Content uploaded by Paul Paulus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Paulus on Jul 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Cultural diversity and team creativity
Paul B. Paulus
University of Texas at Arlington
Karen I. van der Zee
Free University of Amsterdam
Jared Kenworthy
University of Texas at Arlington
The preparation of this paper was supported by collaborative grant INSPIRE BCS 1247971 to
the first and third authors from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Preliminary draft of a chapter for V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity
and Culture Research. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave
2
Abstract
Culturally diverse teams have the potential for enhanced creativity relative to culturally
homogeneous teams. We provide evidence that this can indeed occur, especially for tasks
that are relevant to the cultural diversity represented in the team. To achieve a high level
of creativity, culturally diverse groups need to employ effective cognitive processes and
be highly motivated. Team experience, a positive team climate, effective handling of
cognitive conflict, and multicultural experiences are related to enhanced performance in
creative teams. Inter-team interactions provide a further opportunity to tap the creative
potential of cultural diversity.
3
With increasing pressures for innovation, there has been an increased emphasis on using
teams to collaborate in the innovative process. Since many innovations require knowledge in
multiple areas, diversity of expertise in such teams is an obvious benefit. Some projects are only
possible with complementary expertise. There is also an increased emphasis on diversity in
organizations which inevitably results in greater diversity in team membership. Thus team
members may vary on a variety of personal characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity/race,
and cultural or national background. We will examine the theoretical basis for team creativity
related to diversity of personal characteristics, with a particular focus on the role of cultural
differences. Thus this chapter will build on the literature on collaborative or team creativity,
diversity and teamwork, and cultural diversity to develop a broad perspective on the role of
cultural diversity and creativity in teams.
Team Creativity
Creativity can be defined in many ways, but a commonly accepted definition is that it
involves the generation of novel ideas that are useful (e.g, Amabile, 1996) This can be measured
in a variety of ways such as the number of creative products or ideas and the quality of the
products (e.g., their novelty and utility). Quantity can be measured objectively in teams that are
observed under controlled conditions. Quality can also be measured objectively, as in the
number of reported problems with new cars. However, in many cases quality measures are based
on judges’ ratings of the creative products. Many studies of team creativity in work contexts rely
on surveys of team members and their supervisors. This is understandable given the difficulty of
obtaining objective data in those situations. Although there is some evidence that survey
measures of team members and internal team leaders reflect reality to some extent (van Dijk, van
Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012), there are a number of studies that suggest some potential
4
biases in these measures or inconsistencies between survey or subjective measures and objective
ones (Reiter-Palmon, Robinson-Morral, Kaufman, & Santo, 2012). For example, perceptions of
creative performance in groups tend to be inflated relative to objective outcomes (Paulus,
Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho,, 1993). There also appears to be a bias in ratings against the
positive impact of demographic diversity (van Dijk et al., 2012). However, a review of the team
innovation literature which relies primarily on surveys in comparison to controlled studies that
use objective measures suggested that the findings in the two areas area quite consistent (Paulus,
Dzindolet, & Kohn, 2011).
There are a number of literatures relevant to understanding the role of cultural diversity in
team creativity. Some scholars have focused on experimental studies of collaborative ideation in
short-term settings (cf., Paulus & Coskun, 2012; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). These studies have
often used the brainstorming paradigm in which participants are assigned a topic on which to
generate as many ideas as possible (Osborn, 1963). Research on collaborative ideation has
focused in ways to enhance ideation in groups. Studies have found that collaborative ideation is
more effective with paradigms that allow efficient communication such as electronic
brainstorming and writing (cf., Paulus, Korde, Dickson, Carmeli, & Cohen-Meitar, 2015). Also
explicit instructions for effective interaction, facilitators, training, low degrees of evaluation
apprehension and providing some task structure, such as dealing with one subtopic at a time,
appear to be important for optimal group performance (see Paulus & Coskun, 2012 for a review).
There is also a significant literature under the heading of “team innovation” (Hülsheger,
Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Paulus et al., 2011). Innovation is often used to refer to the actual
implementation of new ideas in the workplace (West & Richter, 2008). However, in many cases
the term is used for judgments of the extent to which teams generated creative products by team
5
members or supervisors. Few studies allow for a clear distinction between a creative idea
generation phase and an implementation or innovation stage. So we will use the terms
“creativity” and “innovation” interchangeably to refer the development of creative products.
Research on team innovation has found that higher levels of innovation appear to be related to
such factors as support, psychological safety, team cohesion, appropriate task orientation and
effective communication (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Paulus et al., 2011). Thus both the team
innovation and collaborative ideation literature suggest that team creativity requires a positive
context and effective processes.
Cultural Diversity and Collaborative Ideation
Cultural diversity should enhance the number and quality of ideas generated by groups of
teams. Cultural diversity refers to the extent to which team members differ in nationality, sub-
culture, ethnicity, native language, geographic location or origin (e.g., Connaughton, & Shuffler,
2007). Teams in which people who have different cultural experiences and backgrounds should
have a broader range of ideas that can be shared. Moreover, if people from the different cultural
backgrounds also have different language backgrounds and are multilingual, they may be
individually more creative and thus have more unique ideas to share with the group (Blot, Zarate,
& Paulus, 2003). Of course individuals from different cultures can vary along many dimensions
such as values, status, and knowledge or experience (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Although each of
these dimensions may be relevant for team creativity, our theoretical focus will be on the
knowledge or experience dimension since it is the one that seems to relate directly to the creative
potential of teams. Unfortunately there have been only a small number of studies that have
enabled an evaluation of the impact of cultural diversity. We will summarize briefly the studies
that have examined demographic and cultural diversity.
6
There is little evidence of beneficial effects of demographic and cultural diversity on team
performance in general (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011). A review of team
innovation found some evidence for a beneficial effect of functional or expertise diversity but not
demographic diversity (Hülsheger et al., 2009). The positive effect of functional diversity
appears to be limited to complex tasks (Van Dijk et al., 2012). In contrast, studies that have used
objective measures to evaluate team creativity show a somewhat different pattern of results.
Although we could not find any evidence for positive effects of gender and age diversity, other
culturally relevant dimensions such as race, ethnicity and have been related to enhanced team
creativity (Paulus & van der Zee, 2015). Similarly, multicultural diversity may produce process
losses because of increased conflict but process gains because of increased creativity (Stahl,
Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010). McLeod, Lobel and Cox (1996) found that ethnically
diverse brainstorming groups generated more effective and feasible ideas than homogeneous
ones. Cady and Valentine (1999) discovered that racial diversity in groups was related to the
generation of more ideas but not the quality of ideas. Interestingly, these positive effects were
obtained even though members of diverse teams had more negative perceptions of their team. In
a study with teams over the course of a semester it was found that racial/ethnic diversity was
related to a broader range of perspectives on business cases toward the end of the semester
(Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993). Giambatista and Bhappu (2010) showed that the effects
of ethnic diversity on the quality of ideas for a commercial were more positive with the use of a
nominal group technique or a computer mediated interaction technique compared to face-to-face
groups (see also Staples & Zhao, 2006).
Although these studies have demonstrated some positive effects of culturally relevant
diversity, a number of studies have not found such effects. For example, ethnic diversity did not
7
influence creativity for groups tasked with generating endings for a short story (Paletz, Peng,
Erez, & Maslach, 2004). We are also aware of unpublished studies that have not been able to
demonstrate positive effects of cultural diversity on creative performance. It is obviously not
feasible to assess the factors that differentiate studies with these discrepant outcomes since
studies with null results are typically not published.
The finding of positive effects of cultural diversity for team creativity in a number of
studies is of particular interest in that for team performance in general there is no clear benefit of
cultural diversity. Why would a benefit be evident with creativity and not with other types of
team performance? One reason is that many group tasks may not effectively tap cultural
differences. That is, a physical performance task or computational task would be sensitive to
differences in physical or computational skills but should not be influenced by cultural diversity
unless this diversity was in fact related to one of those task relevant dimensions. Consistent with
that perspective, we have noted previously several reviews that differences in task or job relevant
expertise related to team functioning do enhance team performance. Thus, Paulus and van Der
Zee (2015) have argued that cultural diversity will enhance team performance to the extent that
the diversity is relevant to the task. That may not be easy to determine a priori unless one has a
solid grasp on culturally relevant dimensions of a task and the extent to which the cultural
diversity involved in a particular case is related to variations of expertise and perspective related
to that task. However, in the case of creativity, for tasks that tap social and cultural issues, one
would predict that cultural diversity would in fact enhance team creativity. For example, the
study by Nakui, Paulus, & van der Zee (2011) was able to demonstrate an effect for cultural
diversity using a task in which participants were asked to come up with ideas on how the
university could attract different types of students. However, even relatively mundane creativity
8
tasks can apparently benefit from cultural diversity. For example, Tadmor, Satterstrom, Jang,
and Polzer (2012) found an effect of diversity with the “uses for a brick” task. So although the
creative benefits of cultural diversity may be most evident with culturally relevant tasks, even
tasks that have little obvious relevance may benefit provided that the people from varying
cultures can come up with different types of ideas. One way to determine this a priori would be
to have individuals from the different cultures generate ideas individually for a particular task. If
there is a great discrepancy in the types of ideas being generated across cultural differences than
for individuals within a particular cultural group, one would expect that this task would
demonstrate benefits of cultural diversity.
Since there are only a limited number of studies that have examined cultural diversity in
relation to team creativity, our perspective is based in large part on the broader literature on
diversity and creativity. There is compelling evidence that diversity of background, knowledge
and perspectives can enhance creativity in teams (Paulus & van der Zee, 2015). In this chapter
we will highlight the processes that are related to such collaborative creativity and the factors
that influence the extent to which such processes result in positive outcomes.
Cognitive Processes
Collaborative creativity obviously involves a number of key cognitive processes that have been
highlighted by several theoretical models (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Paulus & Brown, 2007).
Team members need to attend to each others’ ideas or contributions. Shared ideas may stimulate
additional ideas by means of associative processes. The idea generation process requires that
group members search their memory for relevant knowledge. Certain categories of knowledge
may be readily accessible for a particular issue, but other categories may be less salient. Others’
9
ideas may remind team members of their own related knowledge and lead them to share this with
the team. Thus team exchanges can help the team members to more effectively tap their
knowledge related to a particular problem. Furthermore team members can build on the shared
ideas by combining various ideas or modifying them in some way. Thus the result should be an
increase in the number of ideas generated, their novelty and their potential utility. However, this
type of outcome is not often observed in studies that use non-interactive control groups. For
example, a group of four generating ideas verbally in a group setting may generate only about
half as many ideas as four individuals generating ideas in isolation. One obvious reason for this
is that group members have to share the “floor” (production blocking, Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)
when sharing ideas, whereas individual performers have no such limitation.
Although exposure to the ideas of others can be stimulating, it can also lead to premature
fixation on a limited range of issues (Larey & Paulus, 1999). Groups tend to converge in their
discussions to a limited set of topics. These topics are likely to focus on issues that they have in
common rather than their unique perspectives (Stasser & Titus, 2006). Moreover, it is easier to
build associatively on ideas or topics that overlap with one’s own knowledge base or associative
network (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Thus tapping of diverse perspectives in groups requires a
conscientious effort of the team members to share their unique perspectives and to build on the
shared perspectives. This may be facilitated when members in diverse groups strive to maintain
their unique identities in groups (Crotty, & Brett, 2012; Swann, Kwan, Polzer, & Milton, 2003).
Obviously, maintaining distinctive identities should be related to individuals being more willing
to share their unique perspectives. Group members may then become more aware of the
diversity of perspectives available in the group and thus more likely to tap this diversity.
10
Maintaining unique identities in diverse groups may be challenging. Usually, when new
members enter groups, the group identity is imposed on individual members, requiring them to
conform to existing shared norms and values. Individuality has even been regarded as
irreconcilable with the formation of a social identity in a group. Recent work has proposed that
social identities can also be induced from individual qualities within the group (Postmes, Spears,
Lee & Novak, 2005). For example, intragroup interactions inform the content of social identity,
and group norms are inferred from individual expressions within the group. This may occur
naturally, as in groups of friends, or by means of a consciously induced process, in which
individuals start the process of identity formation by sharing their individual contribution with
the group (Jans, Postmes & Van der Zee, 2011). This process may also occur when subgroups
influence the formation of superordinate identities (Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003). A
recent study by Jans, Postmes, and Van der Zee (2012) suggests that when group identities are
formed inductively rather than deductively, group members are more likely to express their
unique ideas, which may ultimately enhance the creative potential of the group. In sum, having
diversity represented in a group in itself may not be sufficient for creativity: group identities need
to be formed in ways that actually foster the expression of unique ideas. This can be reached by
taking individual identities as a starting point for group identities, rather than the other way
around.
Another area of research that links culture to creativity focuses on multicultural
experience at the individual level. It has been suggested that multicultural experience may
provide an opportunity to acquire new ways of thinking (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu,
2008). Through multicultural experiences individuals typically acquire new cultural scripts
(Weisberg, 1999) and learn that the same surface behavior can have different meanings (Chiu &
11
Hong, 2006; Galinsky, Maddux, & Ku, 2006). This may lead to novel combinations in idea
generation and hence higher creativity. Foreign cultures also confront individuals with
conflicting values and beliefs. Learning to resolve incongruent ideas may lead to higher
cognitive complexity (Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddox, 2012; Wan & Chu, 2002).
Multicultural experience generally evokes actually having experiences in two cultures.
Relevant in this regard is work on biculturalism. Biculturals are individuals who have been
exposed to and have internalized two or more sets of cultural meaning systems. They are
assumed to navigate between their different cultural orientations by a process of cultural frame
switching (Hong, Morris, Chiu & Benet-Martinez, 2000). The individual difference dimension
underlying biculturalism has been captured by the concept of Bicultural Identity Integration (BII)
(Benet-Martínez, 2012), referring to the degree to which “biculturals perceive their mainstream
and ethnic cultural identities as compatible and integrated vs. oppositional and difficult to
integrate” (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002, p. 9). Biculturals high on BII perceive
overlap rather than disassociation between their two cultural orientations, and perceive harmony
rather than tension between their two cultures (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Biculturalism
predicts cognitive complexity (Benet-Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006) and creative performance
(Tadmor, et al., 2012).
Motivational Processes
A positive impact of diverse perspectives in groups requires that group members are motivated to
share such perspectives. Some of this motivation can derive from personal characteristics. Team
members that are extraverted, open to experience, experienced in multiple cultures, and
positively disposed to diversity in teams are more likely to attend to perspectives of those who
are from different cultures and to build on those perspectives (Paulus et al., 2011; Reiter-Palmon,
12
Wigert, de Vreede, 2011). In contrast, individuals who are uncomfortable or socially anxious in
groups tend to limit their interactions in collaborative settings (Camacho and Paulus, 1995). De
Dreu, Nijstad, Bechtoldt, and Baas (2011) have similarly emphasized the importance of a social
orientation to collaborative creative settings.
Motivation can also result from external factors such as setting performance goals,
holding group members individual accountability for their performance, or feelings of
competition with other group members or teams (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008). Without such
external motivation, group members may be prone to social loafing or may match their
performance to that of the low performers in the team (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008).
One key factor in motivating creativity in teams is the extent to which the group members
feel it is safe to express their unique ideas. Psychological safety has been emphasized as a key
factor in team creativity (Edmondson & Mogelof, 2006; West & Richter). Expressing novel
ideas or ideas which are very different from those of other group members may lead to negative
reactions (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). People are generally biased in favor of ideas or
perspectives that are similar to their own. Thus it is important for members in diverse teams to
feel that sharing unique perspective will not lead to negative social outcomes.
The cognitive and motivational processes in teams are influenced by a broad range of
personal, social, situational and contextual factors. We will highlight the role of four key factors
illustrating the fact that creativity requires both a positive context and intellectual challenges-
team experience, climate, conflict, and inter-team relations.
Experience as a Team
13
The broader team performance literature emphasizes the importance of shared experiences as a
team (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). Teams whose members get to know each other
well can more effectively tap each other’s unique experience/knowledge since team members
will know better who knows what about different topics or areas of expertise. This has been
termed transactive memory in some of the relevant research (Ren, & Argote, 2011). Transactive
memory is enhanced by experience and collaborative training on task (Liang, Moreland, &
Argote, 1995). Teams with higher levels of transactive memory should be able to be more
creative since they can more effectively tap the unique knowledge capabilities of the various
team members. For example, members of interdisciplinary science teams are more effective in
generating scientific products if they have more experience as a team (Cummings & Kiesler,
2008).
Cultural differences among team members may inhibit interactions and communication in
the early phases of team development (Watson et al., 1993). However, as team members become
more familiar with each other they develop a sense of trust and psychological safety. Feelings of
cohesion and trust may also be increased if team members initially focus on areas of interest that
they have in common. Once this has been attained team members may be more receptive to
various unique perspectives held by group members (van der Zee & Paulus, 2008).
Team Climate
We have already alluded to the importance of a positive atmosphere for team creativity.
The potential discomfort related to group member differences, conflicts that may arise from
differing perspectives, and perceived intergroup differences and faultlines may result in negative
affect in culturally diverse times. Thus it is important for teams to have shared positive
experiences and to develop trust based on past interactions. If group members feel mutual
14
acceptance and psychological safety in the team, they will be more likely to share their unique
perspectives. The positive moods that may accompany such a positive team climate may also
enhance the generation of creative ideas (Baas, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008).
Although much of the literature supports the benefits a supportive and congenial climate
in teams (Hülsheger, et al., 2009), there is also evidence that some degree of stress can be
beneficial. In subsequent sections we will discuss the role of cognitive conflict and intergroup
conflicts in yielding creative outcomes. Others have suggested that some degree of stress related
to external demands and task constraints may also motivate creative efforts (e.g., West & Richter,
2008). When one is under pressure from external sources, deadlines, limited budgets and various
task goals or constraints, team members may be highly motivated to develop creative solutions.
Too much time and too much social comfort and support may reduce the persistent efforts
required to develop high quality solutions and focus on the task at hand. Consistent with this
perspective, negative moods have been shown to increase creativity based on task persistence
(Baas, et al., 2008). This paradoxical aspect of team innovation and suggests practitioners or
team leaders should seek a balance in the supportive and demand or stress aspects of team
climate (Basset-Jones, 2005; Buijs, 2007). A generally supportive and positive team atmosphere
is obviously desirable, but periodically teams will need to be challenged to exceed expectations
with deadlines or specific and demanding goals.
Conflict
When diverse perspectives are shared in teams it may often result in conflicts. In part the creative
potential of diverse groups has been linked to task related conflict (e.g. Jehn, Nortcraft & Neale,
1999). Constructive confrontation of conflicting ideas may stimulate idea generation (Chen,
15
Liu,, & Tjosvold, 2005). A review of the literature suggests that such creative outcomes of
cultural diversity in a work context are oftentimes not realized (McLeod, et al., 1996; O’Reilly,
Williams, & Barsade, 1998). Observable differences between employees, such as race and
gender, are often associated with stereotypes and prejudice, which hamper interactions on the
work floor (Milliken & Martins, 1996) and provide a source of relational conflict (Jehn et al.,
1999). Outcomes of relational conflicts in organizations are generally negative (e.g., De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2011; Jehn et al., 1999). Negative effects of conflict on
creative outcomes may extend to indirect interaction partners. In this regard, Chua (2013)
introduces the construct of ambient cultural disharmony, which in his definition includes both
interpersonal tensions (strained relationships) and interpersonal conflicts (overt disagreements)
within an individual’s immediate social environment. Such tensions and conflicts are ambient to
individuals to the extent that they are aware of them but not personally involved. Studying the
impact of ambient cultural disharmony on creativity in a series of studies, Chua (2013) finds that
ambient cultural disharmony, as indicated by a high density of negative ties among others in
one’s social network lowers creativity. Interestingly, this effect was not found for conflicts in
which one is personally involved, nor is it present among individuals who believe that cultures
are incompatible. Although ambient conflict was bad for creativity, creativity did not benefit
from cultural harmony.
We have suggested that the outcome of conflicts will depend on the type of conflict
However, a meta-analysis by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) suggests that there is not much
evidence for positive outcomes of conflict in organizations. Consistent with this idea, a study
among members of project teams Langfred and Noye (2014) found that whereas relationship
conflict undermined intra-group creative processes and task conflict did not, task conflict did
16
have a negative effect on the creativity of the group’s final outcomes. Inspired by the work by De
Dreu and Weingart, as well as more recent empirical studies on the conflict-performance
relationship, De Wit, et al. (2012) performed a new meta-analysis. Their study did not replicate
the consistent pattern of negative outcomes of task related conflict reported by De Dreu and
Weingart (2003). Moreover, De Wit et al. (2012) identified conditions under which task conflict
has positive effects on performance. Task conflict and group performance were more positively
related among studies where the association between task and relationship conflict was relatively
weak, in studies conducted among top management teams, and in studies where performance
was measured in terms of financial performance or decision quality rather than overall
performance. The meta-analysis was not specifically focused on creativity. Linking this work to
the work by Chua (2013), it seems that the absence of relational conflict is an important
condition for groups creativity to occur. DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, and Doty (2013) suggest
that it is not so much the content of a conflict that determines its outcomes, but rather the way a
conflict is processed. In a meta-analytic study, these authors show that conflict styles of
collaborating (+), avoiding (-) and competing (-) significantly predict team performance above
nature of the conflict. Moreover, whereas conflict processes in which the concern is about
individuals are negatively related to team performance and affective outcomes, conflict processes
where the concern is about the collective are positively related to team performance and affective
outcomes. This finding is consistent with the study by Chua who found effects of cultural
disharmony, regardless of the content of the conflict. That is, the outcomes generalized to
conflicts that did not involve intercultural issues. In intercultural conflict the processes rather
than content of the conflict may determine whether creativity is facilitated or undermined.
Interesting in this regard is a model suggested by Paletz, Miron-Spektor, and Lin (2014). These
17
author suggest that it is the extent to which conflict in diverse groups is perceived as a threat that
determines whether individuals will adopt a promotion focus (facilitating creativity) or a
prevention focus (undermining creativity). According to the authors, it is culture in itself that
influences tolerance for conflict via its set of cultural norms and beliefs. This assumption poses
interesting questions regarding conflict dynamic in groups with members from different cultural
backgrounds.
Inter-team Dynamics
One of the effects of diversity within teams is the emergence and consequences of
faultlines. Researchers use the term faultlines to refer to a team situation in which differences
along at least one variable or attribute, such as a demographic category like gender or ethnicity,
lead to a split in the team along that line. Faultlines may emerge either naturally (e.g., when
individuals strongly identify with their category, or when the presence of a visible minority
makes a grouping salient) or by design, or when task requirements lead to such divisions.
Faultlines have been shown to result in generally worse group processes and outcomes
(e.g., Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). A meta-analytic
review of the faultlines research (Thatcher & Patel, 2011) indicated that faultlines increase both
task and social conflict, and reduce or prevent team cohesion. These processes have negative
effects on team performance outcomes, such as decision-making (see Homan, Van Knippenberg,
Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007b). There have been only a few studies showing that faultlines can
negatively impact collaborative creativity (e.g., Ellis, Mai, & Christian, 2013; Pearsall, Ellis, &
Evans, 2008), but in these studies the effects are clearly negative as well, unless certain factors
are put into place to mitigate or reverse the effects. Several studies have shown the value of
creating or imposing cross-cutting role structures (e.g., Pearsall et al., 2008; Rico, Sánchez-
18
Manzanares, Antino, & Lau, 2012; Sawyer, Houlette, & Yeagley, 2006; Van der Zee, Paulus, Vos,
& Parthasathary, 2009). When the salience of the faultline categories is reduced or absent, this
can also lead to improved outcomes (e.g., Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Another variable that has
been shown to reduce the negative effects of faultlines is the perception of a superordinate
category, goal, or shared objective (Homan et al., 2008; Van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, &
Homan, 2010). There are even some individual difference variables that seem to reduce the
impact of faultlines, such as valuing diversity (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu,
2007a) and openness to experience (Homan et al., 2008).
Another kind of diversity that exists within organization is the diversity that occurs
between or among different teams or units, rather than within them. Here, the faultlines approach
can be useful in understanding how different teams might collaborate or compete in a context
where creativity and innovation are important. However, we note that the research on faultlines
concerns the fracturing of a one-team structure into subgroup categorizations within the same
team. Inter-team research begins with two or more pre-existing teams or units and examines what
factors contribute to creativity or weaken the intergroup effects. The analogy to faultlines
research is that theoretically a unit structure of two or more pre-existing teams might be able to
improve their collaborative innovation by cross-cutting roles across the existing teams and by the
creation of a superordinate team identity. We note, however, that this has yet to be explored in
the empirical literature.
Since people tend to sort and categorize themselves based on similarity, most groups or
teams have important characteristics in common. They may have shared values, beliefs, and
identities which lead to positive feelings about one’s team and potentially negative feelings about
teams with different characteristics, values, and beliefs. This type of inter-team diversity may be
19
a source of both social and intellectual conflict, but may potentially be a source of expanding
resources and contributions to the overall task.
Inter-team competition for organizational resources will likely lead to mistrust and
mutual separation and isolation. Based on prior research and theory, these negative processes
might be prevented or reduced if there is prior contact and mutual respect between members of
competing teams, or if teams are part of a superordinate, non-competitive structure. A
competitive goal structure may motivate teams to be more innovative (e.g., Baer, Leenders,
Oldham, & Vadera, 2010), but may reduce their willingness to build on the ideas of other teams.
Being in a cooperative inter-team structure in which roles, knowledge, skills and expertise are
crossed between groups may lead to a greater number of quality ideas, due to the greater
exposure to other ideas and perspectives. However, if inter-team differences remain salient and
important, additional motivating factors may be necessary in order for team members to take
advantage of those benefits.
Because there is very little existing research examining the inter-group or inter-team
dynamics that might impede or facilitate collaborative creativity within groups, there is much
work to be done in this area, both in developing theoretical frameworks and in creating viable
applications. This will be important for future applications in organizations that require not just
team innovation, but the collaboration among multiple teams in pursuit of larger organizational
goals.
Practical Implications
Our review suggests that cultural diversity can indeed be beneficial for team creativity. Such
benefits are most likely if the tasks involved are relevant to the knowledge and experiential
20
diversity present in the team. The creative potential of culturally diverse teams requires effective
exchange of unique perspectives. Thus team members must be highly motivated to take
advantage of the diversity and use efficient interaction processes that effectively tap the cognitive
resources of the team. The creative potential of culturally diverse teams appears to be enhanced
if the team members worked together for some period of time and thus have developed some
level of cohesion, trust and knowledge about the distribution of expertise in the team. Although
a positive team climate appears to enhance team creativity, situations that involve cognitive
conflict and intergroup contact and high task or resource demands my also stimulate creativity in
teams. Diversity training also appears to have some promise for enhancing the benefits of
cultural diversity on creativity (Homan, Buengeler, Eckhoff, van Ginkel, & Voelpel, 2015). It is
clear from our review culturally diverse teams with the right composition and size, team
processes, experience, climate and leadership can achieve high levels of creative performance
and synergistic outcomes.
21
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: West-view Press.
Baas, M. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-
creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin,
134(6), 779-806.
Baer, M., Leenders, R. J., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. (2010). Win or lose the battle for
creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(4), 827-845.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169-175.
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L. & Briggs, A. (2011). Getting specific about
demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Management, 37, 709-743.
Benet-Martínez, V. (2012). Multiculturalism: Cultural, social, and social processes. In K. Deaux
& M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 623-648).
Oxford University Press.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and
psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015-1050.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise
in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386-407.
Benet- Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural
frame-switching in biculturals with oppositional vs. compatible cultural identities.
22
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments:
Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(1), 77-92.
Blot, K. J., Zarate, M. A., Paulus, P. B. (2003). Code-switching across brainstorming sessions:
Implications for a revised hierarchical model of bilingual language processing. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 50, 171-183.
Buijs,J.(2007). Innovation leaders should be controlled schizophrenics. Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol 16(2), 203-210.
Cady, S. H., & Valentine, J. (1999). Team innovation and perceptions of consideration: What
difference does diversity make? Small Group Research, 30(6), 730-750.
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071-1080.
Chen, G., Liu, C., & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management
teams and innovation in china. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 277-300.
Chiu, C-y., & Hong, Y. (2006). The social psychology of culture. New York: Psychology Press.
Chua, R. Y. J. (2013). The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts
in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1545-
1577.
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: A
review and future agenda. Small Group Research, 38, 387-412.
Crotty, S. K., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Fusing creativity: Cultural metacognition and teamwork in
multicultural teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(2), 210-234.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces
23
collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Proceedings of the ACM
conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (November 10-12), San Diego,
CA.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and
task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 559-
578.
De Drue, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and
innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 81-89.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution
of riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Thomas, E. L. (2013). Intergroup relations. In J. M. Levine
(Ed.), (pp. 323-349). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.
Ellis, A. J., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal
faultlines in groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(6), 948-961.
Edmondson, A. C., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation
24
teams: Organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In L Thompson & H. S.
Choi (Eds.) Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. (pp. 109-136). Mahwah,
N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Galinsky, A.D., Maddux, W.W., & Ku, G. (2006). The view from the other side of the table:
Getting inside your counterpart’s head can increase the value of the deal you walk away
with. Here’s how to do it. Negotiation, 9, 1-5.
Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. D. (2010). Diversity’s harvest: Interactions of diversity
sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 116-126.
Harrison, D.A., & Klein, K.J. (2007). What’s the difference: Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.
Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social
and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76, 83-113.
Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., van Ginkel, W. P., & Voelpel, S. C. (2015).
The interplay of diversity training and diversity beliefs on team creativity in nationality
diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van
Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience,
salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007a). Bridging
25
faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. W. (2007b). Interacting
Dimensions of Diversity: Cross-Categorization and the Functioning of Diverse Work
Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 79-94.
Hong, Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic
constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709-720.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at
work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1128-1145.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2012). Sharing differences: The inductive route to
social identity formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1145-1149.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive
role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
37, 1130-1141.
Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of
collaboration. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated
faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24-42.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. (2014). Does conflict help or hinder creativity in teams? An
26
examination of conflict’s effects on creative processes and creative outcomes.
International Journal of Business and Management, 9, 30-42.
Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in groups:
A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
175-184.
Leung, K. Y., Maddux, W. M., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. ( 2008). Multicultural experience
enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169– 181.
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group
performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384-393.
McLeod, P. L.,Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups.
Small Group Research, 27, 248-264.
Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review,
21, 403-433.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire
but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13-17.
Nakui, T, Paulus, P. B. & van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The role of attitudes in reactions to diversity
in work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 41, 2327-2351.
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea
generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186-213.
O'Reilly, C. A. III Williams, K. Y., & Barsade, S. (1998). Group demography and innovation:
27
Does diversity help? In D. H. Gruenfeld (Ed.), Composition (pp. 183-207). US: Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-
solving (3d rev ed.). New York, NY: Scribner.
Paletz, S. B. F., Miron-Spektor, E., & Lin, C.-C. (2014). A cultural lens on interpersonal conflict
and creativity in multicultural environments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 8(2), 237-252.
Paletz, S. B. F., Peng, K., Erez, M., & Maslach, C. (2004). Ethnic composition and its
differential impact on group processes in diverse teams. Small Group Research, 35, 128-
157.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea
generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of group brainstorming. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248-265.
Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (2008). Social influence, creativity and innovation. Social
Influence, 3, 228-247.
Paulus, P. B., & Coskun, H. (2012). Group creativity. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group
processes (pp. 215-239). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., & Kohn, N. (2011). Collaborative creativity—group creativity
and team innovation. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity
(pp.327-357). Elsevier.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of
28
performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89.
Paulus, P. B., Korde, R. M., Dickson, J. J., Carmeli, A., Cohen-Meitar, R. (2015)
Asynchronous brainstorming in an industrial setting: Exploratory studies. Human
Factors,
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.) (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & van der Zee, K. I. (2015). Creative processes in culturally diverse teams. In S.
Otten, K. I. van der Zee & M. Brewer (Eds.) Towards inclusive organizations:
Determinants of successful diversity management at work. (pp. 108-131). New York:
Psychology Press.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines
on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in
groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89(5), 747-763.
Reiter-Palmon, R, Wigert, B., de Vreede, T. (2012). Team creativity and innovation: The effect
of group composition, social processes, and cognition. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 295-326). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E. J., Kaufman, J. C., Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of
self-perceptions of creativity: Is it a useful criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–
3), 107–114.
Ren, Y. & Argote, L (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative
framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of
Management Annals, 5(1), 189-229.
29
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by
combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(2), 407-420.
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (Eds.) (2009). The wisdom of
collectivities in organizations: An update of teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F.
Goodwin, and C. S. Burke (Eds.), In team effectiveness in complex organizations:Cross-
disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp.39-79). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis Group.
Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yeagley, E. L. (2006). Decision performance and diversity
structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous
groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 1-15.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of
cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690-709.
Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in teams versus face-to-face
teams. Group Decisions and Negotiation, 15, 389-406.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2006). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making:
Biased information sampling during discussion. In J. M. Levine, & R. L. Moreland
(Eds.), Small groups: Key readings (pp. 227-239). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Swann, W. B. Jr., Kwan, V. S. Y., Polzer, J. T., & Milton, L. P. (2003). Fostering group
identification and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and self-
verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 29 (11), 1396-1406
Tadmor, C. T., Galinksy, A. D., Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living abroad:
30
Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional
success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 520–542
Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity:
The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in
culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 384-392.
Thatcher, S. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1119-1139.
van der Zee, K. I., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Social psychology and modern organizations:
Balancing between innovativeness and comfort. In L. Steg, A. P. Buunk, & T.
Rothengatter (Eds.), Applied social psychology: Understanding and managing social
problems (pp. 271-290). New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom:
A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related
diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119(1), 38-53.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A., & Homan, A. C. (2010). Diversity faultlines,
shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations, 64(3), 307-
336.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 515-541.
van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, K., Paulus, P., Vos, M., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact
of group composition and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in
groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 257-280.
31
Wan, W., & Chu, C-y. (2002). Effects of novel conceptual combination on creativity. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 36, 227-241.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.
Weisberg, R.W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 226-250). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
West, M. A., & Richter, A. W. (2008). Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at
work. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.) Handbook of organizational creativity.(pp. 211-
236). New York: Psychology Press.
32
Author notes
Paul B. Paulus is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Texas at Arlington. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. For the past
25 years his research has focused on the factors that influence group and team creativity. He has
served as Chair of the Department of Psychology and Dean of the College of Science. He has
been a visiting professor at Bar Ilan University, the University of Groningen, the University of
Sidney, the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences.
Karen van der Zee is Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Chief Diversity Officer at VU
University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, where she also holds a chair in Intercultural
Competence. In addition, she is Professor of Organizational Psychology, Cultural Diversity, and
Integration at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her research is focused on the role
of intercultural traits, patterns of social identity and organizational climate in managing cultural
diversity in work and educational settings.
Jared Kenworthy is an Associate Professor in Psychology at the University of Texas at Arlington.
He completed his Ph.D. in Psychology (social) from the University of Southern California in
2002. He then completed a 3-year post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Oxford (UK),
where he explored the social categorization, identity strength, and the development
of trust between the Catholic and Protestant communities of Northern Ireland. His research
interests are in the areas of intergroup relations and group dynamics.
