Data from 101 Australian research scientists were used to examine the relationship between sex dissimilarity and work

Organization Science Vol. 19, No. 4, July August 2008, pp. 581 593 issn 1047-7039 eissn 1526-5455 08 1904 0581 informs doi 10.1287/orsc.1070.0324 2008 INFORMS The Asymmetrical Influence of Sex Dissimilarity in Distributive vs. Colocated Work Groups Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Elizabeth George School of Business and Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong {prithvi@ust.hk, egeorge@ust.hk} Arthur D. Shulman Griffith Business School, Griffith University, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia, a.shulman@griffith.edu.au Data from 101 Australian research scientists were used to examine the relationship between sex dissimilarity and work group identification, and task and emotional conflict. Based on social identity and self-categorization theories, these relationships were argued to vary between men and women, and between colocated and distributive work groups. Women reported lower levels of work group identification and higher levels of task and emotional conflict in conjunction with higher levels of sex dissimilarity. Men reported lower levels of task conflict in conjunction with higher levels of sex dissimilarity. No parallel effects on identification or emotional conflict were observed. Sex dissimilarity was found to have a stronger influence on work group identification, and task and emotional conflict in colocated work groups than in distributive work groups. Key words: social identity; group composition; conflict; virtual teams History: Published online in Articles in Advance January 25, 2008. Several scholars have noted an increase in the number of women in organizations and focused their research on outcomes related to the distribution of men and women within work groups (Chatman et al. 1998, Chattopadhyay 1999). A strand of this research has been termed the relational demography approach, based on two related theories, social identity (Tajfel and Turner 1986) and self-categorization (Turner 1987). Relational demographers believe that employees compare their own demographic characteristics (e.g., sex) with those of other members of their work group or unit, and that the extent of perceived dissimilarity with their colleagues influences their self-categorization as members of their work group (Chattopadhyay et al. 2004). This consequently affects work related outcomes such as commitment, absenteeism, and turnover intentions (Tsui et al. 1992), innovation, performance, and pay (Baugh and Graen 1997, Chatman et al. 1998, Joshi et al. 2006, Riordan and Shore 1997), and work group relationships, involvement, and citizenship behavior (Chattopadhyay 1999, Hobman et al. 2004, Riordan and Shore 1997) for both male and female employees. At the same time, the proportion of employees engaged in distributive work practices (e.g. working with others from remote locations such as satellite centers and other nonheadquarters locations) has greatly increased (Raghuram et al. 2001, Wiesenfeld et al. 1999). More organizations rely on work groups that are geographically dispersed and seldom interact faceto-face (Cascio 2000, Jarvenpaa et al. 1998, Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999, Stoddard and Donnellon 1997). The use of other modes of communication and interaction, such as electronic technologies, may remove a variety of social cues from interactions within distributive work groups and depersonalize communication (Cramton 2001, Culnan and Markus 1987, Hollingshead 1998, Martins et al. 2004, Sproull and Kiesler 1986). Distributive work groups, as compared to colocated work groups, may therefore be associated with the lower salience of employee demographic characteristics and the consequent dampening of effects associated with relational demography (Bhappu et al. 2001). We examine the asymmetrical influence of sex dissimilarity on men and women with regard to three organizationally relevant variables, the extent to which individual employees identify with their work group and their perceived levels of task and emotional conflict, and whether engaging in distributive rather than colocated work-group-based projects reduces these effects. Our argument that demographic dissimilarity asymmetrically affects male and female employees identification with the work group and their perceptions of conflict within their work groups is based on and extends previous research documenting the differential treatment of men and women in organizations (Heilman 1994, Konrad and Gutek 1987). We contribute to relational demography literature as these researchers have not addressed the ques- 581

582 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS tion of how the effects they study might vary across distributive and colocated groups, although laboratory studies of the influence of diversity on attention, influence patterns and trust in computer-mediated versus face-toface groups (Bhappu et al. 1997, Krebs et al. 2006; see also Barsness et al. 2005 on supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity in remote work) are broadly supportive of our arguments. More generally, we contribute to the developing literature on identification processes in alternative work formats such as distributive work groups (Hinds and Mortensen 2005) and respond to the call to develop a theory-based understanding of the consequences of these nonstandard work arrangements (Ashford et al. forthcoming). It is important to study identification and conflict in work groups as identification is argued to enhance performance (Dutton et al. 1994) and conflict is shown to negatively influence performance (De Dreu and Weingart 2003). We study individual perceptions of conflict because we expect these perceptions to differ between men and women, owing to differences between them in self-categorization processes as explained below. We argue that such variation in conflict perceptions may explain why Jehn et al. (1999) and Pelled et al. (1999) found little support for a uniform effect of sex diversity on conflict across both sexes. Influence of Sex Dissimilarity on Work Group Identification Sex dissimilarity refers to the differences between the focal employee and his or her peers in terms of sex. Sex dissimilarity scores for either sex increase as the number of work group peers of the opposite sex increases. We focus on sex dissimilarity because employees tend to categorize themselves and others based on sex to separate similar others from dissimilar others (Tsui et al. 1992). Following Hackman (1983), work groups are defined here as intact, bounded social systems, with interdependent members, and differentiated member roles for pursuing shared, measurable goals. Work group identification refers to the feelings of belonging that group members may have toward their work group, (Hogg and Hains 1996, Tajfel and Turner 1986). We focus on work group identification rather than identification with the business unit or organization because employees interact with their work group peers most frequently and are most interdependent with them in completing their tasks. Also, employees are most frequently categorized in terms of their work groups for organizational tasks such as sending memos and auditing personnel. Each process enhances identification with the work group at the expense of other targets (Kramer 1991). Self-categorization theory (Turner 1987) suggests that individuals categorize themselves and others to derive positive social identities. These categories could be formed around demographic characteristics such as sex, or on the basis of work group membership (Hogg and Terry 2000). When a particular category forms the basis for social identities, people perceive themselves and other members of their category as forming the in-group, and dissimilar others as forming the out-group. These social identities should be positive so as to help the individual develop and maintain positive self-esteem, based on a positively valued, high status in-group. Because sex dissimilarity influences the social identity of men and women in different ways (Tsui et al. 1992), we present arguments related to each separately. Women working in male dominated work groups that are typical in traditional male oriented organizations are often evaluated negatively by their male peers, made to work twice as hard as their male counterparts for similar rewards, and may face hostile behavior from their male colleagues (Chattopadhyay 1999, Heilman 1994, Kanter 1993, Konrad and Gutek 1987). In such situations, the lower status conferred by the organization on women in comparison to men should negatively influence their perceptions of competence and their affective reactions to work (Heilman and Alcott 2001). Moreover, the negative effects of working with men should increase with higher levels of sex dissimilarity and correspondingly decrease women s identification with their work groups. A competing line of reasoning suggests that sex dissimilarity positively influences women s identification with their work group because of the higher perceived status associated with male dominated work groups (Chattopadhyay 1999, Konrad and Gutek 1987, Wharton and Baron 1987). The higher status associated with sex dissimilarity may be equated by women in such work groups to having a greater opportunity to get ahead in the organization. However, women should perceive this to be true only in organizational contexts where women are represented at higher levels of hierarchy, signaling that women have been able to avail themselves of such opportunities in the past. Ravlin and Thomas (2005) note that most top managers in the United States continue to be male (women being so rare that studies of sex dissimilarity in top management teams are conspicuous by their absence). This has negative repercussions for female employees in terms of organizational success. Thus, in the absence of many highly ranked women in an organization, as we might expect to find in the majority of organizations, the negative effects of sex dissimilarity on women s identification should prevail. The demographic profile of Australian organizations (where this study was conducted) shows gender inequity somewhat greater than that found in the majority of U.S. organizations with regard to representation in the ranks of top management (International Labor Organization 2001). Under such conditions, sex dissimilarity is likely to be associated with negative perceptions of

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 583 women, and women are likely to face greater levels of negative behavior from their male colleagues and lower levels of support from work group colleagues. In the organizational units to which the respondents in our sample belong and consistent with the national gender profile, we found the higher levels of management to be exclusively male. Thus we propose that greater sex dissimilarity would be associated with lower levels of identification for women. We next consider the influence of sex dissimilarity on men within such male dominated organizations. Although sex dissimilarity can negatively impact men s levels of work group identification, this manifests itself mainly when men work in units perceived to be low status because they are dominated by women (Chattopadhyay 1999, Chattopadhyay et al. 2004). Social identity theorists believe this stems from a heightened salience of category boundaries for members of high prestige categories who feel professionally threatened by the numerically larger low prestige categories (Sachdev and Bourhis 1991, Terry and Callan 1998). Drawing on Mullen et al. (1992) meta-analysis of 137 studies as well as their own earlier work supporting the above arguments, Chattopadhyay et al. (2004) suggested that in traditional male dominated settings (which includes the majority of organizations in Australia as well as the United States, as noted), unless forced by unusual circumstances to acknowledge that they were successful partly because of their sex, men would be unlikely to do so because it would deprive them of positive self-attributions for their good career outcomes and makes poor career outcomes even more negative and self-threatening. Consequently, men s identification with their work group will tend to be influenced to a lesser extent by sex dissimilarity in traditional settings where they clearly remain in the majority. Thus, we argue that the negative influence of sex dissimilarity on men s work group identification will be minimal and of less magnitude than the parallel effect for women. Hypothesis 1. The negative relationship between sex dissimilarity and work group identification is moderated by sex, such that the relationship is stronger for women than for men. Sex Dissimilarity and Conflict We next study the effects of sex dissimilarity on conflict a set of relationships we believe parallels the influence of sex dissimilarity on identification for men and women. As mentioned earlier, we expect perceptions of conflict to differ between men and women, owing to differences in self-categorization processes. We study two kinds of conflict, task and emotional. Task conflict refers to individual perceptions of disagreement among work group members about task issues such as goals, operating procedures, and key activities. Emotional conflict refers to individual perceptions of interpersonal clashes between work group members, characterized by anger, frustration, and other negative feelings (Jehn 1994, Pelled et al. 1999). The categorization processes described earlier that lead to positive evaluations of one s own category, and thus to identification with that category, are also likely to lead to stereotyping, distancing or disparagement of members of other categories (Tajfel 1982). Negative evaluations of out-groups help to enhance the in-group by comparison and thereby create a more positive sense of self. Interactions involving stereotyping, distancing or disparagement are likely to take place between men and women because sex is a salient basis of categorization in more traditional male dominated organizations. Employees in these organizations are likely to categorize work group colleagues of the opposite sex as out-group members (Chattopadhyay et al. 2004), leading to emotional conflict characterized by negative feelings such as anger and frustration (Pelled et al. 1999). A higher level of sex dissimilarity is likely to positively influence emotional conflict to the extent that a greater proportion of out-group members in the work group heightens the negative effects related to categorization processes. Because employees often attribute their colleagues task performance and competence to categories associated with organizational stereotypes, such as employee sex (Hogg and Terry 2000, Tsui et al. 1992), sex dissimilarity may also be related to task conflict. Conflict that is attributed to sex dissimilarity is likely to be further exacerbated through the negative stereotyping that accompanies the categorization of employees based on their sex. As noted, these relationships are unlikely to be equally strong for men and women. Because employee sex tends to be a more salient basis for categorization to female members of work groups than to their male colleagues who have retained their traditional majority, we expect to find a stronger relationship between sex dissimilarity and both types of conflict for women than for men. In addition to these categorization effects, we need to consider research showing that in a conflict stronger parties are more likely to prevail and to receive positive and flattering communication from weaker parties (Kabanoff 1991). Because men are more likely to be in a position of strength, their perceived levels of conflict are likely to be lower in conjunction with higher proportions of women in their work groups. Weaker parties in positions of lower status, such as women, are more likely to feel resentment and frustration because their aims are thwarted, giving rise to higher perceptions of conflict in conjunction with higher proportions of men in their work groups. Any conflict related behavior by weaker parties is likely to be indirectly aimed at stronger parties, manifested in behaviors such as passive resistance and neglect (Kabanoff 1991, Withey and Cooper 1989).

584 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS This lowers perceptions of conflict among higher status individuals. In sum, men are less likely than women to perceive higher levels of emotional and task conflict associated with sex dissimilarity. Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between sex dissimilarity and perceived emotional conflict is moderated by sex, such that the relationship is stronger for women than for men. Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between sex dissimilarity and perceived task conflict is moderated by sex, such that the relationship is stronger for women than for men. Influence of Sex Dissimilarity in Colocated vs.distributive Work Groups Distributive work groups are those in which one or more members work in remote locations geographically separated from their peers. Colocated work groups are those in which all members work in the same location. The definition of distributive work groups is consistent with definitions used by researchers who argue that virtual teams vary in their degree of virtualness (including the extent to which they are geographically distributed), so that members of these teams might have some face-to-face interaction (cf. Bell and Kozlowski 2002, Griffith and Neale 2001). Although members of distributive work groups in our sample worked in locations remote from one or more of their peers most of the year, they may have interacted face-to-face as a complete work group a few times in that period. Similarly, consistent with the observations of other researchers that purely face-to-face work groups are rare in organizations today (cf. Griffith and Neale 2001, Griffith et al. 2003), the colocated work groups in our sample also interacted at times through the use of various communication technologies. The influence of sex dissimilarity on identification and conflict described here is expected to be stronger in colocated work groups than in distributive work groups. Hogg and Terry (2000) argue that an identity based on any given category may be salient based on the extent to which it accounts for context-specific behaviors and/or situationally relevant similarities and differences among people. In colocated work groups we may expect sexbased attributions to be frequent in explaining observed differences in attitudes and behaviors between employees. Category-based differences are visible and associated social cues are more salient in such circumstances (Hogg and Terry 2000, Tsui et al. 1992). Distributive work groups are forced to communicate using various electronic modes that reduce social cues associated with differential status between categories (Bhappu et al. 1997, 2001; Dubrovsky et al. 1991; Martins et al. 2004; Sproull and Kiesler 1986). The sex of the work group member may become less salient under such conditions and therefore reduce the influence of sex dissimilarity on work group identification and conflict. Multiple categorizations that do not coincide tend to decrease the salience of each dimension of categorization because individuals falling into the in-group along one dimension may fall into the out-group along a second dimension (Stephan 1985). When one or more group members work in remote locations, this provides a very salient attribute by which to categorize in-groups versus out-groups. Cramton (2001) notes that there are a variety of reasons why distributive work group members are prone to categorize in-groups versus out-groups along geographical boundaries. Geographical separation creates a lack of common knowledge and understanding of task and contextual issues arising from the failure to transmit or receive information, the uneven distribution of information, or differing interpretations of meanings and task priorities (see also Hinds and Mortensen 2005). Under such conditions, sex may be a less salient basis of categorization leading to a diminished relationship between sex dissimilarity and work group identification and conflict. Thus, we would expect the effects related to sex dissimilarity predicted in our hypotheses to be dampened in distributive work groups. In summary, we expect sex dissimilarity to be less related to work group identification for employees in distributive work groups. Further, because categorization is associated with conflict between in-groups and outgroups, the relationship between sex dissimilarity and conflict will be stronger in colocated work groups than in distributive work groups. Hypothesis 4A. The joint influence of sex and sex dissimilarity on work group identification will be less in distributive work groups than in colocated work groups. Hypothesis 4B. The joint influence of sex and sex dissimilarity on perceived task conflict will be less in distributive work groups than in colocated work groups. Hypothesis 4C. The joint influence of sex and sex dissimilarity on perceived emotional conflict will be less in distributive work groups than in colocated work groups. Methods Sample These hypotheses were tested with data collected through a survey of research scientists at a large public sector organization in Australia. This organization has a number of research programs that function as relatively independent business units. Two participated in this study. Each unit undertakes research in different areas related to the biological sciences. Their work is supported by different bodies that typically fund

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 585 research programs for three to five years, with most projects receiving funding multiple times. These business units are autonomous other than their common, centrally administered human resource (HR) and financial systems. They are located in separate geographical locations. They have three categories of staff professional, i.e., the scientists involved in conducting research; technical, i.e., those who assist the scientists; and administrative, i.e., those who handle the financial and secretarial work of these research related groups. In this study we surveyed all of the 299 professional and technical employees from the two units. One unit specializes in horticulture and the other in entomology. Surveys were administered electronically. Items used for this study formed only part of the survey instrument, which included items for a larger study as well as items requested by the HR managers of the organization. All respondents were sent letters explaining the purpose of the study, and instructions on how to log on to the website to fill out the survey. Each respondent was given a password so that only they could fill out the form. Surveys were done in two parts. The first contained items related to the organization as a whole, including items requested by the organization. The second part contained all other items, including demographic questions and those related to the dependent variables. In all 101 (out of 299) employees who identified themselves as fulltime members of work groups completed the surveys. Of the 101 participants, 64% were from Unit 1, and 36% were from Unit 2. Respondents were 63% males and 37% females, 54% professional staff, and 46% technical staff. The average years of work experience in the organization was 13.05 (sd = 10 67) and the average age was between 30 and 40. The average work group size was approximately nine. We compared respondents and nonrespondents with regard to gender and the extent to which the sample is representative of the two units. There was no difference between respondents and nonrespondents on gender ( 2 = 1 23, p = 0 27), though they differed with regard to their unit membership ( 2 = 5 89, p = 0 02). Respondents were more likely to be from Unit 1. We include the unit as a control variable in all our analyses, thus taking into account unique factors in each unit that might account for the relationships we are studying. Interviews with HR and divisional managers confirmed that at the time of the data collection, while specific research projects may have been relatively new, all programs on which respondents worked had been in existence at least five years. The average years of membership within work groups was 8.02 (sd = 7 62). Work group membership and geographic location tended to be stable because assignment to research projects were based on a match between skills of the group member and project components that could be conducted at specific geographic locations. Control Variables As noted, we controlled for the respondents membership in the business unit because differences across the business units may be associated with variance in the outcome variables that distort or diminish the hypothesized relationships. We controlled for group size as we expected it to influence the extent to which work group members communicate with one another (Zenger and Lawrence 1989) and thus to influence work group identification and conflict. We controlled for an individual s location to make sure that differences between work group members located with other group members (even if they were part of a distributive group) and employees who work in locations away from all other group members, in terms of identification and conflict levels, did not influence the relationship between sex dissimilarity and the dependent variables in the full model. We used this variable only in the full model as it does not vary in colocated groups. Also, our comparison of effect sizes for sex dissimilarity would be compromised if it were included only in the distributive subsample. We controlled for the extent to which employees are interdependent on one another in performing their tasks as greater interdependence may increase the potential for conflict. We also controlled for the simple demographics associated with each respondent (sex and tenure within the organization) as these variables may influence attitudes of members toward their work groups (Tsui et al. 1992). We chose not to control for tenure within the work group as it was highly correlated with tenure within the organization (r = 0 71) and unlike organizational tenure did not have significant explanatory power in the regression analysis. Because our sample included two employment categories, professional and technical, we controlled for this difference. We also controlled for whether a person performed a leadership role in the work group or was designated a work group member because we expected that leaders may identify more with the work group and may have to deal with higher levels of conflict than other team members. Measures Independent and Control Variables. Data for calculating group size and sex dissimilarity were gathered with one item asking the respondent for the number of men in their work group and a second item asking for the number of women. The answer were combined to calculate the group size. Sex dissimilarity was calculated for men as the number of women in the work group divided by the total group size and for women as the number of men in the group divided by the total group size. This procedure results in the same score as that calculated in other relational demography studies (Chattopadhyay et al. 2004) by assigning a score of 0 for every peer of

586 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS the same sex and a score of 1 for every peer of the opposite sex. The higher the dissimilarity score, the more different the individual was from his or her peers in terms of sex. Sex dissimilarity scores ranged from 0 to 0.8. Work groups were labeled as colocated when all members of the group were reported to work in the same location and as distributive when one or more members were reported as working in a different location. This measure was based on the following considerations. Our theory suggests that the presence of an additional dimension of categorization (employee location) may result in other dimensions such as employee sex becoming less salient. This suggests that we should compare groups where that additional dimension is present (distributive work groups) with those where it is absent (colocated work groups) as with our current measure. However, it may also be argued that the magnitude of this additional dimension is important in reducing the salience of other dimensions of categorization. In other words, more colleagues in remote locations may incrementally lower the extent to which sex dissimilarity influences identification and conflict. Both these approaches are equally tenable because little theory exists comparing the effect of introducing a new dimension of categorization with incremental increases in that dimension. Methodologically, one may argue in favor of the incremental approach because information may be lost in transforming a continuous variable (the proportion of colleagues in a different location) to a dichotomous variable (colocated versus distributive groups). However, our sample includes 45% of respondents in colocated work groups and another 40% in groups with up to four individuals or about half the group members in one location and the other half in different locations. This translates to a positively skewed distribution with a skewness value of 2.53, where any value over one indicates a significant departure from normality (de Vaus 2002) and casts doubt on the robustness of a regression model using this variable. The variable is difficult to transform because just under half the values are zero and thus not amenable to easy manipulation. We therefore elected to use the dichotomous measure. Location was measured as a dichotomous variable with a value of 0 if employees worked in the same location as their work group colleagues and 1 if they worked in a different location from their colleagues. We asked respondents to indicate the number of their work group colleagues who worked in the same location as they did and noted whether this number was equal to or greater than zero. We did not use a continuous variable representing the total number of work group colleagues in the same location because this number represents the total group size minus 1 (for the focal individual) in colocated groups. Respondents indicated the extent to which their job required them to be interdependent with their work group colleagues using the seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) developed by Pearce and Gregersen (1991). Organizational tenure was measured in years and months from the time of joining the organization. Data on employment category was collected from organizational records that showed whether the respondent was classified as a professional or technical employee by the organization. Finally, employees were asked whether they were in a leadership position in the work group or whether they reported to someone else who served as work group leader (0 = work group member, 1 = work group leader). Dependent Variables. Task conflict and emotional conflict were measured with four items each using the Pelled et al. (1999) adaptation of Jehn s (1994) measures. Each item measured conflict on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Work group identification was measured with eight items combining Hogg and Hains s (1996) and the Brown et al. (1986) measures. Each item measured the extent to which an individual identifies with his or her work group on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items for all multi-item constructs are provided in the appendix. Results Factor and Reliability Analyses We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the two conflict measures, and the work group identification measure. The a priori three-factor model provided an adequate fit as the Bentler and Bonnet normed fit index was 0.91 and the non-normed fit index was 0.92; Bentler s comparative fit index was 0.93 and the standardized root mean-square residual was 0.02. Together these indicators suggest a good fit between the model and the data (Kline 1998). The interitem reliabilities of our control and dependent variables, assessed with Cronbach s alpha coefficients, were 0.80 or above and deemed to be satisfactory. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for each variable separately for the distributive and colocated work groups as well as the full sample. The table also presents correlations between all the variables in the full sample. Test of Hypotheses Our arguments on the asymmetrical influence of sex dissimilarity on the three dependent variables were based on the premise that our respondents work in male dominated settings. To determine the accuracy of this assumption, we ascertained that all top management positions were filled by male incumbents. Additionally, we found 94% of all respondents work in groups with a male majority. Our arguments also assume that women are more likely than men to perceive favorable treatment

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 587 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Interitem Reliabilities Colocated Distributive Total sample a work groups b work groups c Variable Mean S.d. Mean S.d. Mean S.d. 1 a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 6 0 6 1. Work group identification 5 39 1 12 5 43 1 18 5 34 1 07 0 95 2. Emotional conflict 3 27 1 73 3 47 1 88 3 07 1 57 0 45 0 92 3. Task conflict 3 66 1 18 9 1 263 6 3 1 11 0 23 0 49 0 80 4. Sex dissimilarity 0 33 0 21 0 38 0 22 0 29 0 18 0 02 0 14 0 08 control 5. Business unit 0 39 0 49 0 30 0 47 0 49 0 50 0 03 0 23 0 17 0 02 (1 = member) 6. Group size 8 57 4 6 3 7 24 2 83 9 81 4 99 0 08 0 11 0 23 0 09 0 13 7. Employment category 0 52 0 50 0 47 0 51 0 55 0 50 0 29 0 07 0 07 0 14 0 060 20 (0 = professional, 1 = technical) 8. Leadership 0 11 0 31 0 060 24 0 14 0 35 0 23 0 28 0 18 0 04 0 19 0 060 20 (0 = group member, 1 = group leader) 9. Location (0 = colocated, 0 14 0 10 0 00 0 10 0 00 0 17 0 12 0 25 0 13 0 13 1 = remote) 10. Tenure 13 05 10 6 7 11 47 10 24 14 52 10 95 0 02 0 11 0 15 0 33 0 21 0 02 0 08 0 34 0 17 11. Interdependence 5 17 1 85 5 21 1 89 5 14 1 83 0 02 0 06 0 14 0 14 0 01 0 04 0 03 0 14 0 03 0 11 12. Sex (0 = female, 5 0 48 0 43 0 50 0 81 0 39 0 04 0 14 0 10 0 43 0 09 0 060 03 0 19 0 35 0 34 1 = male) Notes. All correlations 0.20 and above are significant at p<0 05, n = 101. Figures in parentheses are inter-item reliabilities. a n = 101; b n = 46; c n = 55. toward men in these settings, particularly when they work in the same location rather than in geographically distributed groups. Accordingly, we asked our respondents the extent to which men and women in the organization were treated equally with regard to important processes and outcomes including rewards and participation in decision making (at a different time from when we measured our main variables to avoid priming our respondents; see appendix for items measuring salience of sexism). We found men were less likely than women to believe that employee sex was associated with achieving these outcomes (Means = 2 1 and 3.2, t = 3 11, p<0 01), that employees in distributive work groups were less likely than their counterparts in colocated work groups to express this belief (Means = 2 1 and 2.9, t = 1 98, p<0 05), and that men and women did not differ in this regard in distributive work groups (Means = 2 1 and 2.4, t = 0 63, p>0 1) but did so in colocated work groups (Means = 2 2 and 3.4, t = 2 73, p<0 01). Thus, our assumptions about the organizational context associated with our hypothesized effects were validated. Hypotheses 1 through 4 were tested with a series of hierarchical regressions, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. All the control variables were entered in the first step, followed by sex and sex dissimilarity in the second step, and the interaction term sex sex dissimilarity in the third step. Hypothesis 1 states that the work group identification of women would be more negatively influenced by sex dissimilarity than that of men. We constructed the interaction terms sex sex dissimilarity using centered variables because this reduces the potential of multicollinearity between the main effects and the interaction term (Jaccard et al. 1990). Model 1 shows that the interaction term sex sex dissimilarity significantly influences work group identification in the hypothesized direction ( = 0 23, p<0 05). As advocated by Jaccard et al. (1990), we investigated the form of the interaction term, by examining the nature of the slope of the relationship between sex dissimilarity and identification, at the two values of employee sex. As seen in Figure 1, consistent with our arguments, men were not influenced by sex dissimilarity and women reported lower levels of work group identification under conditions of greater sex dissimilarity. Hypothesis 2 states that emotional conflict reported by women would be more positively influenced by sex dissimilarity than that reported by men. Model 2 shows that the interaction term sex sex dissimilarity significantly influences emotional conflict in the hypothesized direction ( = 0 23, p<0 05). Figure 2 shows the nature of the interaction. Consistent with our arguments, men were not influenced by sex dissimilarity and women reported greater emotional conflict under conditions of greater sex dissimilarity. Hypothesis 3 states that task conflict reported by women would be more positively influenced by sex dissimilarity than that reported by men. Model 3 shows that the interaction term sex sex dissimilarity significantly influences task conflict in the hypothesized direction ( = 0 39, p<0 001). Figure 3 shows the nature of the interaction. Consistent with our arguments, women reported greater task conflict under conditions of greater sex dissimilarity. Interestingly, men reported less task conflict under conditions of greater sex dissimilarity.

588 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS Table 2 Results of Regression Analysis: Influence of Sex Dissimilarity on Group Identification, Task Conflict and Emotional Conflict Work group Emotional Task identification conflict conflict Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control Business unit (1 = member) 0 06 0 15 0 03 Group size 0 04 0 19 0 26 Interdependence 0 03 0 05 0 12 Employment category 0 26 0 060 07 (0 = professional, 1 = technical) Leadership 0 15 0 20 + 0 10 (0 = group member, 1 = group leader) Location (0 = colocated, 0 00 0 10 0 08 1 = remote) Tenure 0 16 0 03 0 11 Sex (0 = female, 1 = male) 0 18 0 01 0 06 Dissimilarity Sex dissimilarity 0 01 0 06 0 07 Sex sex dissimilarity 0 23 0 23 0 39 Adjusted R 2 for sex and sex 0 00 0 00 0 00 dissimilarity Adjusted R 2 for sex sex 0 04 0 04 0 13 dissimilarity Total adjusted R 2 0 10 0 13 0 19 Note. Standardized coefficients (betas) are reported. + p<0 1; p<0 05; p<0 01; p<0 001. Hypotheses 4A through 4C state that the influence of sex dissimilarity on work group identification, task and emotional conflict would be less in distributive work groups than in colocated work groups. We tested these hypotheses in two ways. First we split the sample into employees belonging to colocated work groups (n = 46) and those belonging to distributive work groups that had one or more members in remote locations (n = 55). We regressed work group identification, task and emotional conflict on all the independent and control variables in each subsample. Models 1, 2, and 3 in Table 3 show that sex sex dissimilarity had a significant influence on work group identification ( = 0 35, p<0 05), emotional conflict ( = 0 38, p<0 05), and task conflict ( = 0 52, p<0 001) in colocated work groups. Models 4, 5, and 6 show the lack of any significant relationship between sex sex dissimilarity and these three dependent variables in distributive work groups. Although this pattern of results is supportive of our arguments, we still needed to examine whether the coefficient for sex sex dissimilarity was significantly more positive for work group identification in the colocated work group sample regressions than in the distributive work group regressions and significantly more negative for emotional and task conflict in the corresponding groups. In the case of emotional conflict, the standardized estimate for sex sex dissimilarity was significant and negative in colocated work groups (Model 2, = 0 38) and positive, although nonsignificant, in distributive work groups (Model 5, = 0 09). Thus, we concluded that sex sex dissimilarity had a stronger negative influence on emotional conflict in colocated work groups than in distributive work groups. These results support Hypothesis 4B. We conducted the F test (Neter et al. 1989, pp. 368 369), advocated by Tsui et al. (1992), to examine whether the magnitude of the interaction coefficient differs between the two subsamples for work group identi- Table 3 Results of Regression Analysis: Influence of SexDissimilarity on Individual Mobility, Group Identification, Task Conflict and Emotional Conflict in Colocated and Distributive Groups Colocated groups Distributive groups Work group Emotional Work group Emotional identification conflict Task conflict identification conflict Task conflict Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Control Business unit (1 = member) 0 01 0 22 0 07 0 07 0 14 0 16 Group size 0 04 0 26 + 0 27 0 04 0 14 0 28 Interdependence 0 07 0 00 0 00 0 07 0 01 0 12 Employment category (0 = professional, 1 = technical) 0 12 0 03 0 11 0 32 0 05 0 37 Leadership (0 = group member, 1 = group leader) 0 14 0 24 + 0 20 0 17 0 16 0 08 Tenure 0 02 0 10 0 00 0 21 0 01 0 24 + Sex (0 = female, 1 = male) 0 04 0 03 0 13 0 21 0 25 0 20 Dissimilarity Sex dissimilarity 0 03 0 12 0 04 0 01 0 25 0 30 + Sex sex dissimilarity 0 35 0 38 0 52 0 02 0 09 0 16 Adjusted R 2 0 12 + 0 26 0 41 0 12 + 0 00 0 20 Note. Standardized coefficients (betas) are reported. + p<0 1; p<0 05; p<0 01; p<0 001.

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 589 Figure 1 7 6 Influence of SexDissimilarity on Work Group Identification Women Men Figure 3 7 6 Influence of SexDissimilarity on Task Conflict Women Men Group identification 5 4 3 Task conflict 5 4 3 2 2 1 Low sex dissimilarity High sex dissimilarity fication and task conflict where the coefficients for sex sex dissimilarity were in the same direction. In the case of work group identification, the sex sex dissimilarity coefficient in colocated work groups (Model 1, = 0 35) was marginally stronger than the corresponding coefficient in distributive work groups (Model 4, = 0 02), providing weak support for Hypothesis 4A (F = 2 94, p<0 1). In the case of task conflict, the sex sex dissimilarity coefficient in colocated work groups (Model 3, = 0 52) was significantly stronger than the corresponding coefficient in distributive work groups (Model 6, = 0 16), providing strong support for Hypothesis 4C (F = 7 54, p<0 01). In summary, our tests for Hypotheses 4A through 4C provide support for the idea that the interactions depicted in Figures 1 through 3 exist only in colocated groups and not in distributive groups. None of our theoretically relevant variables differed in terms of variance between the two subsamples, suggesting that the stronger effect of sex dissimilarity in Figure 2 Emotional conflict 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Influence of SexDissimilarity on Emotional Conflict Low sex dissimilarity Women Men High sex dissimilarity 1 Low sex dissimilarity High sex dissimilarity colocated work groups is not a methodological artifact. There was no difference between the distributive and colocated work groups with regard to the mean level of sex dissimilarity for men or women. Our theoretically argued reasons for differences between the two types of work groups appear to be further justified because colocated and distributive subsamples did not differ significantly in the mean level of interdependence, suggesting that jobs in both work group types required similar levels of interaction. They also did not differ significantly in mean levels of tenure, suggesting that members of both types of work groups had equal opportunity to get to know their colleagues beyond obvious characteristics such as employee sex. Finally, using an amended version of Stewart and Barrick s (2000) measures we ascertained that tasks did not vary significantly in mean levels of key activities required to accomplish the jobs done by work group members in the two subsamples, including planning and idea generation, choosing between alternatives, executing work, administrative paperwork and importantly, informal meetings with group members. We were thus reasonably sure that differences between colocated work groups and distributive work groups were not driven by differences in the jobs undertaken by group members. Discussion In this study we examined the asymmetrical influence of sex dissimilarity on men s and women s identification with their work group and their perceived levels of task and emotional conflict. Further, we examined whether these effects are stronger in colocated than in distributive groups. Women reported lower levels of work group identification and higher perceived levels of task and emotional conflict in conjunction with higher levels of sex dissimilarity. In contrast, men in these work groups were not influenced with regard to their work group identification

590 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS and perceptions of emotional conflict when they were more dissimilar from their peers. These results support our idea that women are more likely than men to be negatively influenced by sex dissimilarity when they work in traditional male-dominated organizations because that context heightens for women the extent to which they are categorized on the basis of their sex and the lower status conferred on their sex. Women perceive that they have to fight harder than male employees to gain status in the organization. Therefore the more men they have to work with, the lower their perceptions of belonging to the work group and the higher their perceived levels of conflict. Men may not perceive these status differences quite as starkly, given that they maintain their overall dominance in the work group. Consequently, their levels of emotional conflict and work group identification vary only slightly with sex dissimilarity. Our results highlight the implications of previous work showing that categorization effects are stronger when an identity based on a particular category is made more salient (Heilman and Blader 2001, Linnehan et al. 2006) and that members of high status categories who do not perceive a threat to their majority in a work group are less likely than members of low status categories to find their category boundary to be a salient basis for self-categorization (Mullen et al. 1992, Sachdev and Bourhis 1991, Terry and Callan 1998). Also, our results are consistent with the work of Chattopadhyay (1999) who found that men s attitudes and behaviors were influenced negatively by sex dissimilarity only when they ceased to be in the majority. Interestingly, men perceived less task conflict when they worked with greater numbers of women. Although we did not hypothesize this effect, it is consistent with our observations that women in these research units were in a lower status category than men. Men may have to argue more about their tasks with other men, as each set of arguments would be accorded equal status. If men find it easy to brush aside task related arguments made by women, they would perceive lower task conflict in more diverse work groups. Future research should examine whether this pattern of results is replicated with other demographic variables such as race or nationality where a clear status hierarchy is distinguishable. 1 The effects of sex dissimilarity on work group identification, and task and emotional conflict occur in colocated work groups but not in distributive work groups. It may be that the salience of geographical distribution as a categorization variable or the lack of colocated interaction reduced the extent to which employees are categorized as men and women and treated differentially on the basis of their sex. The use of geographically dispersed teams is increasing and the lack of any influence of sex dissimilarity on work group identification and task and emotional conflict may be an unexpected benefit to balance the problems associated with identification and interaction in distributive work groups (Hinds and Mortensen 2005, Raghuram et al. 2001, Wiesenfeld et al. 1999). The data are consistent with the arguments of Bhappu et al. (2001) and the data presented by Bhappu et al. (1997) and Krebs et al. (2006) who suggested that effects related to diversity are muted in virtual teams because of the lack of social cues and rich communication. Our overall pattern of results suggest that we can enhance our understanding of the asymmetrical influence of work group composition for men and women, in traditionally colocated settings or in the distributive work groups currently in vogue, by paying attention to the extent to which compositional categories are salient bases of categorization to the particular category of employee within the relevant organizational context. More generally, our work provides support for the idea that processes linked to identification and related outcomes vary with the work format under consideration; we contribute to the understanding of identification and conflict in one such format that is becoming increasingly common(ashford et al. forthcoming). Our finding that sex dissimilarity has an impact on work group identification and perceptions of conflict in work groups is not consistent with the Pelled et al. (1999) results that sex diversity has no impact on either task or emotional conflict. Moreover, Jehn et al. (1999) found that social category diversity comprising age and sex diversity influenced emotional conflict but not task conflict. We suggest that our results differ from those reported by the above researchers because we examined the differential impact of working with the opposite sex on men and women whereas they looked for a uniform impact of diversity on perceived conflict reported by both men and women. Men and women may interpret similar interactions as entailing different levels of conflict because they tend to experience different outcomes from the same incident and attribute it differentially to their own sex in conjunction with the sex dissimilarity experienced. Researchers should thus continue to examine the impact of working with dissimilar others separately for categories that vary by status in organizations. Our research has important implications for managers heading diverse teams whether colocated or distributive. Managers should recognize that the influence of sex dissimilarity is asymmetrical and dependent on the type of group (whether colocated or distributive) as well as the work group members sex. The key to understanding the nature of these relationships is to understand how the organizational context shapes the extent to which employees are categorized on the basis of their sex. Managers may be able to work more effectively with diverse groups if they take action to reduce such categorization, keeping in mind that this may occur with the introduction of other salient categorization variables such as geographical distribution.

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 591 Limitations We could not conclusively establish the causal direction argued in this study due to its cross-sectional nature. For example, emotional conflict may influence work group composition through differential selection processes for men and women. However, we are not sure how reverse causality would be consistent with our results. For example, if women perceive higher levels of conflict than men and leave the organization, then only those women who can better deal with conflict would remain in the work group. These women would face higher levels of dissimilarity, given the loss of female colleagues, but lower levels of conflict, because those women perceiving higher levels of conflict would have left. This argument suggests either a relationship opposite to what we found or a dampening of the influence of sex dissimilarity on conflict. Thus, we do not think that reverse causality is a major factor driving our results. Nevertheless, we cannot rule it out in a cross-sectional study. Future research may examine these relationships over time to rectify this limitation. Our results for the differential influence of sex dissimilarity on conflict and work group identification are not influenced by common method related problems because the measure of sex dissimilarity is based on data provided by respondents on the number of men and women in their work group. However, the significant relationship between interdependence (one of the control variables) and the dependent variables should be interpreted with caution as these are all self reports measured at the same time. The convenience sample used in this study casts some doubt on the generalizability of these results. More research should be conducted across settings with variations in the relative status of men and women. Although our results are consistent with our theoretical model and provide external validity for the laboratory studies measuring the processes argued in the model, our study is limited in that we did not directly measure the communication and interaction history of each work group. We also did not measure the extent to which work group members interacted with their peers using various communication modes other than face-to-face contact and the resulting salience of geographical distribution. Instead we measured whether group members worked at the same site or at different geographical locations as a proxy for these constructs. Our interviews with HR and divisional managers support the use of this proxy measure. Moreover, additional analyses showed that the distributive and colocated group members in our sample did not differ on key dimensions such as interdependence, tenure, informal communication and various other key requirements of the tasks assigned to work groups belonging to each group type, ruling out a few alternate explanations for our results. The use of different methods, like field observations or interviews, could be a valuable addition to future studies seeking to capture in detail the processes we have outlined in this study. We chose to split our work groups into groups that were wholly colocated versus those that were either wholly or partially geographically distributed, rather than working with a skewed continuous measure of the extent to which a group is distributed. We have provided theoretical and empirical justification for this choice. More research is needed to replicate our results using a less skewed sample. Conclusion Sex dissimilarity had a negative influence on the work group identification reported by women and a positive influence on their task and emotional conflict. These relationships were neutral or even opposite for men. Further, the relationships between sex dissimilarity and work group identification, task and emotional conflict were found in colocated work groups but not in distributive work groups. Future research should more directly examine why the negative influence of sex dissimilarity is not manifested in distributive work groups. Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by a grant from the Australian Research Council and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Appendix Items used to measure all multi-item constructs: Interdependence 1. I work closely with others in doing my work. 2. I frequently must coordinate my efforts with others. 3. My own performance is dependent on receiving accurate information from others. 4. The way I perform my job has a significant impact on others. 5. My work requires me to consult with others fairly frequently. 6. I depend on others to get my job done. 7. Others depend on me to get their job done. Task Conflict 1. There are differences of opinion in my team. 2. The members of my team disagree about how things should be done. 3. The members of my team disagree about which procedures should be used to do our work. 4. The arguments in my team are task related. Emotional Conflict 1. Personality clashes are evident in my team. 2. There is tension among the members of my team. 3. People get angry while working in my team. 4. There is jealousy or rivalry among members of my team.

592 Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS Work Group Identification 1. This group is important to me. 2. I identify with this group. 3. My ties with this group are strong. 4. I am glad to be a group member. 5. My feelings of belonging to this group are strong. 6. I have strong preference to belong to this group rather than a different group. 7. I feel that my general attitudes and beliefs are similar to those of this group as a whole. 8. I feel that I fit well into this group. Salience of Sexism (All items were reverse coded so that higher scores indicate greater salience of sex in attaining success in the organization.) 1. Men and women are on the same footing with regard to participation in decision processes. 2. Men and women in [organization] are rewarded equally if they put in equal effort into their job. 3. Men and women are rewarded equally if they are equal in education and training. 4. The success that people achieve at [organization] is a reflection of their talent. Endnote 1 Our sample of overwhelmingly Caucasian Australians did not allow us to study these relationships. References Ashford, S., E. George, R. Blatt. Old assumptions, new work: The opportunities and challenges of research on nonstandard employment. Ann. Acad. Management. Forthcoming. Barsness, Z. I., K. A. Diekmannm, M.-D. L. Seidel. 2005. Motivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Acad. Management J. 48 401 419. Baugh, S. G., G. B. Graen. 1997. Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in crossfunctional teams. Group Organ. Management 22 366 383. Bell, B., S. Kozlowski. 2002. A typology of virtual teams. Group Organ. Management 27 14 49. Bhappu, A., T. Griffith, G. Northcraft. 1997. Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 70 199 205. Bhappu, A., M. Zellmer-Bruhn, V. Anand. 2001. The effects of demographic diversity and virtual work environments on knowledge processing in teams. Adv. Interdisciplinary Stud. Work Teams 8 145 161. Brown, R., S. Condor, A. Mathews, G. Wade, J. Williams. 1986. Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J. Occupational Psych. 59 273 286. Cascio, W. 2000. Managing a virtual workplace. Acad. Management Executive 14 81 90. Chatman, J. A., J. T. Polzer, S. G. Barsade, M. A. Neale. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43 749 781. Chattopadhyay, P. 1999. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Management J. 42 273 287. Chattopadhyay, P., E. George, S. Lawrence. 2004. Why does dissimilarity matter? Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction. J. Appl. Psych. 89 892 900. Chattopadhyay, P., M. Tluchowska, E. George. 2004. Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Acad. Management Rev. 29 180 202. Cramton, C. D. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12 346 371. Culnan, M., M. Markus. 1987. Information technologies. F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, L. Porter, eds. Handbook of Organizational Communication An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 85 121. De Dreu, C. K. W., L. R. Weingart. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict and team effectiveness: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 88 741 749. de Vaus, D. 2002. Analyzing Social Science Data 50 Key Problems in Data Analysis. Sage, London. Dubrovsky, V., S. Kiesler, B. Sethna. 1991. The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-toface decision making groups. Human Comput. Interaction 6 119 146. Dutton, J., J. Dukerich, C. V. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39 239 263. Griffith, T., M. Neale. 2001. Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23. JAI, Greenwich, CT, 379 421. Griffith, T., J. Sawyer, M. Neale. 2003. Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quart. 27 265 287. Hackman, J. R. 1983. A normative model of work team effectiveness. Technical Report 2, School of Organization and Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Heilman, M. 1994. Affirmative action: Some unintended consequences for working women. Res. Organ. Behav. 5 269 298. Heilman, M., V. B. Alcott. 2001. What I think you think of me: Women s reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection. J. Appl. Psych. 86 574 582. Heilman, M., S. Blader. 2001. Assuming preferential selection when the admission policy is unknown: The effect of gender rarity. J. Appl. Psych. 86 118 193. Hinds, P., M. Mortensen. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. 16 290 302. Hobman, E., P. Bordia, C. Gallois. 2004. Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group Organ. Management 29 560 587. Hogg, M. A., S. C. Hains. 1996. Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 70 295 309. Hogg, M. A., D. J. Terry. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Management Rev. 25 121 140. Hollingshead, A. 1998. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74 659 671. International Labor Organization. 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: Women in management. Geneva, Switzerland. Jaccard, J., R. Turrisi, C. Wan. 1990. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Organization Science 19(4), pp. 581 593, 2008 INFORMS 593 Jarvenpaa, S., D. Leidner. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. 10 791 815. Jarvenpaa, S., K. Knoll, D. Leidner. 1998. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Management Inform. System 14(4) 29 64. Jehn, K. 1994. Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. Internat. J. Conflict Management 5 223 238. Jehn, K., G. Northcraft, M. Neale. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44 741 763. Joshi, A., H. Liao, S. Jackson. 2006. Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay. Acad. Management J. 49 459 482. Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad. Management Rev. 16 416 441. Kanter, R. M. 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation. Basic Books, New York. Kline, R. B. 1991. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. Guilford Press, New York. Konrad, A., B. Gutek. 1987. Theory and research on group composition: Applications to the status of women and ethnic minorities. S. Oskamp, S. Spacapan, eds. Interpersonal Processes. Sage, London. Kramer, R. M. 1991. Inter-group relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Res. Organ. Behav. 13 191 228. Krebs, S., E. Hobman, P. Bordia. 2006. Virtual teams and group member dissimilarity: Consequences for the development of trust. Small Group Res. 37 721 741. Linnehan, F., D. Chrobot-Mason, A. Konrad. 2006. Diversity attitudes and norms: The role of ethnic identity and relational demography. J. Organ. Behav. 27 419 442. Martins, L. L., L. L. Gilson, M. T. Maynard. 2004. What do we know and where do we go from here. J. Management 30 805 836. Mullen, B., R. Brown, C. Smith. 1992. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 22 103 122. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, M. Kutner. 1989. Applied Linear Regression Models. Irwin, Boston. Pearce, J., H. Gregersen. 1991. Task interdependence and extra-role behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. J. Appl. Psych. 76 838 844. Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, K. R. Xin. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44 1 28. Raghuram, S., R. Garud, B. Wiesenfeld, G. Gupta. 2001. Actors contributing to virtual work adjustment. J. Management 27 383 405. Ravlin, E. C., D. C. Thomas. 2005. Status and stratification processes in organizational life. J. Management 31 966 987. Riordan, C., L. M. Shore. 1997. Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography among work units. J. Appl. Psych. 82 342 358. Sachdev, I., R. Bourhis. 1991. Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 21 1 24. Sproull, L., S. Kiesler. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Sci. 32 1492 1512. Stephan, W. 1985. Intergroup relations. G. Lindsey, E. Aronson, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Random House, New York, 599 658. Stewart, G., M. Barrick. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad. Management J. 43 135 148. Stoddard, D. B., A. Donnellon. 1997. Verifone, a Harvard Business School Case Study, 9-398-030. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston. Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tajfel, H., J. Turner. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. S. Worchel, W. Austin, eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson Hall, Chicago. Terry, D., V. Callan. 1998. In-group bias in response to organizational merger. Group Dynam.: Theory, Res. Practice 2 67 81. Tsui, A., T. Egan, C. O Reilly. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37 549 579. Turner, J. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group A Self-Categorization Theory. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Wharton, A., J. Baron. 1987. So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52 574 587. Wiesenfeld, B., S. Raghuram, R. Garud. 1999. Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organ. Sci. 10 777 790. Withey, M., W. Cooper. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34 521 539. Zenger, T., B. Lawrence. 1989. Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distribution on technical communication. Acad. Management J. 32 353 376.