773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

77
3Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group
Effectiveness
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe interpersonal skills and their importance in the
workplace.
• Explain how our basic interpersonal relations skill set is
formed and describe methods for further
development.
• Identify and describe the major elements of the
communication process.
• Identify the major communication flows in an organization
and the type of information associated with each.
• Identify and describe three significant models of
communication.
• Outline the basic obstacles to effective communication and
strategies for overcoming them.
• Describe the relationship between positive interdependence
and knowledge sharing.

• Define interpersonal communication and its impact on group
effectiveness.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 77 8/19/16 9:36 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Pretest
1. Interpersonal skills are only important in face-to-face group
work; they are not really
applicable to virtual team settings. T/F
2. Our ability to recall the information we have heard degrades
within a short period of
time. T/F
3. Social skills are not trainable; like personality, you get what
you are born with. T/F
4. One of greatest challenges to communicating effectively lies
in how both the sender and
receiver filter the content of a message. T/F
5. In teams, members pool their KSAs through mass exchange
or information capture. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Bexco is a small engineering firm that takes a team-based
approach to the work environ-

ment. At Bexco, a team composed of five engineers has worked
together for a little over
2 years. About 6 months ago, the team’s manager informed the
team members that he
had hired a new engineer to join their team. Team members
received this news well, and
they have spent the past 4 months adjusting to and training their
new team member,
Erik. During this time, team members have all worked with Erik
in some capacity and
have all experienced the same problem—Erik has trouble
communicating with others.
The team is decentralized, meaning that all members share
leadership and task roles and
communicate directly with each other. There is no single leader
through which to fun-
nel communications, which allows members to easily share their
knowledge and view-
points. This has allowed the team to enjoy uninhibited
communication and collaboration.
Although the team members have demonstrated the way their
communication network
functions and have encouraged Erik to communicate directly
with his team, Erik contin-
ues to direct his communications toward the team’s supervisor
rather than to his fellow
team members. When Erik communicates with his team through
the supervisor, he limits
his ability to influence the team and its ability to influence him,
which inhibits relation-
ships. Additionally, when he does communicate with team
members directly, his messages
are often unclear and his colleagues cannot determine their
meaning or the importance
of the information. His communications typically contain

important information but lack
the context the rest of the team needs to understand their
significance.
The team members want to help Erik improve his
communication skills. They under-
stand that everyone makes mistakes when they communicate;
while such mistakes can
sometimes be revised or explained, the exchange can never be
undone. Both practice and
empathy—understanding the perspective of the person with
whom you are communicat-
ing—will improve interpersonal communications over time. The
team intends to help
Erik grow his skills in this area by providing feedback on his
communication and present-
ing him with some guiding principles to effectively
communicate.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 78 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Whether we are employees, managers, part of a work group, or
on a team, working
together requires cooperation, coordination, and social
interaction. Given adequate
technical skills and material resources, effective performance
largely depends on prop-
erly using essential interpersonal skills (Klein, DeRouin, &
Salas, 2006). Effective teams

are characterized by using interpersonal skills to facilitate:
• sharing knowledge and viewpoints,
• identifying problems (by voicing concerns),
• solving problems and making decisions, and
• resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative
ways (Cannon-
Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Stevens &
Campion 1994; Varney, 1989).
These processes are too complex to address in a single chapter.
Problem solving, deci-
sion making, and conflict management are individually dealt
with later in the text. In this
chapter, we define and discuss the interpersonal relations skill
set, examine interpersonal
behaviors and skills relating to communication, and explore
their impact on performance.
3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Interpersonal skills, or people skills, refer to a complex skill set
that encompasses KSAs and
behaviors that enhance the quality of our interpersonal
interactions (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1995). Interpersonal skills and the ability to work
constructively in groups and teams top the
list of the most valuable skill areas for job seekers, interns,
employees, and managers at all
levels and across virtually any operational setting, from
accounting to the armed forces (Mun-
son, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004; Klein et al.,
2006). Everybody wants interper-
sonal skills, but nobody seems to know exactly where they come
from, what they are, or how
to get them.

Where Do Interpersonal
Skills Come From?
As with skills of any type, interper-
sonal skills can be learned, prac-
ticed, and developed over time. We
can consciously begin the process
of honing these skills at any point in
our lives and across any setting, pri-
vate or professional. However, most
of us develop an unconscious level
of competency in interpersonal skills
simply by living and interacting with
others over the course of our life-
time. Humans are social by nature,
and from our earliest moments, most
of us try to communicate with those
around us via eye contact, facial
expressions, body language, and
KIM JAE-HWAN/Staff/GettyImages
Today U.S. Marines receive special training in people
skills and social interaction before going on overseas
duty assignments.
Section 3.1
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 79 8/19/16 9:36 AM
Section 3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value

physical sensations, and we eventually graduate to using verbal
communication as well (Klein
et al., 2006). We develop a sense of social and behavioral norms
from our early interactions
with family and friends, and as we learn to read and interpret
interpersonal behaviors and
social cues. The greater our experience with interpersonal
contact, the more easily and natu-
rally we develop interpersonal skills (Miller, 2004).
As we grow older and experience more complex social
interactions, we develop a standard
toolbox for all our interpersonal exchanges. However, the
experience and skills gained via
social development may not fully prepare us for interaction in
professional settings. Work-
place relations can be difficult to navigate because they feature
rapid development and fre-
quent changes in employee roles, interdependence, expectations,
and demands. Today’s
reliance on technology-assisted communication, online project
management, and virtual
teamwork add an extra dimension of complexity to an already
multidimensional process.
Consider the difficulty of communicating emotional nuance and
tone such as shared enthu-
siasm, attentiveness, teasing, or sympathetic encouragement via
text or e-mail. The limited
ability to translate traditional interpersonal behaviors and social
cues via technology make
the development of interpersonal skills even more important for
effective communication,
coordination, and cooperation in the contemporary workplace
(Caya, Mortensen, & Pinson-
neault, 2013; Kimble, 2011).

Prior to the use of interpersonal skills as an umbrella term for
the KSAs and behaviors we
use to navigate and manage our interpersonal interactions,
theorists approached this field of
study with a “divide and conquer” approach. Formal and
informal theories evolved, defining
our ability to relate to others as social or emotional intelligence
and connecting our level of
intelligence with specific personality traits. Contemporary
thought regarding the identifica-
tion and application of interpersonal skills grew out of this
early theory work (Landy, 2005),
and the multiple dimensions of intelligence and personality
represent factors that can poten-
tially influence our ability to acquire and effectively utilize
interpersonal skills. In the follow-
ing sections, we examine different facets of intelligence and
personality and their relationship
to interpersonal skills. Let’s begin with social and emotional
intelligence.
Social and Emotional Intelligence
Long before interpersonal skills, member attachment styles, or
social value orientation were
considered significant elements of organizational behavior, E.
L. Thorndike (1920) intro-
duced the idea of social intelligence. Thorndike’s discussion
was more a call to recognize
multiple forms of intelligence than a serious investigation into
interpersonal competencies;
however, it did open the doors on this area of study and
introduce the idea that cognitive abil-
ity is multifaceted (Landy, 2005). Today theorists describe
social intelligence as the ability
to understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during

interpersonal situations and to act
appropriately on that understanding (Marlowe, 1986; Klein et
al., 2006).
Social intelligence has three basic components:
• Social sensitivity: the ability to perceive emotional and
behavioral cues from our-
selves and others; this represents our awareness of what is
going on during a social
interaction.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 80 8/19/16 9:36 AM
• Social insight: the ability to meaningfully connect emotional
and behavioral cues
within a given context and to understand why we or others feel
and behave in a par-
ticular way.
• Communicative competence: the ability to accurately
understand and interpret
verbal and nonverbal messages from others and strategically
control the messages
we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980).
In action, social intelligence translates into social skill, or the
ability to effectively read, com-
prehend, and manage social interactions (Witt & Ferris, 2003).

Social skill allows us to trans-
late goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective
behavior (Schneider, Ackerman,
& Kanfer, 1996; Schneider, Roberts, & Heggestad, 2002).
The idea that human intelligence has not one but multiple
dimensions inspired some research-
ers to focus on our cognitive ability to perceive, express, and
manage emotion (Gardner, 1983,
1999; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Emotional intelligence (EI)
describes our ability to
identify and express emotions, understand emotions and their
underlying causes, integrate
emotions to facilitate thought, and regulate positive and
negative emotions in ourselves and
others (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002). Our ability to
deal with an interaction’s emo-
tional content can profoundly affect interpersonal relations and
conflict management.
There is a major debate on whether EI is trait or ability based
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2000). The trait perspective views emotional intelligence as
innate (Petrides & Furnham,
2001), essentially treating EI as a collection of fixed personality
traits. This approach has met
with considerable resistance, both academically (see Locke,
2005; Landy, 2005)—because
a constellation of personality traits cannot be considered
“intelligence”—and in practice,
because it shuts out the possibility that emotional intelligence
can be learned or increased.
The ability-based perspective offers a more optimistic view,
conceptualizing EI as comprising
relatively trainable cognitive abilities, capacities, and skills
(Salovey, Mayer & Caruso, 2004).

Either way, emotional intelligence has been effectively used as
a tool for selecting and training
employees whose primary tasks involve interpersonal
interactions (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002;
Cherniss, 2003). There is a tendency to confuse interpersonal
skills with personality traits,
and while they are different, there is some connection between
the two. Let’s explore these
topics more closely.
Personality and Interpersonal Skills
Personality traits are often confused with social skills. They
tend to be lumped together, par-
ticularly in our evaluations of an individual’s positive or
negative interpersonal skills. For
example, in an interview-based study of the interpersonal
communication skills human
resources managers most valued in other managers, many cited
personality traits as well as
effective communication and other interpersonal skills
(Bambacas & Patrickson, 2009). This
is understandable, since our personality traits, and others’
perception of them, can signifi-
cantly impact our ability to acquire and use interpersonal skills
in the real world. Individu-
als who tend toward introspection and shyness, for example,
will likely have less interaction
experience and thus lower skill development in areas such as
cooperation and verbal com-
munication. However, these individuals may also be more
practiced—and skilled—in areas
such as being mindful of others and listening effectively.
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 81 8/19/16 9:36 AM

However interrelated they may seem, personality traits and
social skills are distinct. Indi-
vidual personality traits are considered relatively fixed and
enduring, whereas social skills
are relatively trainable (Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Leary, 1995).
Another major difference lies in
their practical use: Social skills can counteract the presence of
less sociable personality traits,
but the reverse tends not to be true (Klein et al., 2006). For
instance, socially pleasing per-
sonality traits such as extraversion and agreeableness will not
make up for a serious lack in
social skills. However, personality can affect our ability to
acquire and strategically use inter-
personal skills, thereby affecting performance effectiveness in
group work and teamwork. We
all have areas within our interpersonal skill set that our
personality and background have
brought to the fore. Capitalizing on these and improving areas
in which we have less experi-
ence or skill can counteract potentially negative personality
effects on group performance
(Leary, 1995).
So just what are interpersonal skills? Now that we have some
background on where they
come from and understand the theoretical foundations of
contemporary concepts, it’s time to
look inside the interpersonal skills toolbox.

The Interpersonal Skills Toolbox
Although there are more than 400 individual skill and
behavioral components recognized as
part of the interpersonal skill set, most are related to the basic
issues surrounding commu-
nicating, managing interactions and relationships, and correctly
interpreting social dynam-
ics and cues (Klein et al., 2006; Bedwell, Fiore, & Salas, 2014).
The components originally
perceived to make up social intelligence—social sensitivity,
social insight, and communicative
competence—are nice and concise, but tell us little about how
people are supposed to achieve
these abilities or which skills will strengthen them. In today’s
workplace, expertise in using
interpersonal skills calls for competence across several key
areas that represent both subtle
and overt skills. The basic subtle and overt skill sets are
outlined in the paragraphs below.
The Subtle Skill Set
Subtle skills affect interactions indirectly. They deal primarily
with how we think and perceive
or are perceived by others. Although we can actively engage
these skills during an interaction,
they are not an overt part of the exchange. The subtle skill set
includes critical competencies
in the following:
• Perceptiveness
• Self-presentation
• Mindfulness
• Cognitive flexibility
• Intercultural sensitivity
Perceptiveness involves acute sensitivity to and observation of

interpersonal behaviors, atti-
tudes, and communications; the interaction and its context; and
the elements affecting each
of these. Unlike perception, which is often skewed, skilled
perceptiveness requires seeing
and hearing things with as little distortion and bias as possible.
This is a necessary compo-
nent of effective group performance (Trower, 1979; Klein et al.,
2006). Nowhere is this more
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 82 8/19/16 9:36 AM
apparent than in interpersonal interactions, in which each
individual has a unique perception
of the situation, the interaction, others, and him- or herself.
During and after the interaction,
the group generates another shared perception of what happened
and what was (or was not)
accomplished within the exchange. As we will see later in the
chapter, what we perceive and
how we interpret it profoundly affect our interpersonal
relations.
Self-presentation involves influencing the reactions and images
others have regarding our
ideas, image, and self. This is a vital aspect of social interaction
and is key to organizational
success at any level (Baumeister, 1989; Klein et al., 2006). We
all engage in self-presentation

behaviors that are motivated by our desire to establish, manage,
and maintain an appropri-
ate personal image in the minds of others (DuBrin, 1997; Klein
et al., 2006). The process by
which we attempt to influence others’ perception of and
reaction to our image is referred to
as impression management. It includes demonstrating
punctuality, good humor, sensibility,
helpfulness, appropriate dress, friendliness, and approachability
(de Janasz, Dowd, & Schnei-
der, 2002). People working within an organization, either
individually or as part of a group
or team, are all to some degree dependent on the goodwill and
cooperation of others. Self-
presentation is therefore an important skill regardless of our
specific position or job require-
ments (Klein et al., 2006).
Mindfulness is the ability to monitor others and ourselves
during interactions in order to
inform ongoing and future exchanges (Pusch, 2009). To do this,
we must be able to read and
evaluate our own and others’ reactions, as well as an
interaction’s efficacy in terms of how
the process is (or is not) accomplishing desired outcomes.
Mindfulness is always useful, even
after an interaction is over. However, as we grow in practice
and competency, being mindful
during an interaction allows us to read the situation and adjust
our interaction or communi-
cation tactics to be more effective. Mindfulness is also a key
factor in strengthening existing
skill areas and developing new ones.
Cognitive flexibility reflects our ability to shift perspective,
supplement and revise existing

mental models, consider conflicting information and evidence,
and create new mental mod-
els when existing ones are no longer effective (Hayes, 2002;
Ionescu, 2012). This helps us
avoid jumping to conclusions, making biased assumptions, and
stereotyping or prejudging
people or situations. Cognitive flexibility is useful to both task
work and teamwork processes.
It enhances our critical-thinking and creative problem-solving
skills and supports the devel-
opment of positive attitudes and relations between members.
Intercultural sensitivity reflects our awareness and
understanding of cultural differences
and our ability to perceive and relate to how people from other
cultures will interpret an
interaction, communication, situation, or event (Dunbar, 1996;
Klein et al., 2006). Key pro-
cesses involve keeping an open mind, viewing differences as
interesting rather than frighten-
ing, developing understanding and empathy for other people and
worldviews, acknowledg-
ing that “normal” is a flexible concept, seeking feedback on
perceptions of our own behavior
and customs, adapting to the unfamiliar, and constructively
managing confusion and conflict.
Intercultural sensitivity is a valuable competency within today’s
organizational environ-
ments, which are characterized by an increasingly diverse
workforce. Employees at all levels
can benefit from understanding how differences in cultural
values and norms affect behavior
and communication (Arai, Wanca-Thibault, & Shockley-
Zalabak, 2001; de Janasz et al., 2002).
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 83 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Next, we describe the overt skill set competencies that complete
our toolbox.
The Overt Skill Set
Overt skills directly affect interactions. When these skills are
engaged, they become active
elements of an exchange. The overt skill set includes critical
competencies in the following:
• Verbal expression
• Nonverbal expression
• Listening
• Persuasion
• Cooperation
• Coordination
• Conflict resolution
Verbal expression involves communicative competency in both
writing or speaking. This
requires us to accurately interpret verbal messages from others
and strategically control the
messages we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980). Language
is complex in that certain
aspects of grammar, word selection, word meaning, and vocal
tone can significantly change
or be differently perceived because of context. To be effective,
not only must communications
be clear, but the sender’s intention and the receiver’s

interpretation must align as closely as
possible. Learning to effectively express ourselves is one of the
most valuable and critical
interpersonal skills we can develop, and communication is
considered one of the most desir-
able skills when making hiring or promotion decisions (Klein et
al., 2006).
Nonverbal expression involves communicative competency in
both reading and nonverbal sig-
nals and cues. This is an important feature of interpersonal
interactions. Nonverbal commu-
nication encompasses a diverse range of sensory and behavioral
cues, including facial expres-
sions, physical gestures, movements, postures and orientations,
interpersonal spacing and
touching, and vocal and visual cues (DePaulo, 1992).
Individuals with poor social skills tend
not only to miss or misunderstand nonverbal communications,
they also underutilize or mis-
use them when communicating with others (Trower, 1980).
Listening involves mindfully and perceptively assimilating
verbal communication, paying
attention to the speaker and the content of his or her message,
and recognizing and acknowl-
edging the speaker’s communicative intent and expectations
regarding our response. Listen-
ing is a critical competency for collaboration, particularly in
interactions involving decision
making, problem solving, conflict resolution, and negotiation.
Teams engage in all of these
processes from the moment they begin collaborative goal
setting. We will discuss specific
dimensions and processes of competent/skilled listening in more
detail later in the chap-

ter. Listening is considered one of the most valuable
interpersonal skills that employees, and
especially managers, can employ in the workplace (Klein et al.,
2006; Robbins & Hunsaker,
1996).
Persuasion involves consciously manipulating interactions to
encourage others to adopt spe-
cific attitudes, behaviors, viewpoints, or courses of action
(Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996; de
Janasz et al., 2002). People employ three basic vehicles for
persuasion: credibility, rationality,
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 84 8/19/16 9:36 AM
and emotional appeal (Verderber & Verderber, 1986).
Persuading others through credibility
requires that the persuader be perceived positively and have the
ability to inspire confidence.
This aspect involves self-presentation. Persuading others with
rationality involves logical rea-
soning skills—part of the critical-thinking skill category.
Persuading others through emotional
appeal requires perceptiveness, mindfulness, self-presentation,
cognitive flexibility, listening,
and some aspects of intercultural sensitivity, enabling one to
identify and understand others’
emotional buttons and adjust tactics midstream. All of these
require communicative compe-

tency. Persuasion is a pervasive element in interpersonal
interactions (Klein et al., 2006).
Cooperation involves working together and/or in support of one
another to achieve a mutu-
ally beneficial outcome. Essential processes include identifying
and making positive associa-
tions between our own and others’ interests and goals;
determining mutually beneficial tasks,
activities, and processes; modeling and encouraging prosocial
and supportive behaviors such
as offering assistance; pacing activities to fit team schedule and
needs; monitoring others’
reactions to our behavior; and clarifying misinterpretations or
miscommunications (Salas,
Sims, & Klein, 2004). Although different personality types and
backgrounds can predispose
us to or away from cooperative attitudes, cooperation
competency—like any skill—requires
time and practical experience to develop. Being able to work
cooperatively is a highly valu-
able skill in today’s job market (Klein et al., 2006).
Coordination involves managing task interdependencies within
the performance process flow
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Essential processes include mapping
tasks and activities to sup-
port specific and measurable goals; handling resource
allocation, task and activity assign-
ment, sequencing, and synchronization; and integrating member
contributions and effort
(Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Cooperation and coordination are both
integral to effective group and team performance. Their value is
not limited to group work,
however; both are considered critical skill competencies for

interpersonal interaction in the
workplace, regardless of whether one is working alone or in a
group or team (Klein et al.,
2006).
Conflict resolution involves reconciling people, ideas, and
viewpoints; discussing and achiev-
ing closure on negative reactions and behaviors; negotiating a
mutually acceptable outcome;
and restoring positive relations between participants. Although
conflict resolution requires
a variety of skills, core competencies include perceptiveness,
listening and communicative
competencies, mindfulness, self-presentation, intercultural
sensitivity, and mediation. Key
processes include fostering constructive communication and
feedback, avoiding or mitigating
destructive communication and feedback, keeping an open mind,
engaging in rational rather
than emotional debate, identifying similarities and demystifying
differences, modeling and
encouraging a climate of cooperation and positive perceptions
of diversity, and synthesizing
viewpoints and perspectives to construct mutually beneficially
outcomes (Johnson & John-
son, 2013; Smith, 2001). Conflict resolution is another
competency that is high on the list of
most desirable employee skills (Klein et al., 2006).
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 85 8/19/16 9:36 AM

Next, we will overview some of the techniques and strategies
for developing interpersonal
skills.
Developing Interpersonal Skills
With an increasing awareness of the effect that interpersonal
skills have on the workplace,
organizations are now spending more to train employees in this
skill set. In fact, more than
half the training budget in organizations across all industries is
dedicated to improving
employees’ interpersonal skills (O’Sullivan, 2000; Landy &
Conte, 2004). Common sense sug-
gests that training methods should be carefully selected based
on specific abilities and needs;
however, selection is more typically determined by
organizational and individual constraints
(i.e. time, money, and other resources, as well as employees’
willingness to …
125
4Diversity
Plume Creative/DigitalVision/Getty Images
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe changes in past and present concepts of workplace
diversity.

• State the case for workplace diversity.
• Identify barriers to constructive diversity and the ways in
which these are interrelated.
• Assess various forms of diversity within workplace groups.
• Outline strategies for positively managing diversity in the
workplace.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 125 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Introduction
Pretest
1. Diversity in today’s workplace is a response to the need to
equalize job opportunities for
minorities. T/F
2. Diversity adds little to organizational performance; it is
simply a fact of life in the
contemporary workplace. T/F
3. Stereotypes are negative preconceptions we hold about other
team members. T/F
4. Diversity characteristics are readily observable. T/F
5. Assumed differences that are false are just as impactful as
actual diversity between
members. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Marni is a team leader at a large, international software
company. Her team is composed
of five other individuals who were each brought in from
different international offices. In
addition to their diverse personal backgrounds—in terms of
race, culture, and education
level—each member of the team was specifically recruited for
their particular KSAs.
Before they started working as a group, Marni took the time to
meet individually with
team members to gain insight into their background as well as
their skills and abilities.
She also gauged their work preferences—for example, what
types of projects they enjoy
and how they like to accomplish their work. When they were
ready to begin working
together, Marni introduced team members to each other,
highlighting their personal
experiences and skills. This helped clarify everyone’s value to
the group and made all
members feel equally important, despite the diversity of their
individual experiences and
KSAs.
Marni observed her team closely during their initial months
working together. She soon
became concerned over the number of interpersonal conflicts
occurring between team
members. While Marni attempted to diffuse these conflicts and
foster a more collabora-
tive environment, her efforts to set a positive example and

demonstrate effective conflict
resolution were not working. The team members continued to
struggle because of their
vast differences, both personal and KSA related.
Marni’s observations led her to believe that her teammates
lacked cross-cultural self-
efficacy, meaning they did not believe in their own ability to
interact with people from
other cultures. This perceived lack of ability was contributing to
the frequency of inter-
personal conflicts. Having identified what she thought was the
root cause of the problem,
Marni asked herself how she could make the team members
more confident in their own
cross-cultural abilities, as well as more comfortable with each
other.
After asking this question, it became obvious to Marni that her
team only interacted
formally, during meetings and project discussions. She decided
that the team members
needed to really get to know one another—not just be aware of
each other’s personal
accomplishments and work-related skills sets, but become well
versed in each other’s
interests. She was hoping team members could find common
ground amid their diver-
sity. This could foster a feeling of belonging and allow the team
to move past its ongoing
destructive conflicts.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 126 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
Marni decided that an informal setting could promote such
interactions, so she set up
an on-site team lunch where members were discouraged from
talking about their work
project. Marni hoped that limiting talk about work would allow
the team members to
open up and discover their similarities—and indeed, this is what
happened. The interac-
tions during the informal lunch were more relaxed than those
during team meetings,
and team members asked each other personal questions and
shared stories. The relaxed
atmosphere allowed for a sense of belonging and
interconnectedness to develop.
Marni made these informal lunch gatherings a regular
occurrence. Over the months that
followed, she also developed opportunities for the team to work
off-site together. Slowly,
the interpersonal conflicts dissipated. Disagreements became
more constructive in nature
as the team members became more open to each other’s diverse
viewpoints.
Diversity plays a major role in today’s workplace. As of 2010
there were more than
39 million immigrants living in the United States, and 68% of
these actively participate
in the workforce (Grieco et al., 2012). Overseas, the highly
diverse population of South
Africa—increasingly popular as a business process outsourcing

location—has earned it
the epitaph of “Rainbow Nation” (Reichard, Dollwet, & Louw-
Potgieter, 2014). But what
does an increasingly diverse workforce mean for small groups,
teams, and organiza-
tions? It all depends on the type of diversity involved, and how
it is managed.
The effects of diversity are notoriously double-sided when it
comes to group and team
performance. Diversity of expertise and perspective enhance the
prime benefit of
working together—which is to combine material and human
resources. Yet diversity of
background and worldview also make it harder for group
members to understand each
other, which can potentially threaten their ability to work
together. In Chapter 4 we
explore workplace diversity from a contemporary viewpoint and
examine the different
effects of cultural and skill-based diversity. We also highlight
diversity challenges and
outline strategies for managing group diversity to achieve
positive outcomes.
4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
As we learned in Chapter 1, perceived similarities between
individuals are a major factor in
the group identification process. Still, no two group members
are truly identical. Diversity is
the degree of variation in group members’ qualities, interests,
and needs. Diversity can range
from very high—as in cross-functional, virtual, special project
teams brought together from
across a multinational organization—to very low—as in a group
gathered based on similari-

ties to test market reactions from a very specific client base.
Although groups with extremely
low diversity are labeled homogenous, all groups possess at
least some level of diversity.
With the ease of travel, the global reach of marketing and sales,
the omnipresence of online
communication and virtual groups, and an increasingly global
mindset among both individu-
als and organizations, diversity is a very real and influential
factor in our personal and profes-
sional lives. Diversity is more than a simple side effect of the
technological and social changes
associated with modernity, however. The United States has a
long (albeit complicated) history
as a diverse nation. Since the early 20th century, the term
melting pot has been used to
Section 4.1
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 127 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
describe the ideal in which people of different nationalities,
cultures, social backgrounds, and
ethnicities come together to forge a common (uniform)
American identity (Pluralism Project,
n.d.). More recently, terms like mosaic or kaleidoscope have
been used to highlight a more
contemporary ideal in which diverse peoples mix within

American culture but are free to
retain some distinctions.
The perception of diversity within the U.S.
workplace has also experienced a shift.
Contemporary diversity is not viewed the
way it once was, nor does the term impart
the same meaning it did in the past. Begin-
ning in the late 1960s, as a result of civil
rights legislation, U.S. employers began
adopting equal opportunity measures to
address inequality and discrimination
against individuals based on gender, race,
ethnicity, nationality, and minority status.
The most notable of these measures was
affirmative action (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2014). In response
to the legislation, employers began to
fill racial and minority quotas in the
workplace. The sudden rise in employee
diversity injected instant complexity and
increased potential for misunderstand-
ing and conflict in the workplace. This
spurred a movement of political correct-
ness in the 1980s and 1990s. Diversity
within organizations during these years
was predominantly focused on increasing
the numbers of individuals with specific
demographic characteristics and then
training people to skirt politely around
individual differences and their newly
diverse working conditions.
Today workplace diversity no longer centers on
antidiscrimination compliance. The new
focus for diversity in groups and teams revolves around the

variation in specific traits, skills,
experiences, and qualifications that can increase the
performance of a group in general or
on a specific project. This new focus came as a result of
contemporary organizations operat-
ing in a global work environment fueled by multinational
corporations. Following the eco-
nomic downturns at the start of the millennium and the collapse
of the U.S. housing bubble in
2007, organizations began positively transforming the need to
cut costs and downsize their
workforce. They employed the concept of rightsizing, or
functioning effectively with a smaller
employee base (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992; Manz &
Sims, 1987). Employee diversity
in traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications became critical
to enacting this concept. The
rise of groups and teams in organizations, and of teamwork-
centered practices, has given
diversity a new set of characteristics. While superficial
differences (such as age, gender, or
University of Iowa Libraries. Special Collections Department
The term melting pot was used to describe how
people of various nationalities and cultures came
together to forge a common American identity.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 128 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Diversity

Developing
Mutual
Understanding
Cultivating
Adaptability &
Innovation
Maximizing
Human
Resources
Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
ethnicity) are not entirely discounted, they take a backseat to
task- and performance-related
diversity in group member selection, team building, and
organizational hiring.
In the next section, we examine the case for diversity in the
workplace.
4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
Diversity is a key element in maintaining organizational
effectiveness. It engages new per-
spectives, enhances product and service development, and
positively or negatively impacts
employee interactions, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover,
as well as the ongoing devel-
opment of organizational learning and culture (Rašticová &
Senichev, 2011; Senichev, 2013a,
2013b). But how exactly does workplace diversity achieve all of

this? It does so by addressing
three core needs in contemporary organizations: developing
mutual understanding, maxi-
mizing human resources, and cultivating ability and innovation
(see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Diversity and core organizational needs
Contemporary organizations look to diversity to address three
core needs.
Diversity
Developing
Mutual
Understanding
Cultivating
Adaptability &
Innovation
Maximizing
Human
Resources
Let’s look more closely at the three core organizational needs
that diversity addresses.
Developing Mutual Understanding
Diversity is an increasingly inevitable factor in today’s
interactive and operational settings. As
such, it cannot be ignored. Organizations need to understand,
attract, expand on, and success-

fully interact with an increasingly diverse customer and client
base. Diverse group and team
memberships are key to developing mutual understanding
between an organization and its
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 129 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
clients, whether these represent specific individuals or entire
markets. Developing mutual
understanding allows companies to:
• achieve effective coordination and collaboration between
individual employees and
between and within various groups, teams, organizational
departments, and levels
of hierarchy;
• identify and attract new markets and expand their customer or
client base;
• effectively serve, communicate, and interact with new and
existing customers and
clients; and
• engender fellowship among employees and clients alike and
build trust and loyalty
toward the organization; this can be achieved by internally
generating organiza-
tional cohesiveness via a corporate identity infused with team

spirit and externally
fostering customer loyalty and goodwill.
Maximizing Human Resources
In Chapter 1, we outlined the benefits of and tendency toward
efficiency or effectiveness in
work groups and teams. Of course, the best performance
outcomes occur when we break with
“either/or” thinking and find a balance between efficiency and
effectiveness. It is by realizing
their potential for achieving this balance that diverse groups
outperform homogenous ones.
One of the key advantages of working in groups is the potential
to access a broad scope of col-
lective KSAs and experience; indeed, this is the fundamental
concept behind the now popular
use of cross-functional teams. Today’s organizational strategies
call for making the most out
of a minimal workforce by capitalizing on a diverse range of
employee capabilities.
In cases that involve complex problem solving and decision
making, two heads really are bet-
ter than one. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and
higher quality decisions and
solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant
knowledge, viewpoints, experi-
ence, and skills (Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). This also
mitigates group tendency toward
dysfunctional process behavior such as groupthink, which we
address in Chapter 5.
Cultivating Adaptability and Innovation
In nature, genetic diversity within a group—such as a herd of
elephants—is beneficial
because, in crisis, diverse groups are far more adaptable and

resilient than homogenous ones
(Senichev, 2013b; Kreitz, 2008). For example, a herd with a
diverse gene pool would have a
better chance of surviving a deadly hereditary disease than a
herd that lacked genetic diver-
sity. This adaptability and resilience gives the diverse group
stability. In this case stability
refers to more than the ability to maintain a status quo; rather, it
is the capacity to survive
and thrive amid changing conditions. The ability to adapt and
change is just as critical for
contemporary organizations. Diverse groups and teams have an
inherently broader range of
KSAs and experience to draw from in response to changing
circumstances.
As Indra Nooyi noted upon becoming chief executive officer
(CEO) of PepsiCo, people are an
organizations’ biggest asset (Aspen Institute, 2014). Great ideas
come from people. Diversifi-
cation in employee background, perspective, experience, and
knowledge promotes creativity
and innovation because it fosters more diverse ideas. Diverse
teams are more likely to chal-
lenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple
perspectives to identify potential prob-
lems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified
strategies and solutions through
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 130 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
debate (Agrawal, 2012). Meanwhile, groups with low diversity
tend to more easily find and
hold common perceptions and viewpoints regarding the
competitive environment, come up
with fewer strategic options, and are more prone to solutions
that essentially regenerate
existing strategies.
While diversity within groups has tremendous benefits, there
are also challenges associated
with diversity among group members. We discuss these
challenges and barriers to construc-
tive diversity in the next section.
4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
The downside to engaging diverse ideas and viewpoints is that
team members are more likely
to differ in their preferences for solutions and strategies. The
inability to agree and collectively
commit to a specific course of action can delay the group’s
progress and lower individual
motivation and effort (Mello & Ruckes, 2006). The very
differences that broaden the group’s
capacity for adaptability, innovation, and effective performance
can act as a divisive force
and foster separation, miscommunication, and conflict between
team members (Harrison &
Klein, 2007; Polzer, 2008).
Group diversity is often portrayed as a double-edged sword
because it heightens the poten-
tial for significant gains and losses in the performance process
(Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;
Pieterse et al., 2013). On the one hand, diverse perspectives

enhance an organization’s abil-
ity to identify opportunities; rethink and redefine business
strategies, practices, tasks, pro-
cesses, products, and services; and interact with both new and
existing markets (Agrawal,
2012). On the other hand, poorly managed diversity can stunt
developmental processes such
as identification and cohesion. This can lower employee
commitment and satisfaction and
decrease task-related process speeds, which impede the group’s
capacity for effective action
and response (Agrawal, 2012).
While diversity broadens the range of perspectives and
expertise, it also increases the poten-
tial for miscommunication and conflict between group members
(Agrawal, 2012). Dysfunc-
tional dynamics are often attributed to internal cognitive
barriers—or limiting preconcep-
tions such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination—that
are activated by the differences
we perceive between ourselves and others (Johnson & Johnson,
1999). These can, and do,
occur in any setting in which we interact with others and are
made aware of differences of any
type. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers affect
interactions between individu-
als, group members, and different groups or subgroups.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Internal cognitive barriers are associated with the concept of in-
group-out-group bias. The
terms in-group and out-group may conjure up high school–style
images of popular versus
unpopular groups. There is a reason for that. Although in the
social sciences in-group and

out-group refer to those groups we do and do not belong to, we
have a natural preference and
positive bias toward our own groups over others. This is caused
by two basic factors:
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 131 8/19/16 9:35 AM
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension
of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that
provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The
tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own

group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more
significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we

deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,
1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group
members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make
note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al.,
2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the
head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson
on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you.

But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would
you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 132 8/19/16 9:35 AM
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension
of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that
provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The

tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more
significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,

members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we
deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,
1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group
members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make
note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al.,
2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the
head of a major American

automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson
on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you.
But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would
you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
While stereotypes tend to flatten distinctions between members
of out-groups, they exagger-
ate differences between in-groups and out-groups. For instance,
members of a rival company
may be portrayed as particularly lazy or unethical, while
members of one’s own company are
automatically characterized as hard-working and ethical.
Denigrating those in the out-group
by emphasizing their differences and ignoring their similarities
with in-group members rein-
forces the idea that the out-group is inferior and bolsters the
solidarity and unity of those in
the in-group. When diverse members must work together,
however, this negative in-group-
out-group dynamic can seriously demoralize an entire group or
team. When negative stereo-
types move from expectation to prejudgment, prejudice and
discrimination occur.
Prejudice
Prejudice represents unjustified negative attitudes toward others

based solely on their mem-
bership in a particular group or subgroup. Prejudice sustains a
superior us versus inferior
them belief system that becomes ingrained in how we feel about
other people. When we dis-
like, take offense with, or exclude someone based on attributes
such as ethnicity, national-
ity, sexual orientation, or gender, we are engaging in prejudice.
Although in popular usage
ethnicity refers to differences in genetic background, the term
ethnic refers to any distinc-
tive characteristic held in common by a group of people,
including language, …

773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx

Similar to 773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx (12)

More from sodhi3

More from sodhi3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

773Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group Effec.docx