin, eds., Psy-
chology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson, Chicago, 1986, pp.
7-24.
[23] S.M.B. Thatcher and P.C. Patel, Demographic faultlines: A
meta-analysis of the literature, Journal of Applied Psychology
(2011), 1-21.
[24] D. van Knippenberg, C.K.W. de Dreu, and A.C. Homan,
Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative
model and research agenda, Journal of Applied Psychology 89
(2004), 1008-1022.
[25] D. van Knippenberg and M.C. Schippers, Work group diversi-
ty, Annual Review of Psychology 58 (2007), 515-541.
[26] P. Warr, Age, work and mental health, in: K.W. Schaie and C.
Schooler, eds., The impact of work on older adults, Springer,
New York, 1997, pp. 252-296.
[27] J. Wegge, Heterogenität und Homogenität in Gruppen als
Chance und Risiko für die Gruppeneffektivität [Heterogeneity
and homogeneity in groups as chances and risks for group ef-
fectivity], in: S. Stumpf and A. Thomas, eds., Teamarbeit und
Teamentwicklung, Hogrefe, Göttingen, 2003, pp. 119-141.
[28] J. Wegge, F. Jungmann, K.-H. Schmidt, and S. Liebermann,
Das Miteinander der Generationen am Arbeitsplatz [The coo-
peration of generations at work], iga Report 21 (2011), 64-97.
[29] J. Wegge, C. Roth, B. Neubach, and K.-H. Schmidt, R. Kanfer,
Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and
health. The role of task complexity and group size, Journal of
Applied Psychology 93 (2008), 1301-1313.
[30] J. Wegge and M. Shemla, Diversity-Management, in: W.
Sarges, eds., Management-Diagnostik (4. Aufl.), Hogrefe,
Göttingen, in press.
[31] J. Wegge and K.-H. Schmidt, The impact of age diversity in
teams on group performance, innovation and health, in: A.-S.
Antoniou, C.L. Cooper, G. P. Chrousus, C.D. Spielberger, and
M.W. Eysenck, eds., Handbook of managerial behavior and
occupational health, Elgar, Northhamptom, 2009, pp. 79-94.
[32] J. Wegge, K.-H. Schmidt, S. Liebermann, and D. van Knip-
penberg, Jung und alt in einem Team? Altersgemischte Team-
arbeit erfordert Wertschätzung von Altersdiversität [Young
and old in one team? Age diverse teamwork requires apprecia-
tion of age diversity], in: P. Gellèri and C. Winter, eds., Po-
tenziale der Personalpsychologe. Einfluss per-
sonaldiagnostischer Maßnahmen auf den Berufs- und Unter-
nehmenserfolg, Hogrefe, Göttingen, 2011, pp. 35-46.
[33] K.Y. Williams and C.A. O’Reilly, Demography and diversity
in organizations: A review of 40 years of research, Research
in Organizational Behavior 20 (1998), 77-140.
[34] D. Zerssen, Die Beschwerden-Liste [The health disorders list],
Beltz, Weinheim, 1976.
J
. We
gg
e et al. / What Makes A
g
e Diverse Teams E
ff
ective? 5151
