Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15

www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines

in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups 夽
John E. Sawyer a,¤, Melissa A. Houlette b,1, Erin L. Yeagley c,1
a
Department of Business Administration, Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, 236 Alfred Lerner Hall,
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
b
College of Mount St. Joseph, USA
c
University of Delaware, USA

Received 25 July 2003

Available online 28 September 2005

Abstract

Group diversity structure (the composition of racial and job-function diversity) and pre-discussion decision eVects on group deci-
sion accuracy were tested in three-person groups. Evidence supported the social categorization model and the notion of multiple
faultlines (i.e., subgroup boundaries). Crosscut diversity structure, where racial and job-function subgroup boundaries are crossed,
weakened faultlines, enhanced information sharing and improved decision-making. Our data also supported the common knowledge
eVect. Groups in which members made pre-discussion choices arrived at incorrect decisions consistent with majority members’ pre-
discussion preferences, based on a biased subset of information. Crosscut groups in which members did not make pre-discussion
choices performed the best. Analyses of video taped interactions and attitudes toward the group help to explain these diVerences. We
discuss the implications for managing demographically diverse groups and for future research on the impact of various attributes of
diversity in groups.
 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Group decision; Social categorization; Faultlines; Diversity structure; Common knowledge eVect; Attentional focus

In modern businesses, groups are frequently com-
posed of members with diverse backgrounds and from
multiple business functions. Members meet to share and
discuss information relevant to the problem at hand. In
principle, such discussion is believed to accomplish a
corrective function whereby the biased and incomplete
information of individuals is compensated for by the
夽
This research was supported by a CERT grant from the College of
Business and Economics, University of Delaware. Thanks to three
anonymous reviewers, David A. Harrison and Deborah C. Andrews
for their suggestions and assistance developing the manuscript.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 302 831 4196.
E-mail address: sawyerj@lerner.udel.edu (J.E. Sawyer).
1
Melissa Houlette and Erin Yeagley were both doctoral students in
the Psychology Department at the University of Delaware during data
collection.
group piecing together a more accurate and complete
information base from which to make decisions (Stasser
& Titus, 1985). Theoretically this interaction results in
higher quality decisions than any individual would
achieve working alone. Having people from multiple
business functions and backgrounds work together in
groups is expected to provide a broader range of per-
spectives (i.e., knowledge, skills, information, and prob-
lem solving approaches) than would come from
homogeneous groups of individuals.
However, prior research on diversity in groups has
shown mixed results. A meta-analysis of empirical studies
of diversity found no consistent eVect of diversity (job
related, gender or race) on either performance or group
cohesion (Webber & Donahue, 2001). This result did not
diVer between top management versus lower level teams.

0749-5978/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.006
2 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
Webber and Donahue oVer a number of possible explana-
tions for their Wndings. One possibility is the inconsistent
Wndings may occur because researchers ignore diVerent
eVects of diVerent types of diversity (e.g., surface versus
deep level) and the interaction of time with types of diver-
sity (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). Furthermore, diVerent
attributes of diversity may aVect performance only to the
extent that they aVect social integration in groups (Harri-
son, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002).
Diversity activates social categorization (Kramer,
1991) in which individuals identify themselves as insiders
or outsiders (Milliken & Martins, 1996). As a result,
groups may not adequately integrate information across
job-function or racial subgroups. Self-categorization on
salient diVerences like race and job-function leads to
boundaries that seriously inXuence group processes, limit
communication, and diminish group cohesion (Lau &
Murninghan, 1998). Lau and Murninghan refer to these
ingroup versus outsider boundaries as “faultlines.” In the
current study, we focus on two types of faultlines; those
deWned by demographic diversity and those deWned by
informational diVerences imbedded in diVerent job-func-
tions. We refer to the relationship between these attributes
of diversity as a group’s Diversity Structure.
Given the inconsistent impact of diversity across
studies, the unanswered question is; under what circum-
stances does diversity in teams matter? Our study
focuses on when and how diversity eVects might be oper-
ating with the goal of learning how to leverage the pre-
dicted, but elusive eVects of diversity. We postulate that
multiple attributes of diversity manifest themselves in
diVerent conWgurations leading to various diversity
structures. We argue that diversity structure, not amount
of diversity, is a key driver of the eVect of diversity. We
examine the eVects of diVerent combinations of job-
function and demographic diversity on group decision-
making eVectiveness by varying group composition and
information distribution. We test group level perfor-
mance and the cross-level eVects on behavior and per-
ceptions to help us understand why diversity structure
diVerences aVect group performance. We also examine
the eVect of pre-discussion decisions among group mem-
bers to allow us to provide comprehensive recommenda-
tions for improving decision outcomes in diverse groups.
Group level eVects of diversity structure and prior choices
While management practitioners often tout the
advantages of a diverse workforce, research has sug-
gested that diversity is a double edged sword, bringing
beneWts and limitations. In an attempt to understand the
eVects of diversity, researchers have diVerentiated job-
related diversity such as attitudes, viewpoints, and
knowledge from less job-related diversity such as race,
gender and age (e.g., Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
Group level diversity translates into individual attributes
that are task-related or relations-oriented (Jackson,
May, & Whitney, 1995). Task-related diversity may
occur when members of diVerent job-functions bring
diVerent information to bear on a problem. Resulting
information diVerences (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,
1999) provide diVerent perspectives (Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998), but may result in conXicting viewpoints
and opinions pertaining to a group task (Jehn & Man-
nix, 2001). While researchers expected task-related and
relations-oriented diversity to have diVerential eVects on
performance and group cohesion, a recent meta-analysis
across 24 diVerent studies found no consistent eVects of
diversity (Webber & Donahue, 2001).
Time may moderate the eVects of surface level versus
deep level diversity. Surface level attributes such as race
and gender are immediately evident (generally immuta-
ble) characteristics (Jackson, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999;
Maznevski, 1994; Pelled et al., 1999). Deep level diversity
relates to those attributes of the individual such as atti-
tudes, beliefs and values that take time to emerge from
interpersonal interaction. Harrison et al. (1998) found
that time neutralized the negative eVects of surface level
diversity on workgroup cohesion as group members got
to know each other. In contrast, the recognition of deep
level diversity emerges over time as people learn about
others attitudes and beliefs. Thus, while deep level diver-
sity had no eVect on cohesion in the short term, for those
teams with greater experience together, deep level diver-
sity (variance in job satisfaction and organizational
commitment) reduced group cohesion over time.
Lack of consistent Wndings suggests that the eVect of
diversity is dependent on the social processes groups
adopt. Diversity may have positive impact only to the
extent that groups engage in debate (Simons, Pelled, &
Smith, 1999), and social integration may determine group
performance and cohesion (Harrison et al., 2002). Thus, to
understand the eVects of diversity we must develop and
understanding of the how diversity eVects social integra-
tion and the interaction processes that allow groups to
assimilate information to make eVective decisions.
Diversity structure: The conWguration of faultlines
Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-
categorization theory (Turner, 1982) are the predominate
frameworks for understanding the eVects of diversity on
social integration. Self-categorization theory suggests that
individuals use various attributes of others to determine to
what groups they belong. Surface level characteristics such
as race and gender are immediately evident (generally
immutable) characteristics that lead to identiWcation of
subgroups (Jackson, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999; Maznevski,
1994; Pelled et al., 1999). While deep level diversity (Harri-
son et al., 1998) often takes time to emerge through group
interaction, visual or other sensory cues can sensitize
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
members to diVerences and similarities quickly (Hertel &
Kerr, 2001). Typically, in a business context group mem-
bers know of each other’s job-function aYliations both
through labeling and through surface manifestations such
as dress or mannerisms. Informational diVerences may act
as a deep level diversity that can emerge over time, or can
be cued by known job-function diVerences (e.g., “I’m from
the marketing department,” or sales people dress diVer-
ently than manufacturing people) so that job related
information diVerences act more like surface level diver-
sity. Job-function distinctions (e.g., marketing versus pro-
duction) can lead to social categorization within an
organization (Kramer, 1991). Social Identity Theory sug-
gests that any salient characteristic can lead to subgroup
identity in which members see themselves as insiders to
their subgroup, and view others as outsiders. Such sub-
group boundaries generate beliefs and attitudes about
insiders versus outsiders that can form a barrier to com-
munication and collaboration.
Similarly, when a single individual, or a numerically
small subgroup of members hold diVerent information
they may become minority opinion holders. Minority opin-
ions can increase group creativity in problem solving and
improve the quality of solutions (Nemeth & Wachtler,
1983). However, majority opinion holders are more likely
to accept and integrate minority opinions when the minor-
ity opinion holder is a member of the same social category
as majority (i.e., Clark & Maass, 1988; Mugny & Papasta-
mou, 1982). Those within one’s own social group will be
more inXuential (Brock, 1965; Goethals & Nelson, 1973;
Lau & Murninghan, 1998) because people respond better
to messages that come from within their subgroup than
from an outsider (Turner, 1982; Van Knippenberg &
Wilke, 1992; Wiegman, 1985; Wilder, 1990).
Thus, the amount of diversity matters less than how
that diversity is conWgured in the group. Lau and Mur-
C
Cross-cut
A B
A B
• Fill pattern indicates different job functions resulting in
unique information.
• Background color indicates race.
• The three partitions of each triangle indicate three
group members, persons A, B, & C.
Fig. 1. Diversity structure: Distribution of information across racial subgroups.
3
ninghan (1998) developed the faultline analogy. They
suggested that subgroups based on salient attributes of
group members form faultlines. Individual attributes
such as race, gender, job roles, and other salient diVer-
ences lead to self-categorization and thus form multiple
homogeneous subgroups. In an otherwise homogeneous
group, job-function diVerences will result in a single
faultline because the members of one job-function see
themselves as a separate subgroup from others in the
group. This single subgroup faultline is illustrated in the
middle image of Fig. 1, where two members of a single
job-function within a racially homogeneous group see
themselves as diVerent and separate from a third mem-
ber who represents a diVerent job-function.
The alignment of multiple subgroups determines the
strength of the faultline separating a subgroup from the
rest of the group. When the faultlines of racial and job-
function subgroups converge, such that members of the
job-function subgroup are also members of a racial sub-
group, the subgroup distinction is sharpened. Multiple
converging subgroups (Lau & Murninghan, 1998)
strengthen the faultline, further blocking social and infor-
mation integration across the subgroup boundary. The
convergence of race and job-function subgroups is illus-
trated in the bottom right image of Fig. 1. The faultline
analogy is consistent with the social categorization model
(Brewer & Miller, 1984), which predicts that convergence
of race and job-function will promote category-based
responding because race and job-function cues coincide.
The convergence of racial with job-function sub-groups
may be a limiting condition on the potential beneWts of
job-function (task-related) diversity (Pelled et al., 1999;
Simons et al., 1999) because it impedes social integration.
In contrast, crosscutting race with diVerent job-func-
tions undercuts the salience of racial categorization by
changing the patterns of who is “in” and who is “out”
C
Same Race
C
A B
Convergent
4 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
and promotes individual as opposed to subgroup-based
interaction (Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer,
1993). When race crosses job-function, some racial sub-
group members will align with the job-function identiW-
cation of members outside their racial subgroup. The top
left image of Fig. 1 illustrates this crosscutting of race
and job-function subgroups. Crosscutting also results in
members within the same racial subgroup representing
diVerent job-functions, thus holding diVerent informa-
tion from each other, while having job-function in com-
mon with members outside their racial subgroup. Since
people expect to agree with similarly categorized others,
discrepant views from in-group members violate expec-
tations and are likely to induce active processing of
information (Baker & Petty, 1994; Petty & Cacioppo,
1986).
There has been little empirical research directly test-
ing Lau and Murninghan’s (1998) faultline concept.
Gibson and Vermeulen (2003) measured team heteroge-
neity as the overlap of attributes across all pairs of team
members summed across the team. They deWned sub-
group strength as the standard deviation of the overlap
across members. Thus, if some group member pairs had
many traits in common while others had few traits in
common, subgroup strength was high indicating there
was at least one subgroup whose members shared many
traits. Gibson and Vermeulen (2003) found an inverted
U relationship between subgroup strength and team
learning behavior, with team learning occurring only
when subgroup strength was moderate. In their formula-
tion, subgroup strength is moderate when members of a
subgroup also share attributes in common with group
members outside their subgroup.
Thatcherr, Jehn, and Zanutto (2003) used a similar
calculation of faultline strength. They tested the eVect of
faultline strength on conXict (relationship, task, and pro-
cess) and group outcomes (performance and morale).
Their analysis did not support the hypothesis that fault-
line strength is inversely related to performance and task
conXict. Their own reanalysis indicated that groups with
medium faultlines in which members had overlapping
membership across multiple faultlines had higher levels
of performance and morale. Thus, the critical factor in
enhancing performance and morale is cross-subgroup
alignment.
Shaw (2004) also presented a method of determining
faultline strength. He measured internal alignment by
determining the extent to which members of a subgroup
are more similar than chance distribution with other
members on all other possible attributes. Summing
across attribute categories determines the extent of inter-
nal subgroup alignment. Cross-subgroup alignment is
the extent to which members of a subgroup share attri-
butes with others outside their subgroup. If internal
alignment is high and cross-group alignment is low, the
faultlines are strong. In contrast, even if internal align-
ment is high, if cross-group alignment is also high fault-
lines are weak. Shaw (2004) validated his approach by
demonstrating that the calculations of cross subgroup
alignment were consistent with Lau and Murninghan’s
prototypical groups. He also showed that the measures
had convergent and discriminant validity in two sam-
ples. Shaw cautioned that his study did not test the
eVects of diversity on group process or performance.
Our conception of diversity structure is consistent
with Shaw’s conceptualization of faultline strength as
the extent of internal versus cross subgroup alignment.
The convergent subgroups described above and illus-
trated in Fig. 1 have strong faultlines because there are
two attributes of alignment (shared race and job-func-
tion) within the subgroup. When job-function diversity
converges with racial diversity (i.e., racial subgroup
members have similar information), the job-function
faultline reinforces the racial faultline thus strengthening
the subgroup distinction, reducing cohesion with mem-
bers outside the racial subgroup, and greatly impeding
communication (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). In
this conceptualization, the same race group has a moder-
ate faultline because there is a subgroup identiWed by the
internal alignment of job-function, but there is no salient
cross subgroup alignment. In contrast, the crosscut
group, thou it has more diversity than the same race
group (race and job-function versus merely job-func-
tion) has a weaker faultline. When members of a sub-
group also share salient attributes with other group
members outside their subgroup, there is cross-subgroup
alignment of attributes. This cross subgroup alignment
reduces the subgroup identiWcation and thus the fault-
line strength. Thus, social integration is more likely to
occur (Marcus-Newhall et al., 1993). The crosscut struc-
ture with its weakened faultlines should allow members
to share and integrate information better than groups
with clear-cut boundaries, thus arriving at better deci-
sions more often than same race groups.
We hasten to point out that this is a more Wne-grained
approach, and leads to a diVerent hypothesis than the
minority inXuence literature. The minority inXuence lit-
erature would suggest that same race groups would per-
form better because the minority-opinion holder shares
race with both other members (Phillips, 2003) while in
crosscut groups the minority-opinion holder shares race
with only one member of the majority-opinion group.
Following Shaw’s (2004) measurement of faultline
strength, convergent groups will have the strongest faultline
because both race and job-function deWne a subgroup.
Same race groups have a subgroup deWned by only job-
function and thus their faultline will be weaker than con-
vergent groups. Crosscut groups have the weakest faultline
because one member of the racial subgroup aligns with the
job function attribute of a member outside the racial sub-
groups, and one member of the job-function subgroup
aligns racially with a member outside the job-function
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
subgroup. Thus, we predict that crosscut groups will arrive
at the correct decision more frequently, and convergent
groups less frequently, than racially homogeneous groups.
Hypothesis 1. Groups in which attributes crosscut sub
group boundaries will achieve greater decision accuracy
than same race groups and groups with convergent sub-
group boundaries will under perform same race groups.
Prior choices and the common knowledge eVect
Several researchers have studied information sharing
and group judgment. A number of scholars have used
hidden proWle tasks to investigate the information-sam-
pling model (Stasser, 1988). Hidden proWles occur when
commonly held information supports an inferior deci-
sion alternative, thus the use of unique information held
by an individual or a small subset of the group is
required to uncover the best choice. The information-
sampling model proposes that the probability of an item
of information entering group discussion is a function of
the number of individuals in the group who hold that
item. As the pool of shared items is depleted, more
unshared items are discussed (Larson, Foster-Fishman,
& Keys, 1994). However, other processes as noted in the
comprehensive review by Stasser and Dietz-Uhler (2002)
aVect the likelihood that information will enter group
discussion and thus inXuence decisions.
Research on conformity (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) and
jury decision-making (Davis et al., 1993) has shown that
once individuals have made a public commitment, they
resist changing their judgment even under social pressure.
In a decision task, the act of forming and formally stating
a judgment may bias individuals to seek information to
conWrm that judgment and contribute only information
that supports that judgment. The attentional focus model
(Kelly & Karau, 1999) suggests that initial preferences
serve as a Wlter through which new information is consid-
ered. Thus, member preferences may inXuence the content
of group discussion such that members adopt a hypothe-
sis-conWrming search strategy where individual attention
and group discussion focuses on information supportive
of pre-discussion preferences and ignores or undervalues
contradictory information.
However, even if the information is considered it may
have less impact on the group’s decision than the mem-
bers’ pre-discussion preferences. Common knowledge
has a greater impact on group judgment than unshared
information because it can serve as a common reference
point for all group members. Gigone and Hastie (1993)
found that group members use information they hold
prior to group discussion to make individual judgments.
Individual judgments have a greater inXuence on group
judgments than the original information.
One implication of the common knowledge eVect is that
information held by multiple members prior to discussion
5
will aVect all of those members’ pre-discussion judgments
and thus will have a larger inXuence on the group judg-
ment than information that a minority of the members
hold. When a subgroup of the members hold the same
information, it is likely that they will arrive at the same pre-
discussion preference, assuming they weight the informa-
tion similarly. The informational subgroup with the major-
ity of the members will be able to pressure the member(s)
holding the minority opinion to adopt its preference
(Davis, 1973). Thus, shared information should have more
inXuence on the group judgment even if unshared informa-
tion is discussed fully. When the knowledge held by the
informational outsider is needed to realize the best option,
informational subgroup boundaries make it less likely that
the minority information is considered and the group will
likely adopt the inferior majority choice. In contrast, when
there is no pre-discussion decision, members consider more
information. With no pre-discussion decisions, the atten-
tional focus is taken oV the pre-discussion preferences and
more attention is given to exploring the information, thus
leading to a more optimal decision.
Hypothesis 2. When members do not state pre-discussion
preferences groups will make the best decision more
often than when members make a pre-discussion choice.
We expect that pre-discussion preferences will act in
an additive fashion with diversity structure. That is, by
stating a pre-discussion preference, group members are
likely to focus on individual decisions rather than
exploring information. Given that pre-discussion prefer-
ences are related to job-function informational diVer-
ences, and each of our conditions includes a job-function
faultline, all groups stating pre-discussion preferences
will under perform those groups not stating pre-discus-
sion preferences. Thus, we do not expect an interaction
among these factors.
Cross-level eVects of group structure on individuals
Group interaction processes
To reach the best decision, the job-function outsider
must participate in the group discussion and members of
the job-function subgroup must pay attention to him or
her. However, interaction problems associated with the
diversity structure of the group often leads to poor atti-
tudes and unproductive behaviors (Maznevski, 1994).
Because token, or skewed distribution of minority
membership in groups has negative eVects on the token
member (Kanter, 1977) we compare two critical posi-
tions within the group. In all three types of diversity
structure, there is always an information outsider. In the
convergent condition the information outsider is not a
member of either the racial or job function subgroup. In
the crosscut condition the information outsider is a
6 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
member of the racial majority subgroup. In the same
race condition the information outsider diVers from
other group members only by job-function (see position
C in each image in Fig. 1). Comparing the crosscut and
convergent conditions the racial outsider is a member of
the job-function subgroup in the crosscut but not the
convergent condition (see position A in Fig. 1). Compar-
ing across conditions, one person is always both a racial
and information insider (see position B in each image of
Fig. 1). Focusing on position C allow us to make infer-
ence about the impact of diVerent diversity structures on
the information outsider. Comparing position A and C
allows us to determine if this eVect is due to being a
racial minority, versus being an information outsider.
The faultline analogy (Lau & Murninghan, 1998) sug-
gests that the stronger the faultline the less participation
will cross the faultline. In convergent groups, the infor-
mation outsider is constrained by both the uniqueness of
his or her job-function and the racial boundary. Thus,
the boundary to participation is stronger in convergent
groups than in same race groups where only the job-
function faultline impedes participation. In crosscut
groups, the crossing of the racial and job-function fault-
lines will reduce subgroup categorization opening
greater participation by the information outsider than in
the same race condition.
Hypothesis 3. The job-function (information) outsider
will participate more in crosscut diversity-structure
groups than in same-race groups and less in groups with
convergent subgroup boundaries.
For Hypothesis 3, we compare the participation of
the job-function (information) outsider with the job-
function majority member who is a racial minority in the
crosscut and a racial majority in the convergent condi-
tion (person A in each image of Fig. 1). We did this to
control for variability in discussion time across groups
and to assess if race versus information minority is the
determining factor of this eVect. We propose that infor-
mation minority is more important than race in deter-
mining level of participation.
Majority group members will pay attention to similar
others and allow their information to inXuence the
group’s decisions more than information coming from
dissimilar persons (Baker & Petty, 1994; Phillips, 2003).
Thus, we predict the information outsider will be
attended to more in the crosscut and less in the conver-
gent than in the same race condition.2
2
Prior research (Harrison et al., 2002) suggests that the eVect of diver-
sity structure on group performance is mediated by social integration.
This suggests a mediation hypothesis. However, the experimental para-
digm used in this study makes it impractical to generate a large enough
sample size to eVectively test a mediation hypothesis controlling for non-
independence among group members and experimental condition. Thus,
we consider the co-occurrence of participation, attitudes and perfor-
mance by condition as consistent with the Harrison et al., Wndings.
Hypothesis 4. The job-function (information) outsider will
be attended to more in crosscut groups than in same race
groups and less in convergent diversity structure groups.
Group member perceptions of the group
Members’ identiWcation with the group may be an
important factor in group decision-making since strong
group attachment has been associated with a high level
of activity (Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992). Informational
diVerences within the group may result in the informa-
tion outsider not identifying with the group. When diver-
sity structure is convergent, the informational outsider is
further isolated due to both job-function and racial
diVerences. In contrast, the crosscut diversity structure
weakens the faultline boundaries. In the absence of
strong faultlines the informational outsiders are more
likely to see themselves as belonging to the group. In the
same race groups, though all members are of the same
race, the job-function faultline is salient resulting in less
identiWcation with the whole group.
Hypothesis 5. The information outsider will identify with
the group more in crosscut groups than same race groups
and less in groups with convergent subgroup boundaries.
Diversity leads to higher performance when members
are able to combine and build on each other’s ideas.
Studies have shown that groups high on both diversity
and integration have positive attitudes and improved
information-processing (Harrison et al., 2002; Maznev-
ski, 1994). Since crosscutting weakens faultlines and
should therefore promote integration of information
across job-function and racial diversity, information
outsiders in the crosscut condition should perceive
greater opportunity to inXuence the group.
Hypothesis 6. Information outsiders will perceive their
ability to inXuence the group more in crosscut groups
than same race groups and less in convergent groups.
Following the same logic, the information outsider
will perceive greater group process eVectiveness in cross-
cut diversity structure and less eVectiveness in the con-
vergent condition than among same race groups.
Hypothesis 7. Information outsiders will perceive the
group process as more eVective in in crosscut groups
than same race groups and less in convergent groups.
Method
Participants worked on a drug marketing decision
task in three-person groups. The study employed a 3
Diversity Structure (crosscut, same race, or
convergent) £ 2 Pre-discussion Decision (yes, no)
between-groups design. In racially diverse groups, two
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
members of the same race formed a racial subgroup
while the other member was a racial outsider. We focus
on racial diversity because it is among the most obvious
and socially signiWcant attributes of diversity. However,
we expect that our research would apply to social cate-
gorization based on inherent characteristics that are
highly salient and imply attitudinal, belief, value or sta-
tus diVerences among group members (Hollingshead,
1996). The racial majority was composed of White
Americans because of the larger availability of White
versus minority participants, which approximates the
demographics in the US workforce (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2002). We determined diversity structure by the
assignment of group members to job-function through
labeling and information supplied to members of the
groups. In the convergent condition, both racial majority
members (persons A and B in Fig. 1) represented the
same job-function and held the same information while
the racial outsider (person C) held diVerent information
representing a diVerent job-function. In the crosscut con-
dition, the racial outsider (person A) represented the
same job-function as one member of the racial majority
(person B), while the other member of the racial majority
(person C) represented the diVerent job-function (the
information outsider). In the same race groups, two
members (persons A and B) represented the same job-
function while the third member (person C) was the job-
function (information) outsider.
We use a laboratory context in order to isolate two
attributes of diversity into speciWc structural conWgura-
tions. While we acknowledge the limitations of using
contrived groups in a laboratory context, this methodol-
ogy allows us to directly test hypotheses about diversity
structure without other confounds that occur in Weld set-
tings. We chose to use three-person groups and compare
same race/diVerent job-function to crosscut and conver-
gent diversity structures in order to provide the simplest,
most straight-forward test of the faultline hypothesis.
We use same sex groups to avoid gender diversity within
groups.
Using Shaw’s (2004) computation,3 the faultline
strength for the crosscut groups is 0.1875, for same race
diVerent job-function groups is 0.4375, and for conver-
gent groups is 0.875. Thus, our ordering of conditions is
consistent with a linear relationship between faultline
3
Shaw (2004) computes Faultline Strength as the average of the
faultline strength for each diversity attribute represented within the
group. Faultline strength is the Internal Alignment on an attribute mul-
tiplied by the inverse of the Cross Group Alignment. Internal Alignment
is the
2 ratio of the observed frequency of membership within a sub-
group compared to the expected value assuming random distribution.
Cross-Subgroup Alignment is the weighted average of the cross prod-
ucts of membership across each pair of subgroups. Faultline Strength
varies from 0.0 to 1.0 with 1.0 being the strongest. Strong faultlines can
result from high internal alignment or from low cross sub-group align-
ment while low scores can result from little internal alignment or from
high cross sub-group alignment.
7
strength and decision accuracy. Comparing to Lau and
Murninghan’s (1998) classiWcations, crosscut teams can
align into two subgroups, two ways (i.e., the race sub-
group is not the same as the job-function subgroup)
making their faultline the weakest. The same race diVer-
ent job-function groups can align into only one sub-
group with one diVerentiating attribute. In contrast, the
convergent groups can align into two subgroups, but
only one way. Because two attributes deWne the single
subgroup, their faultline is the strongest of the three
group structures.
The Pre-discussion Decision manipulation was
whether participants made and recorded a personal deci-
sion about which drug to market before group discus-
sion. In the pre-discussion decision condition, prior to
entering the group discussion, we asked participants to
decide which drug was the best to develop for market
based on the information they learned. We gave them a
form on which to record their choice and their conW-
dence in this choice. The participant handed this form
personally to the experimenter. In the no pre-discussion
decision condition, we did not ask individuals to make a
decision prior to discussion.
Procedure
Prospective participants completed a pre-experimen-
tal questionnaire describing their demographic charac-
teristics approximately one week prior to the
experiment. They were then assigned to experiment
times in order to compose groups of appropriate demo-
graphic mix. Participants were given a scenario in which
a pharmaceutical company was faced with a decision of
which of two cholesterol-reducing drugs to develop for
market. They were told they would later be assigned to a
three-person group that would be required to identify
which drug was the best to develop for market. We deliv-
ered all instructions via audiotape for standardization.
Participants were given an introduction sheet listing
background information about cholesterol and the
issues that they should consider when making a decision
about marketing a given drug. This information was
designed to orient the participants to the task and pro-
vide a context for the facts that they would subsequently
be given. We delivered the job-function assignment
manipulation by telling participants that they would
learn information about the two drugs and that the
information they receive would be either marketing or
medical facts related to each drug. They were told that
they should be prepared to discuss the information they
were about to learn and that they would have to rely on
their memory during discussion. Participants had 20
minutes to study the 22 items given to them on a printed
fact sheet. The facts were in random order. We gave par-
ticipants a worksheet to help them study the information
by sorting the facts for the two drugs, which also served
8 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
to emphasize the job-function assignment manipulation.
We then collected all material and gave participants
10 min to list as many facts as they could recall about
each drug. The recall task served as a control to assure
that there were no diVerences across conditions in the
preparation of the participants. We followed the recall
task with the pre-discussion decision manipulation.
We then assigned participants to groups and moved
them to private discussion rooms. Audiotaped instruc-
tions informed the groups that they would have as much
time as they needed to choose, by consensus, which drug
to develop for market. We videotaped the discussions.
After reaching consensus, each group recorded its deci-
sion and wrote a justiWcation for its choice. Afterwards,
participants were individually administered a post-dis-
cussion questionnaire.
Participants
Two hundred nineteen students (102 males and 117
females) enrolled at a large university in the Eastern
United States were assigned to 73 three-person groups.
We recruited 153 advanced undergraduates from business
courses and minority-student support programs. Addi-
tionally 66 MBA students participated as part of a busi-
ness course. Each group was composed of members of the
same gender and education level (i.e., MBA students never
participated along with undergraduate students). The
racial outsiders were African American in 39 groups, His-
panic in four groups and Asian in 12 groups. We evenly
distributed the race of the outsider among the Diversity
Structure conditions. Undergraduate students received a
ten-dollar incentive or extra credit for participation.
Incentives were for participation, not performance. Analy-
sis showed that type of incentive (cash or course credit)
did not inXuence performance. Additionally, there were
no signiWcant diVerences in group structure or dynamics
comparing MBA to undergraduate student groups.
Decision task material and information assignment
The decision task was adapted from a drug marketing
decision task used by Kelly and Karau (1999). We
selected a sample of their items to form two diVerent full
information sets (32 items per set). Each participant
received partial information consisting of 12 general
information facts (identical for all participants), and 10
category-speciWc facts consisting of either medical or
marketing issues regarding two diVerent drugs. In each
group, we assigned identical sets of information to two
of the members, forming an “information subgroup”
preferring Drug 2. We assigned one member a unique set
of category speciWc information designed to lead to a
preference for Drug 1, constituting an “information out-
sider.” The complete set of 32 items led to a preference
for Drug 1 in 77% of pilot test individuals. Groups must
eVectively use the information outsider’s facts to arrive
at the correct choice of Drug 1.
Because our participants were in their workgroups for
only a short time, we mimicked the cueing of informa-
tional diVerences by visually labeling every member of
the workgroup as per their job-function. Tajfel, Billig,
Bundy, and Flament (1971) showed that such mere
labeling of people into diVerent categories is suYcient to
produce ingroup–outgroup boundaries, dubbed the min-
imal group eVect. Many studies have produced ingroup
favoritism and outgroup bias using the minimal group
paradigm (e.g., Diehl, 1988; Gaertner & Insko, 2000;
Hertel & Kerr, 2001). Thus, we expect this manipulation
to produce a faultline. We told participants that they
would receive diVerent information and gave them bad-
ges indicating which set of information they received to
emphasize the job-function assignment manipulation.
To control for possible eVects of the speciWc category of
information held by the members, we used a counterbal-
anced design with two diVerent Stimulus Sets of infor-
mation such that the information outsider held medical
information in half the groups and marketing informa-
tion in the other half.
Pilot testing veriWed all intended drug choices. Addi-
tionally, during the experiment, in 79% of the groups in
which members made pre-discussion decisions, all three
members began with the intended pre-discussion prefer-
ences. The greater the number of members entering group
discussion with the correct preference, the greater the like-
lihood of groups reaching the correct decision option,

2(3, N D 35) D 8.69, p D .03. This is consistent with Gruen-
feld, Mannix, Williams, and Neale (1996). However, this
relationship was not inXuenced by the Diversity Structure
manipulation,
2(6, N D 35) D 0.46, p D 1.00, thus diVer-
ences in pre-discussion preferences were not responsible
for diVerential eVects across conditions.
Dependent measures
Decision accuracy
We coded the selection of the best option (Drug 1) as
correct.
Videotaped behaviors
We coded videotaped group discussions for talking
and attending behavior as discussed in Hypotheses 3 and
4 using the CAMERA behavioral coding system (Kruk
& Geuze, 1992) which uses a computer interface to elec-
tronically time stamp the video taped sessions. When the
target behavior occurs, coders press assigned keys pro-
grammed for each of the behavior sets. The computer
uses the time stamp to record the duration and fre-
quency of the button presses. We showed six coders (two
for each behavior) examples of the behaviors, rated sev-
eral practice sessions taken from pilot studies, discussed
discrepancies in the ratings, and continued training until
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
an inter-rater reliability of at least .80 was achieved. All
coders were blind to the experimental conditions and
hypotheses and worked independently once trained.
Some video segments (distributed evenly across condi-
tions) could not be coded for one or more of the behav-
iors due to poor audio quality (degrees of freedom are
reported for each analysis).
The CAMERA system produced total discussion
time for each session. Raters coded talking as the dura-
tion of time that one member of the information sub-
group and the information outsider talked. We chose the
information subgroup member who was a racial major-
ity member in the convergent condition and a racial out-
sider in the crosscut condition (person A in Fig. 1) in
order to make a direct comparison of the talking behav-
ior of information outsiders versus insiders when they
are racial minorities versus white. The information out-
sider was a racial majority member in the crosscut condi-
tion but a racial outsider in the convergent condition
(person C in Fig. 1). Inter-rater agreement for the dura-
tion of talking behavior was assessed by correlating rat-
ings of the two coders for the information outsider
(r D .97) and the information insider (r D .94). The second
behavior coded was the amount of time the racial major-
ity member, who was also an information insider, spent
attending to the information outsider (inter-rater agree-
ment, r D .94). In all conditions this was always person B
(see Fig. 1). We chose person B because that individual
always shared job-function with one member and race
with the other group member (or with both members in
the same-race groups).4 We are interested in determining
if this person attends to unique information more when
it comes from a person of the same or diVerent race. We
operationalized attending as directing head movement
and gaze toward the information outsider.
Control variables
Two independent raters content coded recall tasks
(inter-rater r D .92). We tested to assure that the amount
of information correctly recalled by individuals was not
confounded with the Pre-discussion Decision manipula-
tion. A repeated measures ANOVA comparing recall of
items related to Drug 1 versus Drug 2 crossed with the
Pre-discussion Decision manipulation showed that par-
ticipants recalled more items relating to Drug 2
(M D 10.10) than Drug 1 (M D 9.45), F (1, 187) D 10.33,
p < .01, but there was no eVect due to the Pre-discussion
Decision manipulation, F (1, 187) D 0.22, p > .10. Thus,
the Pre-discussion Decision manipulation did not inXu-
4
We seated person B facing the camera so that we could clearly
monitor her or his attention to the other two members. Because the
other members had their sides turned toward the camera, we were not
able to reliably code their attention (see coding methods later in the
manuscript).
9
ence the processing objective of the participants. Addi-
tionally, the association between recall and drug choice
was not signiWcant, F (1,99) D 0.92, p > .10.
Post-experiment questionnaire
Manipulation checks
We included questions to verify that participants
accurately perceived the informational and racial com-
position of the group. Participants identiWed their own
race and indicated which member(s), if any, were of the
same race. Participants also identiWed their own job-
function (medical or marketing) and indicated which
member(s), if any, represented the same job-function.
Seventy-one groups remained after removing two
groups in which one or more members incorrectly identi-
Wed the racial and/or job-function composition.
Control variables
Participants indicated the extent to which they knew
other members of the group to control for the eVect of
prior acquaintance. Two groups had members who
reported being close or intimate friends with another
member, confounding our Diversity Structure manipula-
tion. We removed these groups from further analyses leav-
ing 69 groups in the experimental design. Table 1 identiWes
the number of groups remaining in each condition.
Measures of perceptions of the group
We administered three scales to identify constructs
presumed to reXect group processes. The Group IdentiW-
cation scale was nine items with a seven-point Likert
scale (Hinkle, Taylor, & Fox-Cardamone, 1989) (e.g., “I
see myself as an important part of this group.”). Oppor-
tunity to InXuence consisted of six questions scored on a
nine-point Likert scale measured one’s ability to inXu-
ence the group decision (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) (e.g.,
“How understood and listened to did you feel in your
group?”). The group decision Process EVectiveness scale
(Reagan & Rohrbaugh, 1990) consisted of 11 items,
scored on a seven-point Likert scale with three adapted
to apply to our task (e.g., “The group considered all rele-
vant information in making its decision”).
Results
Decision analysis
We Wrst conducted a logistic regression of decision
accuracy on stimulus set to assure that the stimulus set
did not aVect the decision outcome. The test indicated
there was no eVect of information condition on decisions
(Wald test D 0.35, df D 1, p D .55). We then conducted the
logistic regression on decision accuracy by Diversity
Structure (crosscut, same, convergent) by Pre-discussion
10 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15

Table 1
Logistic regression of decisions on diversity structure and pre-discussion decision conditions
Number correct/total N (proportion correct)
Pre-discussion decision No pre-discussion decision Diversity structure eVect
Crosscut 6/12 (.50) 11/13 (.85) 17/25 (.68)
Same race 2/10 (.20) 5/10 (.50) 7/20 (.35)
Convergent 4/13 (.31) 4/11 (.36) 8/24 (.33)
Pre-discussion decision eVect 12/35 (.34) 20/34 (.59)

EVect B SE Wald Test df SigniWcance EVect size

2 ¤
Parameter estimates, signiWcance tests, and Nagelkerke R measure of eVect size
Diversity structure 6.95 2 .03 .14
Crosscut vs. Same Race ¡1.45 .66 4.79 1 .03
Convergent vs. Same Race 0.03 .66 0.00 1 .96
Pre-discussion decision 1.07 .53 4.04 1 .04 .08
Constant ¡1.41 .83 2.886 1 .09
¤
The Nagelkerke R2 for the combined structure and pre-discussion decision eVect size is .21.

Decision (yes, no). We conducted planned contrasts for
convergent versus same-race and crosscut versus same-
race conditions. The logistic regression is appropriate
because all variables in the analysis are categorical. In
Table 1, we present the count and percent of correct and
incorrect responses by Diversity Structure and Pre-dis-
cussion Decision conditions. Additionally, we report the
parameter estimates for each hypothesis test along with
Nagelkerke R2 as a measure of eVect size for each eVect
and for the full model (Tabachnik & Fidel, 1989). The
signiWcant Diversity Structure parameter for crosscut
compared with same race groups supports Hypothesis 1,
indicating that crosscut performed better than same race
groups. However, contrary to our expectation, same race
did not perform better than convergent groups, partially
disconWrming Hypothesis 1. Post hoc contrast indicated
that crosscut performed signiWcantly better than conver-
gent ( D 1.48, SE D .63, Wald D 5.48, p < .05) diversity
structure. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the signiWcant
parameter estimate for pre-discussion decisions indicates
that groups in the no Pre-discussion Decision condition
made the correct choice more frequently than groups in
the pre-discussion decision condition.
information outsider (whose race also varied across con-
dition). There was a signiWcant main eVect for the
repeated measures factor such that the information out-
sider (M D .33) talked more than the information insider
(M D .21), F (1, 25) D 13.95, p < .01, 2 D .36. There was a
signiWcant Speaker by Diversity Structure interaction,
F (2, 25) D 4.24, p < .05, 2 D .25 (see Fig. 2). In the same
race groups, information insiders and outsiders talked
about the same. In the crosscut condition, the informa-
tion outsider talked more than the insider, supporting
Hypothesis 3. However, disconWrming Hypothesis 3, the
information outsider also talked more in the convergent
Diversity Structure groups. Recall in this condition the
information outsider is also the racial outsider. We note
that averages within the information subgroups are
closer than averages within the racial subgroups, with
information outsiders talking more than information
insiders do, independent of race. Thus, the Wndings
regarding the amount of information outsider talking is
due to diversity structure, not race alone.
0.45
Proportion of Total Discussion Time

0.4 Racial
Majority
Analyses of talking and attending behavior 0.35
Racial
0.3 Minority
We conducted a 2 Pre-discussion Decision by 3 0.25
Diversity Structure by 2 Speaker (information 0.2 Racial Racial
insider[person A] vs. outsider[person C]) repeated mea- 0.15 Majority Minority
sures5 ANOVA on the arcsine transformed proportion6 0.1
of total discussion time the information insider (whose 0.05
race varied across condition) talked compared to the 0
Convergent Same Crossed
O 0.31 0.28 0.39
5
We used repeated measures ANOVA because we are comparing the I 0.19 0.27 0.17
talking time of two individuals who are members of the same group. Be- Diversity Structure Condition
cause they are members of the same group, they are not independent.
6 Fig. 2. Proportion of discussion time the information outsider (O)
We used the arsine transformation because the data are propor-
tions. This transformation approximates the normal distribution as- talked compared to the information insider (I) who’s race varies as a
sumed for the ANOVA statistics and does not alter the interpretation. function of diversity structure condition.
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15 11

Table 2
Test of post-test measures for the information outsider: culture condition by pre-decision
Source Dependent variable F df p Partial 2
a
Corrected model Group identiWcation 3.75 5/54 .01 .26
Opportunity to inXuenceb 4.14 5/54 .01 .28
Process eVectivenessc 1.68 5/54 .16 .14
Intercept Group identiWcation 2390.57 1/54 .00 .98
Opportunity to inXuence 2762.64 1/54 .00 .98
Process eVectiveness 1263.36 1/54 .00 .96
Diversity structure Group identiWcation 8.62 2/54 .00 .24
Opportunity to inXuence 8.83 2/54 .00 .24
Process eVectiveness 2.41 2/54 .10 .08
Pre-discussion decision Group identiWcation 0.41 1/54 .53 .01
Opportunity to inXuence 2.11 1/54 .15 .04
Process eVectiveness 2.03 1/54 .16 .04
Diversity structure by pre-discussion decision Group identiWcation 0.23 2/54 .80 .01
Opportunity to inXuence 0.08 2/54 .92 .00
Process eVectiveness 1.10 2/54 .34 .04
a
R2 D .26 (adjusted R2 D .19).
b
R2 D .28 (adjusted R2 D .21).
c
R2 D .14 (adjusted R2 D .06).

We conducted a 2 Pre-discussion Decision by 3
Diversity Structure ANOVA on the arcsine transformed
proportion of time the racial/information insider spent
attending to the information outsider. There was a main
eVect for Diversity Structure on attending,
F (2, 35) D 3.90, p < .05, 2 D .18. Consistent with Hypoth-
esis 4, the crosscut groups (41%) were signiWcantly diVer-
ent from same race (25%) (p D .04). However, same race
groups did not diVer from convergent groups (27%)
(p D .82). Thus, while the information outsider talked
more than the insider in both convergent and crosscut
conditions did: the racial/information insider attended
to the information outsider more in the crosscut than
convergent or same race conditions.
Analysis of perceptions about the group
We conducted a 2 Pre-Discussion Decision by 3
Diversity Structure MANOVA on information outsid-
ers’ Group IdentiWcation, Opportunity to InXuence, and
Process EVectiveness.7 The information outsider shared
race with both other members in the same race condi-
tion, shared race with one other member who held diVer-
ent information in the crosscut condition, and shared
neither race nor information with any other member in
the convergent condition. The multivariate test was sig-
niWcant for Diversity Structure (F (3,53) D 6.95, p < .01,
2 D .28). Table 2 shows the univariate test results for
each of the dependent variables. Table 3 shows the
coeYcient- reliability estimates, grand means and stan-
dard deviations, inter-scale correlations, as well as means
7
Based on a prior reviewer’s comments, we conducted an analysis
including all members’ perceptions of the group across all conditions.
We found no diVerence across conditions except for the information
outsider.
and the standard errors for each dependent variable by
Diversity Structure. Pair-wise comparisons for eVects of
Diversity Structure (convergent versus same and cross-
cut versus same) indicated that the information outsider
reported more Group IdentiWcation, greater Opportu-
nity to InXuence, and greater Process EVectiveness in the
crosscut than in the same race condition, partially sup-
porting Hypotheses 5–7. However, the convergent condi-
tion also produced greater opportunity to inXuence than
did the same race condition. The convergent diversity
structure condition did not diVer from same race on the
other measures.
In order to rule out the explanation that this eVect is
due to being a racial minority (versus information out-
sider) we conducted the same analysis with the atti-
tudes of the racial minority member toward the group.
Since there is no racial minority in the same race condi-
tion this analysis compared crosscut with convergent
Diversity Structure and Pre-discussion Decision condi-
tions. The multivariate tests were not signiWcant. The
only univariate test that was signiWcant was for Diver-
sity Structure on perception of the decision process
eVectiveness (F(1, 48) D 5.59, p D .02, 2 D .11). Racial
minority members were more satisWed with the deci-
sion process in the crosscut (M D 5.60, SE D .20) than in
the convergent condition (M D 4.94, SE D .20). Thus,
information outsiders feel more group identiWcation
and ability to inXuence the group in crosscut versus
other conditions, while racial minorities perceive less
decision process eVectiveness in the convergent condi-
tion compared to the crosscut condition. Racial minor-
ities did not diVer on group identiWcation or perceived
inXuence on the decision in the crosscut compared with
convergent conditions. Thus, the Wndings relating atti-
tudes to diversity structure condition are not due
strictly to racial minority status.
12 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
Table 3
Descriptive statistics for post-test measures
Mean, standard deviation, coeYcient- reliability and inter scale correlations
Mean
Group identiWcation (GI) 5.54
Opportunity to inXuence (OI) 5.81
Process eVectiveness 5.06
Dependent variable Diversity structure
Mean post-test measures for the information outsider by diversity structure condition
Group identiWcation Crosscut
Same Race
Convergent
Opportunity to inXuence Crosscut
Same Race
Convergent
Process eVectiveness Crosscut
Same Race
Convergent
Parentheses indicate standard errors. Comparisons are Convergent and Crosscut compared to Same Race.
a
p < .05.
b
p < .01.
Discussion and conclusions
Groups in which race crosscut job-function had
greater decision accuracy than racially homogeneous
groups while convergent and same race group perfor-
mance did not diVer. The groups in this study whose
members did not make a pre-discussion decision outper-
formed groups whose members did record an individual
decision prior to discussion. Crosscut Diversity Struc-
ture with no Pre-discussion Decision was the only condi-
tion in which groups signiWcantly outperformed random
chance (.50) and outperformed individuals who had full
information in the pilot testing. Only crosscut Diversity
Structure with no Pre-discussion Decision resulted in the
facilitative communication necessary to achieve the
results desired of cross-functional groups.
The Wndings for talking and attending behavior help
us understand the role of racial and information outsid-
ers. Recall that in the same race groups the information
outsider is a majority race member, while in the conver-
gent condition the information outsider diVers in race
from the information insiders. In the crosscut condition,
the information outsider is a majority race member
while one of the information insiders is the minority race
member. In both crosscut and convergent conditions, the
information outsider talked more than the information
insider of the opposite race. Racial minority and major-
ity members are more similar within job-function assign-
ment than are participants of the same race across job-
function assignments. Similarly, attending diVered only
by Diversity Structure, in which the racial/information
insider attended to the information outsider more in the
crosscut than same race condition, while convergent ver-
sus same race did not diVer. Thus, the fact that conver-
gent and same race groups did not diVer on participation
SD Coef- GI OI
.90 0.86
.89 0.84 .71
1.06 0.81 .40 .42
Main eVect for diversity structure
6.02 (.16)b
4.93 (.23)
5.32 (.17)
6.21 (.16)b
5.04 (.23)
5.77 (.17)a
5.40 (.21)a
4.66 (.30)
4.94 (.22)
of the information outsider, or attending to the informa-
tion outsider, conWrms that diversity structure, not race,
is the critical factor in our Wndings. In our study, cross-
cutting allows the job-function outsider to share racial
group membership with one of the job-function sub-
group members allowing them to be more persuasive
(Van Knippenberg & Wilke, 1992).
Our study showed that when race is crossed with job-
function the information outsiders identiWed more with
the group, perceived more opportunity to inXuence the
group, and rated the process as more eVective than when
all members were of the same race, or when race and job-
function converged. The results of the video analysis
indicated that these perceptions were accurate. The
crosscut condition was the only condition in which the
information outsider talked signiWcantly more than the
insider, and was attended to the most. It was in the cross-
cut condition that information outsiders had a link to
the job-function subgroup via racial similarity with a
subgroup member. These Wndings are consistent with the
social categorization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984;
Marcus-Newhall et al., 1993) and Lau and Murnin-
ghan’s (1998) faultline analogy. The overlapping of
group boundaries that exists with crossed categoriza-
tions weakens faultlines.
Contrary to our hypotheses, our research found no
diVerence between convergent diversity structure and
same race groups in decision accuracy or the processes
that aVect it. Thus, convergence eliminated the potential
positive eVects of diversity but did not lead to poorer
performance than same race groups. We suspect this
occurred because the locus of poor performance was the
inability to share information. In our study, job-function
(and thus information) was the source of one faultline. In
the same race groups, the lack of a salient characteristic
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
crossing the job-function faultline may have allowed the
preferences generated by the faultline to be as strong as
the race plus job-function faultline of the convergent
groups. This suggests that race is not the critical dimen-
sion in our Wndings: Diversity Structure is.
Thus, crosscutting reduces category-based informa-
tion processing and decreases the likelihood of commu-
nication barriers formed by clear-cut group boundaries.
The fact that job-function roles vary within race may
reduce the assumed similarity among group members
who share race and prime group members to expect
diVerences in perspective within the racial pair. If job-
function and demographic subgroups converge, diversity
may actually limit pooling of the information that diver-
sity can bring to the group. Our same race groups were
similar to Gruenfeld et al. (1996) unfamiliar groups.
Gruenfeld et al., found familiarity among group mem-
bers allowed the group to transcend preferences due to
information diVerences. Familiar groups pooled infor-
mation while unfamiliar groups aggregated judgments.
We believe that our crosscut condition had a similar
eVect. Crosscutting appears to have facilitated the social
integration (Harrison et al., 2002) and open communica-
tion (Simons et al., 1999) necessary for diversity to ben-
eWt group decisions.
Our Wndings also provide a possible explanation for
why prior research using the faultline analogy has found a
non-linear relationship between faultline strength and
group outcomes (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Thatcher
et al., 2003). In their measurement system, groups with a
high degree of cross-subgroup alignments have moderate
faultline strength. In our conceptualization, and Shaw’s
(2004) measurement system, cross-subgroup alignment
results in low faultline strength. The critical aspect in group
performance and cohesion may not be the amount of
diversity or homogeneity. The critical factor may be those
salient attributes that cross, or transcend, social subgroups
that allow the group members to think of themselves as a
whole, rather than as subgroups within the group.
Implications for practice
Our research shows that one way to reduce the barri-
ers to communication is to assure that attributes align
members across subgroups. Thus, in a group composed
of marketing and manufacturing representatives, having
a racial minority who shares job-function with a racial
majority member, or having a manufacturing represen-
tative who shares race with a marketing representative
may serve to open lines of communication. In groups
where diverse members bring potentially diVerent infor-
mation or viewpoints, our research and the theorizing of
Lau and Murninghan (1998) suggests that the group
would beneWt by identifying some characteristic that
crosses subgroup faultlines. Gibson and Vermeulen
(2003) echo this recommendation because they found
13
that moderately diverse groups, deWned as those in
which characteristics overlap subgroups, perform better.
This structure should allow for better group communi-
cation and ultimately a better group product. Failure to
structure the diversity dimensions of the group with
cross category characteristics wastes the richness of the
variation in knowledge and perspectives that diversity
can bring to the group.
Another way to improve group functioning is to
establish a group norm that prevents members from
coming to the group with a predetermined decision and
focuses on exploring all relevant information by the
group. Maier (1963), in noting the propensity of individ-
uals and groups to generate solutions prior to analyzing
the problem, cautioned individuals and groups not to
make choices prior to a thorough discussion of the prob-
lem and the facts at hand. Our Wndings support his prop-
osition. The negative eVect of pre-discussion decisions
found in our study is consistent with prior research on
the common knowledge eVect and the attentional focus
model. That research has shown that individual judg-
ments are given more weight in the group decision than
the information available to the group as a whole
(Gigone & Hastie, 1993) and that successful groups pool
information rather than aggregating individual judg-
ments (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). Individual judgments
become an attentional Wlter through which information
is processed (Kelly & Karau, 1999). Thus, the absence of
a pre-discussion decision is one of the necessary condi-
tions for optimal group performance.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
In this research, we used a decision task for which
there is a binary choice. We did so because we wanted to
assess decision accuracy on choice tasks similar to that
done by Stasser and colleagues. However, judgment
tasks in which the accuracy of judgments or decision
tasks with multiple decision choices would provide a
greater range of responses and potentially provide
increased power to address similar questions. We also
focus on just one element of diVerence in job-function
diversity, that of information. Job functions bring with
them a multitude of diVerences. This is why it would be
impossible to conduct this research in a Weld setting. The
ability to isolate a single characteristic of job-function,
information relative to decision-making, allows direct
tests of our hypotheses. In the Weld, the many job-func-
tion diVerences would confound the method and make
speciWc conclusions impossible.
Our Wndings are limited in that they come from
groups with short duration and with no history among
their members. We expect that some of the eVects of sub-
group boundaries, relationship, and task conXict on
group performance change over time (Jehn & Mannix,
2001). Time may neutralize the eVects of surface level
14 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
diversity (Harrison et al., 1998). However, we postulate
that when surface level characteristics converge with
deep level attitude or value diVerences, time may accen-
tuate those eVects as deep level diVerences are uncovered
which reinforce the surface level categorization. Future
research needs to investigate information sharing in
groups over time or in which members have a history
together. Unfortunately, this is a diYcult task to accom-
plish in the laboratory. Field research provides a better
context to test time-related eVects. However, Weld
researchers seldom have the freedom to compose groups
to test speciWc group composition hypotheses or ran-
domly assign groups to tasks. Researchers need to look
for settings in which they can assess group composition
variations and communication.
Another limitation of our research is that our groups
were composed such that the racial majority was always
White Americans and the minority member was always a
social minority. Racial minorities bear the burden of
assumed status and power diVerences. Research using the
minimal group paradigm (Gaertner & Insko, 2000; Hertel
& Kerr, 2001) suggests that convergent subgroups have
negative eVects even when there is no presumption of sta-
tus or power diVerences, but what happens when the sta-
tus or power diVerences reverse? What would happen if
the racial minority in our groups were a social majority
member (e.g., a single White among a group of African-
Americans)? This is an excellent question for future
research. While we believe that our Wndings will generalize
to a variety of groups in which social categories connote
diVerences in status, we need further research to test the
generalizability of our Wndings to other compositions such
as where White Americans are the cultural outsiders, or
where other inherent characteristics such as gender form
the basis of subgroup diVerences.
As researchers continue to examine the tendency of
decision-making groups to fall short of optimal perfor-
mance, they should identify factors that could allow
groups to excel. The future of group decision-making
research and the study of demographic and functional
diversity need to converge to continue this process of
discovering the true potential of diverse groups.
References
Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority inXuence:
Source–position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5–19.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis:
Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B.
Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation
(pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650–654.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002). Employed persons by detailed occu-
pation, sex, race and Hispanic origin. Available from: http://
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf.
Clark, R. D., & Maass, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and
perceived source credibility in minority inXuence. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 18(5), 381–394.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of
social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.
Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Parks, C. D., Holbert, L., Kameda, T.,
Zimmerman, S. K., & Ono, K. (1993). Quantitative decisions by
groups and individuals: Voting procedures and monetary awards
by mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
29, 326–346.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and infor-
mational social inXuence upon individual judgment. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
Diehl, M. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The eVects of
interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup
discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 289–300.
Gaertner, S. L., & Insko (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the mini-
mal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 77–94.
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a
stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 48, 202–239.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge eVect: Infor-
mation sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.
Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, E. R. (1973). Similarity in the inXuence pro-
cess: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 25, 117–122.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A.
(1996). Group composition and decision making: How member
familiarity and information distribution aVect process and perfor-
mance. Organizational Behaivor and Human Decision Processes, 67,
1–15.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational
demography: Time and the eVects of surface- and deep-level diver-
sity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
96–107.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time,
teams, and task performance: Changing eVects of surface- and
deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1029–1045.
Hertel, G., & Kerr, N. L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The
impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 316–324.
Hinkle, S., Taylor, L. A., & Fox-Cardamone, L. (1989). Intragroup
identiWcation and intergroup diVerentiation: A multicomponent
approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 305–317.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persis-
tence in group decision making: The eVects of communication
media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings:
Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Wor-
chel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group processes and produc-
tivity (pp. 138–173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the
dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo &
E. Salas (Eds.), Team eVectiveness and decision making in organiza-
tions (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conXict: A
longitudinal study of intragroup conXict and group performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why diVerences
make a diVerence: A Weld study of diversity, conXict, and perfor-
mance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–
763.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1994). Joining together. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
 J.E. Sawyer et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006) 1–15
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some eVects of proportions on group life:
Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal
of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
Kelly, J. K., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The eVects
of initial preference and time pressure. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 25, 1342–1354.
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups: Their per-
formance and reactions with constructive conXict. Group and Orga-
nization Management, 17, 153–170.
Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilem-
mas: The role of categorization processes. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp.
191–228). London: JAI Press Ltd.
Kruk, M. R., & Geuze, R. H. (1992). CAMERA: A system for collecting
and correcting behavioral data. The Netherlands: University of
Groningen.
Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion
of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461.
Lau, D. C., & Murninghan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and
faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences:
Leadership methods and skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M. B. (1993).
Cross-cutting category memberships with role assignment: A
means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 32, 125–146.
Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our diVerences: Performance
in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations,
47, 531–552.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Understanding the multiple eVects of diversity in organizational
groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433.
Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1982). Minority inXuence and psycho-
social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 379–394.
Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a
result of majority vs minority inXuence. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 13(1), 45–55.
O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Workgroup demogra-
phy, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 34, 21–37.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the
black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conXict, and per-
formance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
Phillips, K. W. (2003). The eVects of categorically based expectations
on minority inXuence: the importance of congruence. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 3–13.
15
Reagan, P., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1990). Group decision process eVective-
ness: A competing values approach. Group and Organization Stud-
ies, 15, 20–43.
Shaw, J. B. (2004). The development and analysis of a measure of
group faultlines. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 66–100.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of diVer-
ence: Diversity, debate, and discussion comprehensiveness in top
management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.
Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DIS-
CUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24, 393–422.
Stasser, G., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2002). Collective choice, judgment and
problem solving. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 31–55). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in
group decision making: Biased information sampling during dis-
cussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–
1478.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social cat-
egorization and intergroup behaviors. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-
group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics
(second ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Thatcherr, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diver-
sity research: The eVects of diversity faultlines on conXict and per-
formance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 217–241.
Turner, J. (1982). Toward a cognitive redeWnition of the social group.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior (pp. 15–
40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. (1992). Prototypicality of argu-
ments and conformity to ingroup norms. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 22, 141–155.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-
related diversity on work group cohesion ande performance: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.
Wiegman, O. (1985). Two politicians in a realistic experiment: Attrac-
tion, discrepancy, intensity of delivery, and attitude change. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 673–686.
Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of
ingroups and outgroups: Organization of information and attribu-
tion of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1202–1213.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). London: JAI Press
Ltd.