CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 491Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

When Member Homogeneity is Needed in Work Teams: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Bowers, Clint A., Pharmer, James A., Salas, Eduardo·2000·Small Group Research
DOI 10.1177/104649640003100303
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A meta-analytic integration of 57 effect sizes from 13 studies (567 teams, 2,258 participants) was performed to determine if groups that are homogeneous with respect to gender, ability level, and personality achieve higher levels of performance than teams that are heterogeneous on these attributes. Although individual studies often show marked differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, the results of this integration show the combined effect sizes of these studies to be small, though not significant, in favor of heterogeneous groups. It appears that the significant effects found in many of the included studies can be attributed to the type and difficulty of the task used in the investigation. Implications for team construction are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/104649640003100303

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Diversity has greater potential to benefit performance on complex and interdependent rather than simple and independent tasks.

    “Additionally, as diversity has greater potential to benefit performance on complex and interdependent rather than simple and independent tasks (Bowers et al., 2000;Chatman, Greer, Sherman, & Doerr, 2019;Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999;Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003;Wegge, Roth, Neubach, Schmidt, & Kanfer, 2008), our analysis focuses on interdependent teams working on more complex tasks (e.g.,”

    From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as Bowers et al., 2000

  • Previous research has not found consistent effects of surface- or deep-level diversity on team functioning.

    “Nonetheless, previous research has not found consistent effects of surface-or deep-level diversity on team functioning (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000;Van Dijk, Van Engen, & Van Knippenberg, 2012;Webber & Donahue, 2001).”

    From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of Central Florida
ORCID
Bowers, Clint A.
Venue
Small Group Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
305-327
ISSN
  • 1046-4964 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8278
DOI
10.1177/104649640003100303
OpenAlex
W2109279159
Cited by
491
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 26
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Small Group Research (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
team heterogeneity, work teams, team performance, gender diversity, ability levels, personality, team composition, task difficulty, team building

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review