Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity and Communication in Teams: Improving Problem-Solving or Creating Confusion?

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the rich and interdisciplinary debate on the role of diversity and communication in group problem-solving, as well as recognition of the interactions between the two topics, they have rarely been treated as a joint research issue. In this paper, we develop a computational approach aimed at modeling problem-solving agents and assess the influence of various levels of diversity and communication in teams on agents’ performance in problem-solving. By communication, we intend a conversation on the persuasiveness of the features characterizing problem-setting. By diversity, we mean differences in how agents build problem representations which allow them to access various solutions. We deploy the concept of diversity along two dimensions: knowledge amplitude, which accounts for the level of available knowledge allowing access to poorer or richer problem representations (compared with complete problem representations), and knowledge variety, which pertains to the differences in the constituents of agents’ representations. We define performance as the frequency with which diverse agents choose the same alternative representation of an agent displaying complete representations of the problem. Our results indicate that communication is more effective when agents elaborate from relatively richer problem representations, as this provides a basis for integrating the variously diverse beliefs of their teammates. Conversely, poorer diverse representations may lead to worse performance when knowledge variety also applies. Lastly, we show that the influence of communication is not monotonically positive, as increasing communication intensity performance may worsen at any level of knowledge availability and knowledge variety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahn TK, Isaac RM, Salmon TC (2008) Endogenous group formation. J Public Econ Theory 10: 171–194. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9779.2008.00357.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona D, Caldwell D (1992) Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organ Sci 3: 321–341. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation. Agent-based models for competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Azmitia M (1988) Peer interaction and problem solving: when are two heads better than one?. Child Dev 59: 87–96. doi:10.1080/17405620701860165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel K, Jackson S (1989) Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the team make a difference. Strateg Manage J 10: 107–124. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron B (2003) When smart groups fail. J Learn Sci 12: 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter M (2002) The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strateg Manage J 23: 275–284. doi:10.1002/smj.226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman JA, Flynn FJ (2001) The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams. Acad Manag J 44: 956–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiute C, Dalton B (1993) Collaboration between children learning to write: can novices be masters?. Cognit Instr 10: 281–333. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1004_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz S (2001) Conceptual foundations. In: Putnam L, Jablin F (eds) The new handbook of organizational communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasmith C, Thagard P (1997) Waves, particles, and explanatory coherence. Br J Philos Sci 48: 1–19. doi:10.1093/bjps/48.1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7: 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigotto ML, Rossi A (2006) Modeling strategic decision making in novel contexts: a constraint satisfaction approach. Quaderno DISA n. 117, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, Trento University, Italy.

  • Geard NL, Bullock S (2008) Group formation and social evolution: a computational model. In: Bullock S, Noble J, Watson R, Bedau M (eds) Artificial life XI: proceedings of the eleventh international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 197–203

  • Guzzo R, Dickson M (1996) Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu Rev Psychol 47: 307–338. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman L (1959) Homogeneity and member personality and its effect on group problem solving. J Abnorm Soc Psych 58: 27–32. doi:10.1037/h0043499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman L, Maier N (1961) Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. J Abnorm Soc Psych 62: 401–407. doi:10.1037/h0044025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong L, Page S (2001) Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. J Econ Theory 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong L, Page S (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. PNAS 101: 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopfield JJ (1982) Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. PNAS 79: 2554–2558. doi:10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck S, Rey-Biel P (2006) Endogenous leadership in teams. J Inst Theor Econ 162: 253–261. doi:10.1628/093245606777583495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen DR (1999) Teams embedded in organizations: some implications. Am Psychol 54: 129–139. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL (2003) Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manage 29: 801–830. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00080-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson SE, Stone VK, Alvarez EB (1992) Socialization amidst diversity: the impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In: Cummings LL, Staw W (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 15. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 45–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adm Sci Quart 44: 741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John-Steiner V (2000) Creative collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil FC (2006) Explanation and understanding. Annu Rev Psychol 57: 227–254. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keser C, Montmarquette C (2007) Voluntary teaming and effort. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 745, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research

  • Kilduff M, Angelmar R, Mehra A (2000) Top-management team diversity and firm performance: examining the role of cognitions. Organ Sci 11: 21–34. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.1.21.12569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocher M, Strauß S, Sutter M (2006) Individual or team decision-making—causes and consequences of self-selection. Game Econ Behav 56: 259–270. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp 3–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference?. Psychol Public Interest 6: 31–55. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1975) The pursuit of organizational intelligence. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Sproull LS, Tamuz M (1991) Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organ Sci 2: 1–13. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchiori D, Warglien M (2005) Constructing shared interpretations in a team of intelligent agents: the effects of communication intensity and structure. In: Terano T (ed) Agent-based simulation: from modeling methodologies to real-world applications. Post-proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on agent-based approaches in economic and social complex systems 2004. Springer, Berlin, pp 58–71

  • Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. Acad Manag Rev 21: 402–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA (1999) The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad Manage Rev 24: 249–265. doi:10.2307/259081

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris M, Moore P (2000) The lessons we (don’t) learn: counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Adm Sci Quart 45: 737–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth CJ (1986) Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychol Rev 93: 23–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak G, Thagard P (1992a) Copernicus, ptolemy, and explanatory coherence. In: Giere R (eds) Cognitive models of science, vol 15. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 274–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak G, Thagard P (1992b) Newton, descartes, and explanatory coherence. In: Duschl R, Hamilton RJ (eds) Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 69–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Page T, Putterman L, Unel B (2005) Voluntary association in public goods experiments: reciprocity, mimicry and efficiency. Econ J 115: 1032–1053. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01031.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta G (2003) Sensemaking on the shop floor: narratives of knowledge in organizations. J Manage Stud 40(2): 349–375. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR (1999) Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Adm Sci Quart 44: 1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher P, Smith AD (2001) Top management team heterogeneity: personality, power, and proxies. Organ Sci 12: 1–18. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.1.10120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao HR, Joon MA (1995) The effect of team composition on decision scheme, information search, and perceived complexity. J Organ Comput Elect Com 5: 1–20. doi:10.1080/10919399509540236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart DE, Smolensky P, McClelland JL, Hinton GE (1986) Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, The PDP Research Group (eds) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 7–57

  • Schneider B, Smith DB, Sipe WP (2000) Personnel selection psychology: multilevel considerations. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp 91–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2: 125–134. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behav Brain Sci 12: 435–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1992a) Adversarial problem solving: modeling an opponent using explanatory coherence. Cogn Sci 16: 123–149. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1601_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1992b) Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1998a) Ulcers and bacteria I: discovery and acceptance. Stud Hist Philos Biol & Biomed Sci 29: 107–136. doi:10.1016/S1369-8486(98)00006-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (1998b) Explaining disease: correlations, causes, and mechanisms. Mind Mach 8: 61–78. doi:10.1023/A:1008286314688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (2000) Coherence in thought and action. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (2004) Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence versus bayesian networks. Appl Artif Intell 18: 231–249. doi:10.1080/08839510490279861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P, Kroon FW (2006) Emotional consensus in group decision making. Mind Soc 5: 85–104. doi:10.1007/s11299-006-0011-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trenholm S (1986) Human communication theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis H, Hall E, Ewen R (1965) Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Hum Relat 18: 33–55. doi:10.1177/001872676501800104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad Manag J 36: 590–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J Manag 27: 141–162. doi:10.1177/014920630102700202

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2001) Managing the unexpected. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. In: Staw B, Sutton R (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 20. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 77–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Winquist J, Larson J (1998) Information pooling: when it impacts group decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 74: 371–377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514-74.2.371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum G, Stasser G (1996) Management of information in small groups. In: Nye J, Brower A (eds) What’s social about social cognition? Social cognition research in small groups. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Computer Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    M. Laura Frigotto & Alessandro Rossi

Authors
  1. M. Laura Frigotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Rossi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frigotto, M.L., Rossi, A. Diversity and Communication in Teams: Improving Problem-Solving or Creating Confusion?. Group Decis Negot 21, 791–820 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation