No More Black Box Approach to Teams: Blending Team Diversity and Task Structure to Increase the Efficacy of Teamwork

There are various ways to classify and examine diverse attributes in teams as such diversity (team diversity) reflects a variety of demographic, cultural, experiential, and personal differences that individual members possess which in turn influences team processes and outcomes. For example, observable individual differences and underlying personal attributes are often used to examine various outcomes of team diversity. Similarly, another classification of team diversity makes a distinction between demographic diversity and socio-cultural diversity represented in heterogeneous team members. Finally, team diversity can be broadly dichotomized into relations-oriented diversity, immediately observable, demographic individual markers and task-oriented diversity, individual expertise, experience, and skills pertinent to performing tasks in organizations.

Although numerous frameworks exist to understand and analyze the multitude of member differences in teams, team diversity can be parsimoniously categorized into three broad types in current organizations: 1) surface-level diversity; 2); deep-level diversity; and 3) task-related diversity. Surface-level diversity consists of differences that are generally innate, readily detectable, and easily categorized, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and physical appearance. In contrast, deep-level diversity includes individual differences that are not easily identifiable but learned through extended interactions with others. Examples of deep-level diversity are personality differences, attitudes, beliefs, and values. Finally, task-related diversity focuses on member attributes that are more germane to accomplishing team goals and tasks, such as functional expertise, industry background, work experience, and education level.

There  has been a great deal of discussion and research on the impact of member diversity on team processes and outcomes. In theory, diverse teams have access to multiple views, perspectives, and expertise and thus capitalize on such multiplicity of ideas to enhance team performance. However, positive effects of team diversity on the performance of small groups and teams are complex with rather mixed results. For example, several meta-analytic reviews of team studies have indicated that surface-level diversity overall is either unrelated or negatively related to team performance, whereas task-related diversity has a small positive effect on team performance [1] Furthermore, the positive relationship between task-related diversity and performance has been found to be contingent upon various factors both internal and external to teams, such as team size, team type, task structure, and organizational support. Of the myriad of factors potentially affecting the efficacy of team diversity in teamwork, task structure has been found to significantly moderate the effects of team diversity on team performance.

Research suggests that the effects of member diversity on team outcomes are likely to be affected by structural aspects of the task. For example, when a task entails considerable cognitive process (solving a complex problem or re-engineering a technology product/service), a heterogeneous team comprised of  individuals with varying expertise and backgrounds is better at performing the cognitively demanding and complex task than a homogeneous team. In contrast, a high degree of diversity in team members can be unnecessary and even counterproductive in dealing with a simple, routine, and well-defined task. Highly complex and less structured tasks tend to benefit more from multiple perspectives, expertise, and experiences reflected in team diversity than less complex and well-defined tasks. Overall, task complexity and structure moderate the relationship between team diversity and team performance in that the relationship is stronger for teams working on highly complex and less structured tasks than teams working on less complex and highly structured tasks

The level of task interdependence, another dimension of task structure, also affects the impact of team diversity on team outcomes. Task interdependence, defined as the extent to which completing a task requires the collective action by team members, moderates the relationship between team diversity and team performance by influencing the need for member interaction and coordination. For example, when task interdependence is high, team members depend on each other for expertise, information, and resources to complete a task. In contrast, when performing a task with low interdependence, team members tend to operate as individuals with less intense interaction and coordination, thereby reducing negative affective outcomes and potential for conflict arising from member diversity. More specifically, three types of task interdependence are frequently discussed in the context of team diversity in the literature: 1)  pooled interdependence; 2) sequential interdependence; and 3) reciprocal interdependence. In pooled interdependence, each sub-task or team member contributes to the whole process of completing the task independently whereas sequential interdependence requires each sub-task to be performed in succession, as one member’s output becomes the input of the next individual or subsequent task. Finally, in reciprocal interdependence, different individuals collaborate concurrently and reciprocally to complete the entire process of the task. In a high level of task interdependence as in a reciprocally interdependent task, team diversity is represented by having team members with different roles, skills, expertise, and resources to perform their parts of the task in a flexible and/or reciprocal manner hence necessitating mutual interactions and close coordination among team members to complete the team task.

As an increasing number of organizations use work teams to augment their operations, diversity in teams can potentially create a sustainable competitive advantage for organizations. However, the advantages of diversity are seen when there is an optimal match between such diversity and the nature and characteristics of a given team task. In tackling a highly complex, interdepartmental project, for example, a cross-functional team with diverse knowledge and experience is more productive than a team whose members have similar expertise and backgrounds. In searching for a novel solution to an ill-defined problem, a team whose members possess different views and cognitive styles is likely to be more creative than like-minded team members. Therefore, task structure should be aligned with unique strengths and contributions that each team member brings to the team to create a synergistic team outcome. Ultimately, the benefits of team diversity can be only realized when teams are working on tasks that are suited for bringing in such diversity and strategically utilizing it to enhance the efficacy of teamwork.

Sujin Horwitz, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Management and Marketing

See more posts by this author

REFERENCES

Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709-743.

Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: Theoretical consideration. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219-245.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6). 987-1015.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management, 44(3), 547-555.

Stewart, G. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29-54.

Stewart, G., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.

Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.