Abstract
Lau and Murnighan’s faultline theory explains negative effects of demographic diversity on team performance as consequence of strong demographic faultlines. If demographic differences between group members are correlated across various dimensions, the team is likely to show a “subgroup split” that inhibits communication and effective collaboration between team members. Our paper proposes a rigorous formal and computational reconstruction of the theory. Our model integrates four elementary mechanisms of social interaction, homophily, heterophobia, social influence and rejection into a computational representation of the dynamics of both opinions and social relations in the team. Computational experiments demonstrate that the central claims of faultline theory are consistent with the model. We show furthermore that the model highlights a new structural condition that may give managers a handle to temper the negative effects of strong demographic faultlines. We call this condition the timing of contacts. Computational analyses reveal that negative effects of strong faultlines critically depend on who is when brought in contact with whom in the process of social interactions in the team. More specifically, we demonstrate that faultlines have hardly negative effects when teams are initially split into demographically homogeneous subteams that are merged only when a local consensus has developed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abelson RP (1964) Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In: Frederiksen N, Gulliksen H (eds) Contributions to mathematical psychology. Rinehart Winston, New York
Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Beacon, Boston
Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture—a model with local convergence and global polarization. J Conf Resolut 41:203–226
Bowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E (2000) When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. A meta-analysis. Small Group Res 31:305–327
Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manag J 47:795–817
Byrne D (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York
Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G (1986) The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything? J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1167–1170
Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA (1998) Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work process and outcome. Adm Sci Q 43:749–780
Chen FF, Kenrick DT (2002) Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:111–125
Early PC, Mosakowski E (2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning. Acad Manag J 43:26–49
Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K (1950) Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Flache A, Macy MW (2006) Why more contact may increase cultural polarization. In: Session mathematical sociology I at 101st annual meeting of the american sociological association, Montreal, 14 August 2006. Reprint published at www.arXiv.org/physics/0604196
Flache A, Macy MW, Takács K (2006) What sustains stable cultural diversity and what undermines it? Axelrod and beyond. In: Proceedings of the first world congress on social simulation, Kyoto, Japan, vol 2, pp 9–16
Flache A, Mäs M (2008) A computational model of how strong demographic faultlines undermine team cohesion. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2007.11.020
Gibson C, Vermeulen F (2003) A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Adm Sci Q 48:202–239
Gibson DR (2005) Concurrency and commitment: network scheduling and its consequences for diffusion. J Math Sociol 29:295–323
Hegselmann R, Krause U (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5
Homans GC (1951) The human group Harcourt, New York
Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:1141–1151
Jager W, Amblard F (2005) Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Comput Math Organ Theory 10:295–303
Jehn KA, Bezrukova K (2004) A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. J Organ Behav 25:703–729
Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adm Sci Q 44:741–763
Kameda T, Sugimori S (1995) Procedural influence in two-step group decision making: power of local majorities in consensus formation. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:865–876
Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427–436
Kerr NL, Tindale SR (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 55:623–655
Kitts J (2006) Social influence and the emergence of norms amid ties of amity and enmity. Simul Model Pract Theory 14:407–422
Lau DC, Murnighan JK (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: the decompositional dynamics of organizational groups. Acad Manag Rev 23:325–340
Lau DC, Murnighan JK (2005) Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demographic faultlines. Acad Manag J 48:645–659
Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1954) Friendship and social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (eds) Freedom and control in modern society. Van Nostrand, New York
Levine ME, Plott CR (1977) Agenda influence and its implications. V Law Rev 63:561–604
List C (2004) A model of path-dependence in decisions over multiple propositions. Am Political Sci Rev 98:495–513
Macy MW, Kitts J, Flache A, Benard S (2003) Polarization and dynamic networks. A Hopfield model of emergent structure. In: Breiger R, Carley K, Pattison P (eds) Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: workshop summary and papers. National Academies Press, Washington
Mark NP (2003) Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches. Am Sociol Rev 68:319–345
Mason CM (2006) Exploring the process underlying within-group homogeneity. Small Group Res 37:233–270
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444
Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad Manag J 21:402–433
Molleman E (2005) Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decis Negot 14:173–193
Moody J (2002) The importance of relationship timing for diffusion. Soc Forces 81:25–56
Pelled LH (1996) Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organization Sci 7:615–631
Pettigrew TF (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annu Rev Psychol 49:65–85
Pfeffer J (1985) Organizational demography: implications for management. Calif Manag Rev 28:67–81
Pilkington NW, Lydon JE (1997) The relative effect of attitude similarity and attitude dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction: investigating the moderating roles of prejudice and group membership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:107–116
Plott CR, Levine ME (1978) A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. Am Econ Rev 68:146–160
Rainio K (1961a) A stochastic model of social interaction. Munksgaard, Turku
Rainio K (1961b) Stochastic process of social interaction. Scand J Psychol 2:113–128
Rainio K (1962) A stochastic theory of social contacts. A laboratory study and an application to sociometry. Munksgaard, Turku
Rainio K (1965) Social interaction as a stochastic learning process. Arch Eur Soc 6:68–88
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ Sci 12:502–517
Rogers EM, Bhowmik DK (1970) Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication res. Public Opin Q 34:523–538
Rosenbaum ME (1986a) Comment on a proposed two-stage theory of relationship formation: first, repulsion; then, attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1171–1172
Rosenbaum ME (1986b) The repulsion hypothesis: on the nondevelopment of relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1156–1166
Salzarulo L (2006) A continuous opinion dynamics model based on the principle of meta-contrast. J Artif Soc Social Simul 9
Smeaton G, Byrne D, Murnen SK (1989) The repulsion hypothesis revisited: similarity irrelevance or dissimilarity bias? J Pers Soc Psychol 56:54–59
Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic rev of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manag 32:29–54
Thatcher SMB, Jehn KA, Zanutto E (2003) Cracks in diversity research: the effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decis Negot 12(3):217–241
Tsuji R (2002) Interpersonal influence and attitude change toward conformity in small groups: a social psychological model. J Math Sociol 26:17–34
Vinokur A, Burnstein E (1978) Depolarization of attitudes in groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:872–885
Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J Manag 27:141–162
Weisbuch G, Deffuant G, Amblard F (2005) Persuasion dynamics. Physica A 353:555–575
Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations. A review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav 20:77–140
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We gratefully acknowledge financial support of this research by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO, under the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme (NWO/VIDI-Flache, Grant 452-04-351).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Flache, A., Mäs, M. How to get the timing right. A computational model of the effects of the timing of contacts on team cohesion in demographically diverse teams. Comput Math Organiz Theor 14, 23–51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9019-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-008-9019-1