Open Access

The construct diversity describes the collective amount of differences among members within a social unit. The present dissertation is based on the assumption that, through engagement with diversity, people acquire an understanding of what role diversity plays in the societies, organizations, work groups, or other social units they are part of. This understanding of the role diversity plays in a given social unit provides a vantage point from which people will engage with diversity in the future. These vantage points from which people engage with diversity are the general subject matter of the present dissertation. Two main research questions are addressed in this regard: First, whether the role diversity is given in a particular context does have effects on groups and the individual members therein. Second, if such effects exist, it seeks to explore the processes and mechanisms they are based on. Both questions are addressed from different perspectives in the three main chapters of this dissertation. Chapter 5 contains two meta-analyses on the effects of diversity beliefs and diversity climates. Diversity beliefs are individual attitudes that describe the degree to which diversity is ascribed an instrumental value for achieving beneficial outcomes or avoiding detrimental ones. Diversity climates depict such a value of diversity on the group-level. Building on the social identity approach, I explain how diversity beliefs and climates can obviate diversity’s detrimental effects and foster beneficial ones. As both diversity beliefs and climates can cause such effects, they are considered together in the main analyses in the chapter. In the first part of the chapter, a meta-analysis on these moderator effects of diversity beliefs/climates is presented (k = 23). The majority of studies that addressed such effects reported significant results. The patterns of these results showed that, in general, diversity will be more positively related to beneficial outcomes the more it is valued. However, the analysis also revealed that there are at least two types of patterns of this moderation. So far, it cannot be explained which pattern will occur under what circumstances. In the second part of the chapter, a meta-analysis on the main effects of diversity beliefs/climates on beneficial outcomes is presented (k = 71). These effects did not receive much attention in the primary studies. Based on the social identity approach and the fact that diversity is a ubiquitous feature of modern organizations, I argue that they are important nonetheless. The meta-analysis revealed a significant positive main effect of diversity beliefs on beneficial outcomes (r = .25; p < .0001). However, the effect sizes varied considerably across studies. Both moderator and main effects were found across a broad array of outcomes, study designs, levels of analysis, and operationalizations of the constructs involved. They were found irrespective of whether diversity beliefs or diversity climates were considered. The heterogeneity of results in the meta-analyses suggests that there is still much to be learned about when differences in vantage points from which people engage with diversity will have an effect and about the processes that underlie these effects. Chapter 6 is, therefore, predominantly concerned with these underlying processes. Most of the previous research has treated pro-diversity beliefs and pro-similarity beliefs as opposite poles of one underlying continuum. There is, however, evidence that people can hold both types of beliefs simultaneously. Therefore, I propose that both diversity in certain aspects and similarity in other aspects can simultaneously constitute valid and valued parts of an organization’s identity, and that, hence, identifying with the organization can create two forms of solidarity among the employees: organic solidarity – based on meaningfully and synergistically interrelated differences, and mechanic solidarity – based on the common ground that all employees share. Furthermore, I propose that both forms of solidarity can coexist and that both are positively related to the quality of collaboration within the organization. Thus, organizational identification is proposed to influence quality of collaboration indirectly through both organic and mechanic solidarity. These propositions were tested with regard to the collaboration of different teams within two organizations: a German university (Study 1, N = 699) and a Taiwanese hospital (Study 2, N = 591). The results from both studies confirm the predictions. However, the relative importance of each form of solidarity varied across study contexts and across different facets of the quality of collaboration. Chapter 7 also builds on the findings from the meta-analyses and is again predominantly focussed on the processes underlying the effects of diversity beliefs and diversity climates, yet from a different angle. Previously, diversity beliefs and climates have often been discussed with regard to their potential to influence whether diversity will lead to more and deeper elaboration of information within the group. In chapter 7 a theoretical model is developed that complements these cognitive processes by addressing the emotional side of diverse groups. Central to the model is the assumption that group diversity can stimulate group members to engage with each other emotionally, resulting in higher levels of state affective empathy: an emotional state which arises from the comprehension and apprehension of fellow group members’ emotional state. State affective empathy, in turn, is known to lead to a variety of beneficial team processes that can ultimately enhance individual and group-level performance. Thus, the central proposition of the model is that the relationship between diversity and performance is mediated through state affective empathy. The other propositions in the model specify moderators that determine when diversity will indeed have this empathy-stimulating effect. Diversity beliefs and climates are considered second-order moderators that shape the relationship between diversity and empathy through their influence on the first-order moderators. In general, it is proposed that diversity is related to empathy more positively if it is valued by the group or its members. In summary, the results from the meta-analyses in chapter 5, the results from the field studies in chapter 6, and the theoretical arguments presented in chapter 7 can be interpreted such that differences in vantage points from which people engage with diversity can indeed affect groups and their members. Therefore, the first research question of the present dissertation can be answered affirmatively from three different perspectives. However, it also became clear that there is still much uncertainty about the mechanisms underlying these effects. In line with the second research question of the present dissertation, these mechanisms were examined more closely in chapter 6 and 7. The field studies in chapter 6 highlighted the role of identification as the driving force behind the effects of different vantage points on diversity. Furthermore, they also corroborate the proposition that valuing diversity and valuing similarity can be co-occurring phenomena that both influence the collaboration within the group positively. The theoretical model presented in chapter 7 opens up a new emotional way in which diversity beliefs and climates can influence whether diversity will lead to better or worse performance. In sum, therefore, also with regard to the second research question of the present dissertation, progress has been made.

The present research investigates if and how a more digitally centered communication between supervisors and employees satisfies employees’ needs regarding the communication with their supervisors and influences employees’ attitudes toward the supervisor and the job. In a cross-sectional online study, 261 employees rated their supervisors’ actual and ideal use of different communication channels (i.e., telephone, face-to-face, email) regarding quality and quantity. Employees’ job satisfaction and their perceptions of their supervisors’ effectiveness and team identification were measured as dependent variables. Employees perceived face-to-face communication to be of higher quality than telephone and email communication, and they indicated a preference for more face-to-face communication with their supervisors than they actually had. Moreover, the perceived quality of communication, especially via face-to-face, was strongly and positively related to the dependent variables. These results provide insights into potential problems of increasing e-leadership in organizations. We conclude with recommendations to reduce these problems.