Is university internationalization bad for performance? Examining two different types of diversity

International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Is university internationalization bad for performance? Examining two different types of diversity Jakob Lauring, Jan Selmer * Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 15 February 2010 Received in revised form 8 August 2010 Accepted 24 January 2011 Available online 26 February 2011

While most studies on diverse organizations have been directed at business organizations, the academic sector has also become increasingly international and heterogeneous. Few large-scale studies have investigated multicultural academic departments and none of those have dealt with diversity and group processes. Therefore, a survey was directed towards academics in 16 science departments in three large universities in Denmark. Results based on the response from 489 academics showed that cultural diversity, as a deep level heterogeneity, was positively related to performance and satisfaction, whereas gender diversity, as a surface level heterogeneity, was negatively associated with satisfaction. Implications of these findings are discussed in detail. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Academic faculty Diversity University internationalization Gender Culture

1. Introduction The reality of modern organizations and institutions not only makes homogeneity undesirable but most often also highly difficult to achieve (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Consequently, organizations throughout the world are becoming increasingly heterogeneous in terms of their demographic composition and will most certainly continue to do so in the years to come (Kezar, 2007; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Although demographic diversity seems to have a pervasive impact on organizational performance and group processes, many aspects of group diversity are still unclear (Tyran & Gibson, 2008; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Accordingly, more knowledge is needed to understand how different aspects of demographic diversity function in different kinds of organizations. The lion’s share of diversity studies on group performance has targeted business organizations. However, research on diversity in other organizations such as the military (Stewart & Johnson, 2009), federal agencies (Pitts, 2005), walking groups (Shapcott, Carron, Burke Shauna, Bradshaw, & Estabrooks, 2006) and elementary group teachers (Van der Vegt, 2002) has also started to emerge. In this study we focus on academic departments. The university sector is interesting because in recent years it has experienced demographic diversification both in terms of surface-level diversity, such as gender, and in terms of more deep-level diversity, such as cultural background (Rhee & Sagaria, 2004; Schapper & Mayson, 2004). While governments and the university management have generally been supportive of the development (e.g. the Bologna declaration) (Park, 2009), the internationalization of universities has been met with some criticism from the academics themselves (e.g. McLoughlin, 2001; Rizvi & Walsh, 1998; Rothman, Lipset, & Nevitte, 2003). Furthermore, recent qualitative studies have found negative implications of, for example, the use of English as the primary means of departmental

* Corresponding author at: Department of Management (MAN), Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark. Tel.: +45 89 48 66 88; fax: +45 89 48 61 25. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Selmer). 0883-0355/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.02.002

162

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

communication in non-English-speaking countries (Lillis & Curry, 2006; Tietze & Dick, 2009) and discrimination across nationalities (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2007). This study aims to quantitatively examine both surface-level demographic heterogeneity and deep-level heterogeneity. While the surface-level diversity (gender) is a result of a national development encouraging women to take up positions in research and higher education, the deep level diversity (culture) is a result from increasing internationalization in universities throughout the world. Comparing the relationships of the two types of diversity with performance is highly interesting for scholars and practitioners because the results may indicate whether, in fact, internationalization of the university sector is more problematic than other more well known surface-level types of dissimilarities to the work of academics. This is important. Although diversity is increasing in this sector, there are no large-scale studies of the association between demographic diversity and performance in academic departments. Moreover, diversity related to function, experience, age and race, etcetera, could also be valid representatives of surface-level and deep-level types of demographic heterogeneity. Nevertheless, diversity in terms of gender and culture are more conspicuous indicators of recent developments within the university sector. Accordingly, we need to know more about how different types of diversity may affect the performance in these types of settings. Although the academic community has its own unique qualities as consisting of individuals highly specialized in a certain field, it also shares similarities with the knowledge intensive sector of many private companies (Richardson, 2006). Nonetheless, similarities and differences between diverse academic organizations and diverse business organizations are not clear. This study may contribute to a better understanding of similarities and differences between the two different types of heterogeneous organizations. To that extent, studying heterogeneous academic settings may provide external validity to other studies on demographic diversity that have mainly focused on business organizations (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Choi, 2009). 2. Background and hypotheses Human differences have proven a challenge to the academic community, and over the past fifty years researchers have struggled to develop theories and methods to conceptualize and study these differences (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). While inconsistent results have portrayed diversity as a ‘double edged sword’, studies generally find some influence of demographic diversity on organizational performance (Milliken & Martins, 1996; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999). It has been argued that diverse groups may benefit from the creativity from the perspectives and networks associated with heterogeneity (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Page, 2007). When diverse perspectives are managed and used constructively, they can prove beneficial to the group (Hambrick, 2007; Hurtado, 2007; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This argument is often referred to as the ‘value in diversity’ paradigm (Frink et al., 2003). Conversely, dissimilarities in groups are also often found to be a challenge to group processes due to social categorization issues (Antonio, 2004; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999; Simons et al., 1999; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). According to social categorization theory, individuals define themselves in terms of group membership that can be based on similarities in demographic characteristics. It is argued that particularly salient attributes can trigger stronger group categorizations. Individuals are thus more likely to differentiate themselves from others based on readily detectable traits such as age and gender (Jackson et al., 1991). Hence, the relation between group heterogeneity and group performance is not entirely clear (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2004; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The inconsistency of results could be due to different types of diversity causing different types of outcomes (Homan et al., 2008; Milliken & Martins, 1996; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Diversity in certain attributes may well provide a better potential for enhanced performance than others. In this regard, readily apparent demographic traits, such as gender, age and race have been argued to have different effects on performance compared to underlying, deep-level dimensions, such as cultural values or personality. This has led to a number of studies testing variations in effects of what is termed surface-level and deep-level heterogeneity dimensions (Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2007). We attempt to contribute to this area of research arguing that deep-level diversity (cultural) could provide useful differences in perspectives and abilities that makes it more useful compared to surface-level diversity (gender) which could lead to negative stereotyping (Oosterhof, Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Sanders, 2009; van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, Paulus, Vos, & Parthasarathy, 2009). In this study we have targeted multicultural academic departments as a location where there has been an increase in cultural diversity and gender diversity during recent years. Our arguments are thus contradictory to some arguments (Schapper & Mayson, 2004) and qualitative studies (Tietze & Dick, 2009) that perceive internationalization to be a hindrance to daily work in academic settings. 2.1. Departmental performance There is little consensus as to what constitutes performance in general terms. However, performance often refers to the core technical duties of the job, also known as task performance or in-role performance (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944). Hence, group performance is a multidimensional construct that encompasses several outcome measures, such as quantitative production, qualitative group outcomes and cohesion (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). In the current study, we include the theoretical construct of departmental performance on the basis of members’ evaluation of the group’s success and its members’ satisfaction with working in the group – thus accounting for both evaluative and affective consequences of diversity.

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

163

Departmental satisfaction is associated with the emotional state resulting from the evaluation of one’s job or job experiences (Fisher, 2003; Locke, 1976). It may arise from individual integration in the group and from perceiving the group as being successful (Kalleberg, 1977; Martins, Milliken, Wiesenfeld, & Salgado, 2003). Accordingly, success and satisfaction may be interrelated but are not necessarily so (Jehn, Neale, & Northcraft, 1999). In extant research, success and satisfaction has been both positively and negatively associated with demographic diversity (Jackson et al., 1991; Martins et al., 2003; Webber & Donahue, 2001). 2.2. Deep-level diversity Characteristics of deep-level heterogeneity are differences that are not immediately observable and must therefore be discovered through registration of verbal and nonverbal behaviour patterns. Therefore, this type of diversity can mainly be registered through extended interaction and information gathering (Harrison et al., 2002). Deep-level diversity comprises variations among group members’ attitudes, norms and beliefs that are often argued to have a positive influence on performance (Larson, 2007; Mitchell, Nicholas, & Boyle, 2009; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). Cultural diversity as a multiplicity of nationalities working together has often been found to represent a distinct form of deep-level heterogeneity because it indicates variations in deeply embedded behavioural patterns, value, norms and world views (Hambrick, Davison, Snell, & Snow, 1998; Jackson et al., 1995). In line with the value in the diversity paradigm, it has been argued that group members with different nationalities primarily have a positive impact on group performance due to useful variations in perspectives and behaviours (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Hambrick et al., 1998; Maznevski, 1994; Oosterhof et al., 2009). Moreover, group members’ different national backgrounds may provide the group with a larger array of abilities useful in handling the increasingly internationalized context of today’s university sector. This includes language skills and experience in dealing with other nationalities. The studies of the effect of cultural diversity were first triggered by a study by Hoffman and Maier (1961), who found that culturally heterogeneous groups produced better quality solutions to problems than homogenous groups. Similarly, Triandis, Hall, and Ewen (1965) found that culturally heterogeneous groups were more creative than cultural homogeneous groups if they both had similar ability levels. Consistent with this, Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993) found that culturally homogenous groups initially interacted and performed more effectively than their diverse counterparts. However, interaction processes and performance for both groups improved over time. Furthermore, improvements in the heterogeneous group were more rapid, resulting in the diverse groups being more effective in identifying problems and generating solutions than the homogeneous groups at the end of the study. Other studies, however, show that it is more difficult and stressful for deep-level heterogeneous groups to work together (Feldman, Sam, McDonald, & Bechtel, 1980) because the clashes between group members’ differences in perspective, behaviour and values, make it difficult for them to work satisfactorily together. Nevertheless, such differences may also lead to creativity and positive work outcomes (Epton, Payne, & Pearson, 1985; Jackson et al., 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; McLeod & Lobe, 1992). For example, Ash (2008) found that the placement of a cultural minority individual in an otherwise homogenous group reduced satisfaction significantly. With regards to communication, the use of a second language in daily interaction has been found to lead to more shallow relations and reduced attachment to other group members (Lauring & Tange, 2010). In conclusion, it has mainly been argued that diversity may in some cases be good for performance, but that it is generally bad for interpersonal relations and emotional attitudes (Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994; Webber & Donahue, 2001). The daily tasks of academic departments comprise both creativity and international orientation when conducting and publishing research. Hence, it could be argued that cultural diversity could be useful for boosting performance due to complimentary perspectives and abilities. Lillis and Curry (2006) also found that academics in non-English-speaking countries made great use of foreigners with better English language skills in writing academic articles. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are presented: Hypothesis 1a. There is a positive association between cultural diversity and departmental success in academic departments. Hypothesis 1b. There is a negative association between cultural diversity and departmental satisfaction. 2.3. Surface-level diversity In line with Milliken and Martins (1996), we understand surface-level group heterogeneity as overt, biological attributes that are immediately observable and provide a strong basis for social categorization (Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1993; Timmerman, 2000). Such characteristics include age, gender and race (Homan et al., 2008). Pelled (1996) suggested that surface-level heterogeneity is less related to a group task and therefore less relevant to group functioning and work outcomes. In line with this argument, observable differences, such as gender, are often argued to be associated with negative consequences for group functioning leading to stereotypes and prejudice, thus hampering performance and satisfaction (Milliken & Martins, 1996; Van de Ven, Rogers, Bechara, & Sun, 2008). In this study we focus on gender as a representative of surface-level heterogeneity.

164

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

Research on gender composition has addressed several group process and group performance variables such as communication networks, satisfaction, self-esteem, gender identification and support (Frink et al., 2003; Ibarra, 1992; Konrad, Kramer, & Erkut, 2008; Wharton & Baron, 1987). However, based on past findings, little improvements to performance can be expected based on the existence of an equal distribution of the two genders alone (Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Pelled et al., 1999). As such, research in gender diversity has not been able consistently to find complementary, useful differences in perspectives or abilities between the two sexes (Kanter, 1988). Conversely, some negative effects of gender dissimilarities may be predicted. For example, as an important indicator of readily observable dissimilarities, gender is often an essential component of identity construction (Bell & Berry, 2007; Tyran & Gibson, 2008). In line with social identity theory, differences among group members in terms of gender could be expected to result in negative stereotyping and decreased collaboration (Kramer, 1997; Owen, 2008; Randel & Jaussi, 2008). For example, Konrad, Winter, & Gutek, (1992) found that dissimilarity in sex resulted in isolation and dissatisfaction for women in some situations. Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly (1992) found that increasing diversity was associated with lower attachment for whites and males, but not for women and minorities. Gender diversity has also been found to lead to interaction difficulties and decreasing group satisfaction (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) reported that subordinates whose gender differed from that of their supervisors received lower performance ratings. Based on the findings of prior research we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2a. There is a negative association between gender diversity and departmental success in academic departments. Hypothesis 2b. There is a negative association between gender diversity and departmental satisfaction in academic departments. 3. Method 3.1. Target population Academics of science departments were targeted in this investigation. Science departments were judged to be suitable as targets since this academic discipline may be less influenced by cultural, social and institutional circumstances, than, for example, humanities and social sciences. Quoting a Los Angeles Times article, Pelled et al. (1999: 4) argue that there is no such thing as a woman’s way of doing mathematics. Accordingly, the discipline of science could be more transferable over various boundaries than many other academic specializations. Hence, a database of e-mail addresses of academics in science departments in three large universities in Denmark was constructed. A total of 16 departments were targeted ranging from traditional disciplines, such as Chemistry and Physics, to new specializations, such as Nanotechnology and Pharmacology. 3.2. Data collection The responses of the participants were collected electronically and a commercial web survey software package was used to administer the questionnaire. Trying to achieve a high response rate, the university affiliation of the investigators was identified as the official sender, and the potential respondents were assured of anonymity and confidentiality as customary. The survey was designed using advanced electronic mail functions that allowed participants to register their responses directly onto the form which then fed a database. In total 1022 academics were invited to participate in the survey, and eventually, 489 responses were received amounting to a response rate of 47.8%. 3.3. Sample The majority of the respondents were male (71.5%), associate or assistant professors (51.1%), and Danish citizens (62.9%) (Table 1). Hence, a substantial minority were foreign nationals (37.1%), where respondents from non-EU countries made up 16.7% and academics from other EU countries than Denmark represented 20.4% of the sample. The average age of all responding academics was 37.05 years (SD = 11.34) and on the average they had a period of employment of 7.59 years with their respective department (SD = 9.19). The number of respondents from each department ranged from 9 to 54 and the share of foreign nationals among the departments ranged from 14.3% to 57.1%. Departmental gender diversity ranged from 3% women (Machine Technology) to 55% women (Pharmacology). 3.4. Instrument Measurements refer to the academic department unless stated otherwise. Although variables are assessed at the individual level, they are attributable to the departmental level. The theoretical concept of departmental performance was represented by the two constructs: Departmental success and departmental job satisfaction, and they were both measured by multi-item scales (Appendix A). Since the variables representing deep-level diversity as well as size of department are factually based, they were measured by single direct questions to the respondents.

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

165

Table 1 Background of the sample (n = 489). Background variables Gender Male Female Position Professor Associate/Assistant Professor PhD student Nationality Non-EU Non-Denmark EU Denmark a

Frequencya

Percent

344 137

71.5 28.5

47 250 192

9.6 51.1 39.3

78 93 287

16.7 20.4 62.9

Frequency totals may be less than 489 due to missing values.

3.4.1. Departmental performance Departmental success was assessed by a six-item, seven-point scale adapted after Martins et al. (2003). Response categories ranged from (1) ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to (7) ‘‘strongly agree’’. A sample item is: ‘‘This department has a positive view of itself’’ (a = .90). Departmental satisfaction was assessed by a three-item, seven-point scale adapted after Martins et al. (2003). The response categories were the same as for departmental success above. A sample item is: ‘‘I am very satisfied with the way I am treated by my colleagues’’ (a = .91). 3.4.2. Deep-level diversity Cultural diversity was assessed by the question: ‘‘How many different nationalities are employed among the academic staff?’’ 3.4.3. Surface-level diversity Gender diversity was measured using updated information on the departmental homepages available concurrently with the survey data collection regarding the percentage of women among the academic staff of the respective departments. 3.4.4. Control Size of department was applied as control variable. It was measured by a direct question: ‘‘How many academic staff members are currently employed at your department?’’ Controlling for the size of the department seems reasonable since it is not unlikely that large academic departments may be different than small university departments in terms of performance (Bettenhausen, 1991). 4. Results Sample means, standard deviations and zero-order Pearson correlations of all variables are provided in Table 2. Onesample t-tests showed that the mean scores for the two criterion variables depicting departmental performance, departmental success (t = 26.08, p < .001) and departmental satisfaction (t = 40.60, p < .001) were significantly higher than the midpoint of their respective scales. This indicates that the respondent departmental members generally considered their department to be successful and that departmental members felt satisfied with their jobs in the department. The significant associations between size of department and both of the criterion variables; departmental success (r = .28, p < .001) and departmental satisfaction (r = .13, p < .01) confirm the need to make use of this control variable in the regression analysis. The hypotheses were formally tested by way of hierarchical multiple regression (Table 3). The control variable size of department was entered in Step 1. There was a significant association between the control variable and both of the two criterion variables departmental success (b = .28; p < .001) and departmental satisfaction (b = .12; p < .01). In Step 2, the two Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables.a Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5.28 5.87 5.15 23.04 76.77

1.08 1.01 1.34 13.78 24.56

1.00 .51** .26** .17** .28**

1.00 .18** .06 .13*

1.00 .08 .15**

1.00 .14*

1.00

a

Departmental success Departmental satisfaction Cultural diversity Gender diversity Size of department

475 < n < 489 due to missing answers. * p < .01. ** p < .001; two-tailed.

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

166

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression for effects of diversity on departmental performance.a Departmental performance

Step 1 (control) Size of department R R2 (adjusted) F Step 2 (diversity) Deep-level diversity Cultural diversity Surface-level diversity Gender diversity R Change in R2 R2 (adjusted) F a * **

Departmental success

Departmental satisfaction

b

b

.28** .28 .08 39.44**

.12* .13 .02 8.38*

.20**

.15**

.20** .41 .09 .16 30.89**

.07 .22 .03 .04 7.71**

Regression coefficients are standardized; n = 475 due to missing answers. p < .01. p < .001; two-tailed.

predictor variables were entered. Again, this produced significant effects on both of the two criterion variables, explaining 9% of the variance in departmental success and 3% of the variance in departmental satisfaction. As displayed by Table 3, there was a positive relationship between cultural diversity and departmental success (b = .20; p < .001) and departmental satisfaction (b = .15; p < .001) as well as a negative relationship between gender diversity and departmental success (b = .20; p < .001). All F values for the departmental performance variables were statistically significant, indicating a proper fit between the regression model and the data. These findings provide support for H1a and H2a. There was no support for H2b. H1b was rejected. 5. Discussion 5.1. Main findings In this study we examined the association between two different types of heterogeneity (deep-level/culture and surfacelevel/gender) and departmental performance (success/evaluative and satisfaction/affective). It has been argued that the existence of different characteristics in different types of demographic heterogeneity has been overlooked in much previous research (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Hence, an examination of these different types of diversity may help to explain the inconsistent, often conflicting, results of diversity research to date (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Based on the value in diversity argument, we proposed that deep-level diversity that provides useful skills and abilities to fulfil the groups’ tasks enables a department to produce a successful work outcome. Surface-level diversity that does not provide useful variations in perspectives and abilities to the setting, on the other hand, may lead to reduced success due to negative social categorizations. This was confirmed in our studies. Moreover, based on social identity theory and the similarity attraction hypothesis, we hypothesized that both deep and surface-level diversity would lead to reduced satisfaction. On the other hand, contrary to our hypothesis, we found cultural diversity to be positively associated with satisfaction. This finding could be explained by the argument about interrelations between evaluative and affective dimensions of performance (Jehn et al., 1999; Kalleberg, 1977). In this regard, van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) argued that given the relationship between group interaction and satisfaction on the one hand, and group performance on the other hand, it is difficult to see how the outcomes described by the value in diversity paradigm and the social categorization perspective could occur simultaneously. Hence, we found support for two of the four formulated hypotheses and one hypothesis was rejected. To date, little research has investigated diversity in academic departments. McCain, O’Reilly, and Pfeffer (1983), however, found diversity in age, as a surface-level diversity, to lead to increased turnover in university organizations. This, consistent with our findings, could indicate that increased surface-level demographic diversity, for example, in terms of gender diversity, may lead to negative group processes and outcomes, such as reduced departmental success. There may, however, be some differences between diverse academic organizations and other types of diverse organizations. Generally, the investigations of the link between deep-level/surface-level diversity and performance in business organizations have been inconclusive (Bowers, 2000; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001). For example, Frink et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between moderate gender diversity and organizational performance. Wharton and Baron (1987) found that men in diverse settings reported lower satisfaction than in either male or female dominated work settings. Choi (2009), on the other hand, found no relation between gender diversity and satisfaction in US

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

167

federal agencies. Jehn et al. (1999) found social category demographic diversity (gender and age in combination) to be unrelated to group performance but positively related to member satisfaction. Unexpectedly, they also found that even though social category diversity was positively associated with satisfaction, it was also positively associated with conflict. Jehn and her associates did find this difficult to explain theoretically. They concluded that the combination of age and gender in one variable may pose problems. While gender and age are both readily detectable traits of dissimilarity, they may still have different effects on satisfaction and conflict. For example, in line with the social comparison hypothesis (Festinger, 1954; Pelled et al., 1999), age diversity may result in lower levels of intra-group competition than gender diversity. Older and younger individuals do not, to the same extent, feel that they are competing for the same position as would women and men of the same age. Therefore, gender and age should not be combined in one single variable even though they are both indicators for social category diversity. Jehn et al. (1999) also argue that the inconsistency of their findings may arise from higher performance leading to higher satisfaction and not necessarily the other way around as they hypothesized. This argument is in line with our findings on cultural diversity. While inconsistencies in prior empirical studies are too obvious to make conclusions regarding similarities and differences between diverse academic organizations and diverse business organizations, our findings are consistent with some of the most robust theoretical arguments in the research field. Generally our findings seem to confirm the value in diversity argument with regard to cultural heterogeneity as a deep-level type of diversity (Triandis et al., 1965; Watson et al., 1993). The findings of this study also seem to confirm the social categorization argument with regard to gender heterogeneity as a surface-level type of diversity (Milliken & Martins, 1996). A number of academics have expressed concerns about the internationalization of the university sector leading to cultural diversification (e.g. Schapper & Mayson, 2004; Tange, 2010). Moreover, critiques of the effect of internationalization on coherence and collaboration in multicultural academic departments have been justified by some qualitative studies (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2007; Tietze & Dick, 2009). However, our quantitative results indicate that those worries may be somewhat over-emphasized and that gender diversity could be even more damaging to the success and satisfaction of academic organizations. This is consistent with a recent large scale study by Park (2009) where it was found that an increase in higher education student and staff ethnic diversity affected student satisfaction positively. 5.2. Limitations Characteristically, there are a number of potential weaknesses of this investigation that could have biased the findings. First, the study is based on a sample only targeting academics in science departments in three large universities in Denmark. They may all be valid representatives of members of diverse academic organizations, but they are all working in the same country, and the results may not be generalizable to the university sector in other countries. Second, the use of cultural diversity as a deep-level diversity variable may have biased the findings. In general, academic departmental success is judged by publications in international journals – a global imperative, including for those working in Danish universities. In consequence, those with English as a second language might actively seek to work with colleagues who have stronger English capabilities, as this will enhance the chances of publication – and thereby departmental success. Hence, although the finding may have some relevance for other university sector organizations, the results of this study may not be generalizable to business organizations and to other countries, especially countries where English is the native language. As such, the targeting of universities may, for example, have affected the positive relationship between cultural diversity and performance. One explanation could be that generally successful university departments have better opportunities to attract skilled foreign academics than less successful departments. Third, some of the measures applied may have limitations. The measures of departmental performance included departmental success and departmental satisfaction and were assessed as departmental members’ perceived success and satisfaction of the department (Appendix A). Hence, we did not apply an objective evaluation at the departmental level (such as, for example, national/regional ranking, quantity and quality of faculty, quantity and quality of research outcomes such as publications, grants, and funding). Similarly, the construct of cultural diversity was assessed by the question: ‘‘How many different nationalities are employed among the academic staff?’’ Although nationality is a conventional proxy for culture (England, 1978; Hofstede, 1980; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), it is not known to what extent measuring the number of nationalities employed in a department may have captured the variation in national origin rather than cultural diversity. Fourth, the response rate of 47.8% does not appear to raise any serious concerns, but the extent to which this outcome has biased our results cannot be assessed with certainty. The survey generated a number of encouraging spontaneous comments from respondents, and the offer to the respondents included in the survey instrument to receive a copy of the final report, free of charge, was taken up by a clear majority (59.7%). Hence, many respondents may have regarded the study to be relevant and important. The reason(s) for the majority of the invited academics to abstain from participating in this investigation is not clear. However, when testing for a response rate bias due to departmental size, no such significant correlation was found. Fifth, since the variables, except age, were measured at the same time from the same source, common method variance (CMV) cannot be ruled out. However, the presence of CMV does not necessarily affect results or conclusions (Spector, 2006).

168

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

Last, but not least, this investigation used a cross-sectional research design and causality cannot be determined. For better investigative control, a longitudinal design could have been applied, but that might have introduced other methodological problems (Menard, 1991). 5.3. Implications This study explored the impact of two different types of diversity on departmental performance. It thereby responds to a dearth of large-scale studies on diverse academic organizations. The findings give rise to a number of implications; theoretical, practical and suggestions for future research. Theoretically, the results of this study suggest that the impact of diversity depends on the kind of diversity in question. The most important finding is that the value in diversity paradigm seems to represent a useful theory to explain performance in a culturally diverse academic context. Our finding that gender could have some negative effects on performance indicates that researchers have to go beyond the main effects theory when accounting for the link between diversity and performance. Instead, we suggest that future studies focus on demonstrating that different types of demographic heterogeneity are linked to different types of underlying abilities and perspectives, producing different quality work outcomes. From the results of our study, it may be suggested that organizational members may respond differently to variations in demographic attributes contingent on its usefulness in solving their daily tasks. Future research may also test for interactions between department size and departmental performance. Since Table 2 reveals significant associations between size of department and both departmental success and departmental satisfaction, there may be some interesting interaction effects that could be further explored. Viewed from a practical standpoint, this study may have a number of important implications for human resource strategies in diverse organizations in general and diverse academic organizations in particular. Such strategies could be designed to take into account the types of diversity in the specific context. Moreover, having the different outcome of different types of diversity in mind may help managers to understand the extent to which the demographic differences may enhance performance. With the information provided in our study, managers could better decide how much to invest in addressing these issues (Stewart & Johnson, 2009). It may also aide organizations in determining how the focus of certain human resource management efforts could be directed. 6. Conclusions This study has examined quantitatively the effect of cultural and gender diversity on success and satisfaction at the intra-unit level of diverse academic organizations. Thereby, it represents an important attempt to highlight effects of deep-level and surface-level diversity in academic settings. Accordingly, it contributes to the literature on the management of diverse organizations and to the discussion on diversification of the university sector. Our findings may suggest that the extent of usefulness of a type of heterogeneity within a group affects how the group performs and how members feel about being part of the group. This is generally consistent with the dominating theoretical arguments in the field. Our results also indicate that the worries about negative effects of the internationalization of the university sector could be somewhat overemphasized in current research. This study, thus, provides novel information that may be used by human resource executives and policy makers in the management of their diverse staff in public or private organizations alike.

Appendix A. Departmental performance measures A.1. Departmental success (adapted after Martins et al., 2003) (a = .90)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Think of the general picture and respond to your average perception This department is able to do things as well as most other groups. We feel that this department does not have much to be proud of (R). This department has a positive view of itself. On the whole, we are satisfied with our department. As a department, we lack confidence (R). Everything this department does turns out well.

R = Reverse polarity Scale: (1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Somewhat disagree

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

(4) (5) (6) (7)

169

Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree.

A.2. Departmental satisfaction (adapted after Martins et al., 2003) (a = .91) How satisfied are you working in the department? 1. I am very satisfied with the way I am treated by my colleagues. 2. I am very satisfied with the respect I receive from my colleagues. 3. I am very satisfied with the friendliness of my colleagues. Scale: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree.

References Antonio, A. L. (2004). When does race matter in college friendships? Exploring men’s diverse and homogeneous friendship groups. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 553–575. Ash, S. R. (2008). Hispanics and Anglos: The role of group composition on satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), 15–26. Barbosa, I´. , & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2007). Managing diversity in academic organizations: A challenge to organizational culture. Women in Management Review, 22(4), 274–288. Bell, M. P., & Berry, D. P. (2007). Viewing diversity through different lenses: Avoiding a few blind spots. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 15–26. Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381. Bowers, C. A. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–328. Chatman, J., & O’Reilly, C. (2004). Asymmetric effects of work group demography on men’s and women’s responses to work group composition. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 193–208. Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40(4), 382–420. Choi, S. (2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 603–630. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. England, G. W. (1978). Managers and their value system: A five country comparative study. Columbia Journal of World Business, 13(2), 35–44. Epton, S. R., Payne, R. L., & Pearson, A. W. (1985). Contextual issues in managing cross-disciplinary research. In B. W. Mar, W. T. Newell, & B. O. Saxberg (Eds.), Managing high technology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Feldman, J. M., Sam, I. A., McDonald, W. F., & Bechtel, G. G. (1980). Work outcome preference and evaluation: A study of three ethnic groups. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 11, 444–468. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753–777. Frink, D. D., Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B., Arthur, M. M., Anmeter, A. P., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2003). Gender demography and organization performance: A two-study investigation with convergence. Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 127–147. Gonzalez, J., & Denisi, A. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21–40. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelon theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998). When groups consist of multiple nationalities. Organization Studies, 19(2), 181–206. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32(4). Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045. Hoffman, L., & Maier, N. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62(401-407). Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1204–1222. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185–196. Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422–447.

170

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689. Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1993). Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 45–109). Greenwich: JAI Press. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team decisionmaking effectiveness in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jehn, K. A., Neale, M., & Northcraft, G. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. Kalleberg, A. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42(1), 124–143. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 97–102. Kezar, A. J. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a diversity agenda. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413–439. Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–165. Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. (1992). Diversity in work group sex composition: Implications for majority and minority members. In P. Tolbert & S. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 115–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kramer, R. (1997). Managing diversity. In E. M. Davis & V. Pratt (Eds.), Making the link: Affirmative action and industrial relations. Sydney: Macquarie University. Larson, J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: Modeling the impact of variability in members’ problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38(3), 413–436. Lauring, J., & Tange, H. (2010). International language management: Contained or dilute communication. European Journal of International Management, 4(4), 317– 332. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and behavior disorders (pp. 333–378). New York: Ronald. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 257–285. Martins, L. L., Milliken, F. J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. (2003). Racioethnic diversity and group members’ experiences: The role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 75–106. Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5), 531–553. McCain, B. E., O’Reilly, C., & Pfeffer, J. (1983). The effects of departmental demography on turnover: The case of a university. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 626–642. McLeod, P. L., & Lobe, S. A. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Executive. Best Papers Proceedings, 227–231. McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22, 7–29. Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. Mitchell, R., Nicholas, S., & Boyle, B. (2009). The role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation. Small Group Research, 40(5), 535–554. Oosterhof, A., Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Valuing skill differences: Perceived skill complementarity and dyadic helping behavior in teams. Group and Organization Management, 34(5), 536–562. Owen, D. S. (2008). Privileged social identities and diversity leadership in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 185–207. Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–21. Park, J. J. (2009). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity at traditionally white institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291–320. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615–631. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 615–631. Randel, A. E., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Gender social and personal identity, sex dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and asymmetrical effects. Small Group Research, 39(4), 468–491. Rhee, J.-E., & Sagaria, M. A. D. (2004). International students: Constructions of imperialism in the chronicle of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 77–96. Richardson, J. (2006). Self-directed expatriation: Family matters. Personnel Review, 35(4), 469–486. Rizvi, F., & Walsh, L. (1998). Difference, globalisation and the internationalisation of the curriculum. Australian Universities Review, 2, 7–11. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435–454. Rothman, S., Lipset, S. M., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Racial diversity reconsidered. Public Interest, 25–38. Schapper, J., & Mayson, S. (2004). Internationalisation of curricula: An alternative to the Taylorisation of academic work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 189–205. Shapcott, K. M., Carron, A. V., Burke Shauna, M., Bradshaw, M. H., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Member diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small Group Research, 37(6), 701–720. Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Group and Organization Management, 34(5), 507–535. Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the Tower of Babel: University lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Journal of Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 137–149. Tietze, S., & Dick, P. (2009). Hegemonic practices and knowledge production in the management academy: An English language perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 119–123. Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–607. Triandis, N. C., Hall, E. R., & Ewen, R. B. (1965). Member homogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations, 18, 33–54. Triandis, H. C., Kurowski, L. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (1994). Workplace diversity. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423. Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–579. Tyran, K. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you get? The relationship among surface- and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation. Group and Organization Management, 33, 46–76.

J. Lauring, J. Selmer / International Journal of Educational Research 49 (2010) 161–171

171

Van de Ven, A. H., Rogers, R. W., Bechara, J. P., & Sun, K. (2008). Organizational diversity, integration and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 335–354. Van der Vegt, G. S. (2002). Effects of attitude dissimilarity and time on social integration: A longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 439–452. van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–542. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, K., Paulus, P., Vos, M., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact of group composition and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 257–280. Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 560–602. Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162. Wharton, A. S., & Baron, J. N. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52(5), 574–587. Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 77–140). Greenwich: JAI Press. Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived dissimilarity and perspective taking within work teams. Group and Organization Management, 32, 569– 597.