CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 525Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyGender Diversity and Inequality

Facing Differences With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups

Open access
Homan, Astrid C., Hollenbeck, John R., Humphrey, Stephen E., Knippenberg, Daan Van, Ilgen, Daniel R., Van Kleef, Gerben A.·2008·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj.2008.35732995
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined how the performance of diverse teams is affected by member openness to experience and the extent to which team reward structure emphasizes intragroup differences. Fifty-eight heterogeneous four-person teams engaged in an interactive task. Teams in which reward structure converged with diversity (i.e., “faultline” teams) performed more poorly than teams in which reward structure cut across differences between group members or pointed to a “superordinate identity.” High openness to experience positively influenced teams in which differences were salient (i.e., faultline and “cross-categorized” teams) but not teams with a superordi-nate identity. This effect was mediated by information elaboration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2008.35732995

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Teams are more likely to engage in thorough information elaboration when team members are more open to different information.

    “Another stream of research has shown that teams are more likely to engage in thorough information elaboration when team members are more open to different information (Homan et al., 2008;Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009;Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003).”

    From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as Homan et al., 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Knippenberg, D. V., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2008-12
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
1204-1222
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj.2008.35732995
OpenAlex
W1881549307
Cited by
525
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 47
FWCI
32.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Michigan State University
  • Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
team diversity, openness to experience, superordinate identity, team performance, information elaboration, heterogeneous teams

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