SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2017, 45(8), 1255–1270

© 2017 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6325

EFFECTS OF TEAM DIVERSITY, TRANSFORMATIONAL

LEADERSHIP, AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT ON TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

MOONJOO KIM
Ewha Womans University

I examined the effects of team diversity, and the moderating effects of transformational
leadership and perceived organizational support, on team-learning behavior in South Korean
companies. I classified diversity into surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity, and
differential attitudes toward diversity. I conducted empirical research with 133 teams across
5 industries. As expected, the results showed that team diversity exerted negative effects
on team-learning behavior. However, in teams with strong transformational leadership, the
negative effects of deep-level diversity diminished, and in teams whose members had a strong
perception of organizational support, the negative effects of differential attitudes toward
diversity also decreased. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords: team diversity, surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity, differential

attitudes toward diversity, team-learning behavior, transformational leadership, perceived
organizational support.

In the past, employees of South Korean companies worked within homogeneous

teams composed of members who shared similar academic backgrounds and
capabilities. This constitution of organizational teams contributed toward the
achievement of organizations’ goals at a time when efficiency was the sole
measure of the effectiveness of an organization. In the era of globalization,
however, the composition of corporate teams has undergone diversification
in South Korea. Organizations and groups working toward common goals
now consist of team members from different backgrounds and with different
attributes. Such changes indicate that it is imperative for Korean companies to

Moonjoo Kim, Management Research Center, Ewha Womans University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Moonjoo Kim, Management Research
Center, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Republic of
Korea. Email: kimmoonjoo@ewha.ac.kr

1255
1256 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

adopt diversity management, which many global companies are using to facilitate
the process of diversification of the workforce.
Many researchers, when focusing on this trend, have examined the impact
on workplace performance of comparative differences between members who
interact regularly. However, previous empirical results are conflicting (Jackson
& Joshi, 2011). Diversity can have the potential to drive higher performance and
creativity (Zhang & Hou, 2012). Conversely, a sense of heterogeneity can be a
cause of conflict and can diminish organizational performance (Tajfel, 2010).
Results of empirical studies on South Korean companies also show the negative
influence of team diversity (Chio & Kwon, 2014; Kim & Yoon, 2012; Lee,
Kim, & Sung, 2012). In order to find a link between diversity and performance,
researchers are moving beyond solely examining the impact of objective
diversity and are now focusing on investigating the effect of positive or negative
attitudes of corporate members in accepting diversity (Lauring & Selmer, 2013).
Ely and Thomas (2001) defined diversity from an integration-learning
perspective, according to which the influence of diversity on learning is noted.
Ely and Thomas consider that team diversity could serve as the source of new
avenues for learning and growth, and that it has strong potential to improve and
advance team goals. Given this potential, in this study, I examined the influence
of diversity on a positive variable, namely team-learning behavior. I defined
team-learning behavior as the extent to which team members openly discuss
their mistakes and weaknesses as part of improving their ability to accomplish
their tasks effectively.
As it is necessary to examine the sort of inclusiveness that is required to access
the potential of diversity in conservative and collectivist Korean companies,
I also explored team and organizational inclusiveness. In addition, transfor-
mational leadership is a prerequisite for teams to offset the negative impact of
diversity and drive its positive potential (Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012), so I
included this factor in my research. Further, teams’ perceived organizational
support is necessary for an organization to be able to mitigate the negative
aspects, and enhance the positive elements of diversity, so this is the final factor I
included in this study. Although high levels of diversity within a team can hinder
the team’s learning behavior, teams with a transformational leader who brings
members together, and whose members perceive that they are fully supported by
the organization, can offset the negative aspects of diversity and generate positive
outcomes.
I used the team as the level of analysis and my process was as follows. First,
to examine the impact of each item on team-learning behavior, I divided team
diversity into (a) surface-level diversity, which is identifiable by appearance
characteristics, such as sex or age; (b) deep-level diversity, which refers to the
differences in personalities or perspectives that are not identifiable by appearance;
and (c) differential attitudes toward diversity. Second, I tested the moderating
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1257
effects of transformational leadership and perceived organizational support on
team-learning behavior. As both these factors can control the negative effect
of diversity, the forms of inclusiveness that can weaken the negative impact of
diversity and drive its positive potential can thus be examined. Finally, I discuss
the practical significance of my results in the business environment where a rise
in diversity is increasingly inevitable.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Team Diversity and Team-Learning Behavior

Team diversity refers to the level of heterogeneity of team members’
attributes. Jackson, May, and Whitney (1995) divided diversity into apparent
attributes (gender, age, and race) and hidden attributes (values, attitudes,
and perspectives). Pelled (1996) also classified diversity into visibility- and
task-related connectedness, and argued that high task relatedness (such as
functional and educational backgrounds of team members) produces strong
task-relatedness performance, whereas attributes with high visibility and low
task relatedness (such as gender, age, and race) would yield results that are more
complex in their predictability.
According to the social identity and self-categorization perspective,
homogeneity of surface-level diversity (such as race, gender, and age) connects
individuals psychologically and creates a sense of community (Hogg & Terry,
2000), whereas team colleagues who have different attributes are categorized
as an out-group. In this approach colleagues of a similar age or of the same sex
are labeled as an in-group as an in-group, and team-learning behavior is defined
as working to achieve the best performance by interacting with colleagues,
openly discussing and evaluating tasks, and seeking a variety of opinions from
colleagues. In contrast, it is very likely that an active form of team-learning
behavior is not observed with an out-group, possibly because of the assumption
that people in the out-group lack capacity, are untrustworthy, and are less
cooperative than are members of the in-group (Choi, 2009).
This argument is bolstered by the status characteristics theory, in which the
effectiveness of diversity in terms of status differences is explained. According
to this theory, individuals generally make judgments about others based on
task-related attributes, but when these attributes are not sufficiently recognizable,
individuals exhibit a strong tendency to evaluate others based on highly visible
attributes (Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000). This means that colleagues of a different
sex or in a different age group develop biases toward one another. This, in turn,
makes their interaction difficult. Sex and age attributes are highly visible and are
often used when judging others (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). In a Korean context, this
status differentiation generally gives men and older people more opportunities
than women and younger people to contribute to the team.
1258 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

Status differentiation hampers the existence of an environment where team

members can openly discuss each other’s tasks to achieve the goal of better
performance. This results in obstacles in the encouragement of team-learning
behavior. In sum, sex and age diversity leads to social categorization and
status differentiation, reduces the chances to generate positive synergy, and
negatively influences team-learning behavior. Therefore, I proposed the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Team surface-level diversity will negatively affect team-learning
behavior.
Deep-level diversity, which refers to a degree of heterogeneity present
in invisible attributes such as values, attitudes, opinions, personality, and
perspective of team members, can have a greater effect than do the surface-level
characteristics on performance because the attributes are rooted in the character
and behavior of the individual and do not change easily (Harrison, Price,
Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Moreover, it is highly likely that the negative impact
of deep-level diversity will have a longer lasting effect than will surface-level
characteristics because the attributes are not immediately apparent. However, the
initiation of a collegial relationship does not present these attributes; rather, over
time, the heterogeneous attributes of the team become apparent and can become
a source of conflict within teams (Harrison et al., 2002).
Byrne (1971) argued from the similarity-attraction perspective that homogeneity
of personal beliefs or attitudes sets the basis for relationships. People feel
reluctant and uncomfortable interacting with colleagues who have different
values and opposing personalities (Goldberg, 1999), and these conditions
hinder effective communication (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2002). Therefore, team
members might hesitate to exchange views over ongoing work or mistakes, and
this could negatively affect team-learning behavior. The possession of different
values and standards is most likely to result in conflict of opinion rather than
the encouragement of constructive team-learning behavior. In circumstances
that require important decision making to accomplish the team’s task, members
must adjust their deep-level attributes (O’Reilly, Snyder, & Boothe, 1993). This
also hampers team-learning behavior. Over time, deep-level diversity has such a
strong influence that it can override the effect of surface-level diversity (Hiller &
Day, 2003). Given that a team member would be less likely to show constructive
team-learning behavior (e.g., freely discussing tasks, listening to one another, and
tolerating mistakes) with colleagues to whom they feel less attracted, I proposed
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Team deep-level diversity will negatively affect team-learning
behavior.
Previous researchers examined how diversity affects dependent variables,
and focused on how such causality is changed and by which factors. However,
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1259
results can be dependent on team members’ attitudes toward diversity in regard
to whether diversity is problematic or assistive (Nakui, Paulus, & van der Zee,
2011). In a team whose members’ personalities and values vary greatly, the
effect of diversity can vary depending on how the members respond to diversity.
Therefore, how a person perceives differences and homogeneity may have a
greater impact than the impact of objective diversity on effective interaction
among diverse people (Fuertes, Miville, Mohr, Sedlacek, & Gretchen, 2000).
A differential attitude toward diversity is the level of discriminatory attitudes
collectively displayed by team members toward colleagues because of their
different backgrounds, rather than because of their actions (Cardo, 1994). A team
whose members feel comfortable with diversity and who are open to learning
new perspectives from colleagues different from themselves would reap better
results, even when the diversity was displaying negative aspects. In a team where
an intolerant attitude toward diversity is displayed, this attitude negatively affects
the team’s performance, even if diversity can be shown to have positive potential
(van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013). Perceptions that are built by
categorization and based on individuals’ backgrounds lead to the development
of ignorant, ostracizing, and discriminatory attitudes directed toward colleagues
with different backgrounds (Cardo, 1994). These negative and biased attitudes
toward diversity interfere with team-learning behavior that would have the
potential to generate open discussion of tasks and reinvigoration of ideas to
improve overall performance. Therefore, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Differential attitudes toward diversity will negatively affect
team-learning behavior.

Moderating Effects of Transformational Leadership and Perceived

Organizational Support
In this study my intention was to identify control factors that can moderate
the negative effects of diversity in teams and the organization. Collectivism
should unite team members and discourage them from forming subgroups of
colleagues with similar attributes. A transformational leader is instrumental in
establishing this unifying spirit, as inclusiveness allows different views to be
heard and, through team member interaction, it becomes a value (Mitchell et
al., 2015). As inclusiveness also lays the foundation for coping with obstacles,
a leader with a transformational style can change the effects of diversity. A
transformational leader sets clear goals and a vision for the team, and can play
a convergent role that may help solve problems arising from diversity, because
the leader emphasizes the team’s success over the differences between members’
backgrounds and attributes, and encourages them to collaborate (Shin et al., 2012).
This means that in a team with a transformational leader, the members
acknowledge and accept individual differences and do not fall into conflict even
1260 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

when surface-level and deep-level diversity and differential attitudes toward

diversity negatively affect team-learning behavior. A transformational leader can
successfully manage diversity (Strauss, Sawyerr, & Oke, 2008), and shift the
attitudes of team members (D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996). In this sense, a trans-
formational leader can play a critical role in moderating the negative effects of
diversity. Shin et al. (2012) found that only in teams with strong transformational
leadership was cognitive team diversity positively related to individual creativity.
Given that a transformational leader can direct the team to focus on an overall
goal rather than on different individual attributes, I proposed the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership will moderate the negative effects of
team diversity, such that in a team with strong transformational leadership, the
negative effects of team diversity on team-learning behavior are reduced.
Perceived organizational support can also moderate the negative effects of
team diversity. Perceived organizational support is the level of perception of
team members that the organization cares for and supports their team and duly
recognizes their work (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). If
employees recognize the organization’s supportive activities, they are motivated
to reciprocate by doing more to benefit the organization. This translates into
strong performance and more active employee contributions (Eisenberger,
Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
Research results consistently show that a team that believes in the
organization’s interest in team members’ well-being works reciprocally and for
better performance (Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009), Therefore, even if
team diversity negatively influences team-learning behavior, teams with a strong
perception of organizational support contemplate the long-term success of their
organization and engage in team-learning behavior rather than focusing on their
colleagues’ different attributes. Even when surface-level or deep-level diversity
and differential attitudes toward diversity hinder constructive team-learning
behavior, team members who believe that the organization supports them take
an open-minded approach to improving their performance, because they are
motivated to reciprocate with strong results.
Even within a team whose members act intolerantly toward colleagues
with different backgrounds, if the members perceive organizational support,
they exhibit team-learning behavior that helps improve overall organizational
performance. This is because these team members are highly likely to solve
problems in a way that is conducive to the enhancement of the organization.
Thus, perceived organizational support can positively moderate the negative
effects of diversity. I therefore proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Perceived organizational support will moderate the negative
effects of team diversity, such that in a team with strong perceived organizational
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1261
support, the negative effects of team diversity on team-learning behavior will be
reduced.

Method

Participants and Procedure

For data collection, I contacted the human resources departments of five
companies (a commercial bank, an investment bank, a semiconductor manufacturer,
a general hospital, and a hotel) to request participants to complete a survey. These
financial, manufacturing, and service fields are Korea’s representative industries,
which increases the generalizability of my research results. To generate a reliable
sample and get participants’ consent, I offered feedback on the findings when the
research was completed. Although team leaders were responsible for collecting
team members’ survey forms, I maintained strict confidentiality throughout the
process of conducting an accurate team-level analysis.
About 1,000 employees participated, and I analyzed the surveys completed by
850 employees in 133 teams. Of the participants, 49% were men and 51% were
women, and the median organizational tenure of the employees was 6.3 years,
and the team tenure was 3.5 years. Of the participants, 68.7% were educated
to a university level or higher, 18.2% were vocational college graduates, and
the rest were high school graduates. Most (68.6%) held an ordinary employee
position and the rest were above assistant managers. In terms of age, 48.4% of
the participants were in their 30s, 35.5% were in their 20s, and 16.1% were aged
over 40, the average age being 32.6 years old.
To address common method bias, I first measured diversity variables, which
would become the independent variables, and then three weeks later measured
the same team members’ learning behavior, the dependent variable (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Measures
To measure sex diversity, I used Blau’s (1977) heterogeneity index, H = 1 –
 Ni=1Pi2, where Pi represents the proportion of the group in the i-th category. I
calculated the value of the coefficient of variation (the standard deviation divided
by the mean) for age diversity. These are continuous data, as proposed by Allison
(1978). The mean of the two values then became the value of surface-level
diversity.
I employed a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree) to measure the remaining variables. To measure deep-level diversity, I
used items from the Perceived Similarity Scale employed by Turban, Dougherty,
and Lee (2002). I measured differential attitudes toward diversity with five out
of the 10 items in the scale developed by Sanchez and Medkik (2004), which
1262 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

measures attitudes to ethnic background diversity only. I modified the scale to

also test attitudes toward sex, age, educational background, career, and tenure. A
sample item was “Our team members make jokes or negative comments about
people of other backgrounds that make people uncomfortable.” I measured
transformational leadership with 12 items from the Multi-factor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), of which three items were allocated to each of the following
categories: idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,
and individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1995). I used four items from
the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support developed by Eisenberger et al.
(1986) to measure perceived organizational support. I measured team-learning
behavior with five items based on Cannon and Edmondson’s (2001) and Van Der
Vegt & Bunderson’s (2005) scale.
To ensure that external factors did not distort the results, I first controlled team
size, industry, organizational tenure, and team tenure. Team size may determine
the dynamics of interaction and may affect the team process and results
(Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009), and members with longer tenure may
be more positive about the team process (Edmondson, 1999).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Data Aggregation

I conducted confirmatory factor analysis to ensure the validity of the factor
structure of the variables. Deep-level diversity showed factor loadings from .80 to
.96; differential attitudes toward diversity, .63 to .83; transformational leadership,
.69 to .88; perceived organizational support, .63 to .91; and team-learning
behavior, .67 to .88. The chi-square value was 2543.18 with a degree of freedom
of 367, comparative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were both .94,
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .084, all indicating a
sufficient level of model fit (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006).
The correlation test of the variables, reliability, means, and standard deviations
are shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s results indicated good reliability (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994) as shown in Table 1.
As the level of analysis was a team, the measured variables that were based on
responses from individuals had to be justified for use at a team level. Therefore,
I calculated rWG values to show the effect at a team level. Deep-level diversity,
differential attitudes toward diversity, transformational leadership, perceived
organizational support, and team-learning behavior recorded .87, .78, .90, .79,
.89, (p < .001), respectively. All variables exceeded .70, indicating high validity
(Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). I made comparisons within a team and between
teams, based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value, which shows a
level of similarity between team members. The ratios of variance that represent
a difference between teams were computed. The results showed that the ICC(1)
value for each variable was .36, .30, .39, .39, .38, (p < .001), respectively, and the
ICC(2) value that shows the mean reliability of the team was .78, .73, .80, .80,
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations Among Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Team size 1
2. Commercial bank .543 1
3. Investment bank .019 -.212* 1
4. Semiconductor
manufacturer -.214* -.218* -.172* 1
5. General hospital -.373 -.425 -.337 -.348 1
6. Organizational
tenure -.301 -.379 .031 -.257 .629 1
7. Team tenure -.251 -.302 -.244 -.177* .645 .645 1
8. Surface-level
diversity .432 .496 .168 -.100 -.559 -.218* -.384 1
9. Deep-level
diversity -.107 -.207* -.199* .059 .374 .247 .324 -.299 1(.943)
10. DAD -.080 -.284 .080 -.117 .259 .287 .259 -.162 .480 1 (.787)
11. TL -.067 .101 -.104 .044 .010 -.057 -.034 -.025 -.232 -.494 1 (.958)
12. POS .175* .345 -.119 .015 -.263 -.263 -.204* .137 -.292 -.262 .375 1 (.877)
13. Team-learning
behavior .080 .274 -.099 -.088 -.150 -.173* -.115 .061 -.379 -.372 .432 .467 1 (.888)
TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

M 6.3910 0.2112 0.1429 0.1504 0.4053 85.2919 46.1826 0.0020 0.0051 -0.0023 -0.0045 0.0003 4.4282
SD 2.94864 0.40895 0.35125 0.35879 0.49218 70.96959 41.79390 0.09291 0.55466 0.62865 0.69187 0.72106 0.48921

Note. N = 133. Reliability coefficients are in parentheses on the diagonal. DAD = differential attitudes toward diversity; TL= transformational
leadership; POS = perceived organizational support. * p < .05.
1263
1264 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

.80, (p < .001), respectively. The use of individual responses at a team level was
thus justified (Bartko, 1976).

Results

Hierarchical regression analysis results are shown in Table 2. As expected,

surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity, and differential attitudes toward
diversity had a negative impact on team-learning behavior. Hypotheses 1, 2, and
3 were thus supported.
In terms of the moderating role of transformational leadership, the results
showed that the interactive effects of transformational leadership with deep-level
diversity were positive. Even when deep-level diversity negatively affected
team-learning behavior, teams with strong transformational leadership showed
diminished negative effects. Caution is required in interpreting these results,
however, as these teams also had a greater differential attitude toward diversity.

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results

Dependent variable (Team-learning behavior)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables
Team size -0.15 -0.67 -0.05 -0.06
Commercial bank 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.07
Investment bank -0.19 -0.20 -0.16 -0.13
Semiconductor manufacturer -0.23† -0.22† -0.22† -0.22
General hospital -0.26 -0.27 -0.25 -0.23
Organizational tenure -0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04
Team tenure 0.01 0.33 0.04 0.06
Independent variables
Surface-level diversity -0.20† -0.15 -0.10
Deep-level diversity -0.27** -0.20* -0.18
DAD -0.21* -0.07 -0.12
Moderating variables
TL 0.24** 0.22
POS 0.25** 0.32
Interaction
Surface-level diversity * TL 0.04
Deep-level diversity * TL 0.26*
DAD * TL -0.32**
Surface-level diversity * POS 0.02
Deep-level diversity * POS -0.09
DAD* POS 0.24*
R2 0.113 0.262 0.385 0.441
F 2.264** 4.334*** 6.255*** 4.989***

Note. N = 133. DAD = differential attitudes toward diversity; TL = transformational leadership;

POS = perceived organizational support. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1265
However, interactive effects with deep-level diversity were not significant and
thus Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. In terms of the moderating role of
perceived organizational support, the results showed that the interactive effects
of perceived organizational support with differential attitudes toward diversity
were positive. Teams who perceived that they were strongly supported by their
organization displayed less discriminatory attitudes. However, the interactive
effects with other diversity variables were not significant and thus Hypothesis 5
was only partially supported.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications
First, I examined three attributes of team diversity to comprehensively
verify its effects. The way that team members perceive and accept diversity
is as important as the negative impact of diversity itself. That is, people may
react to the perception and recognition of a reality or phenomenon, rather than
responding to the apparent reality or phenomenon itself (Ferris & Judge, 1991).
Second, I contributed to the literature by exploring the effects of team diversity
on team-learning behavior as a dependent variable to show the potential of
diversity from the viewpoint of integration and learning. Previous researchers of
diversity have focused on aspects such as the occurrence of conflict, absence of
communication, or low cohesiveness, and the negative influence of these factors
on the team and organization (Harrison et al., 2002).
Third, surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity, and differential attitudes
toward diversity all interrupted team-learning behavior. My interpretation of
this result, which is in line with previous findings (Harrison et al., 2002; Kim &
Yoon, 2012), was that the differences in status and attitudes in Korean culture
deterred team members from discussing their mistakes, and failed to motivate
team-learning behavior that would have prompted team members to try to
overturn the negative effects of diversity.
Fourth, teams with a leader whose style was strongly transformational were
influenced less negatively by differences in members’ values, personality,
perspectives, or attitudes. Similarly, teams with a strong perception of
organizational support were less negatively affected by differential attitudes
toward diversity. However, the interaction effect of surface-level diversity and
transformational leadership was not significant, and the interaction effect of
surface-level diversity and perception of organizational support was also not
significant. My interpretation was that this result occurred because surface-level
attributes are salient and indicate status in distinct ways, thus bringing about
strong negative effects.
Fifth, when team members had a strong perception of organizational support,
this did not fully offset the negative effects of deep-level diversity. This means
1266 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

that even within an organization in which teams are fully supported and their work
is recognized, employees in Korea find it difficult to engage in team-learning
behavior with colleagues who have different values and personalities.
Finally, teams led by strong transformational leaders experienced a greater
impact of differential attitudes toward diversity. This result requires careful
interpretation. Transformational leadership helped diminish the negative aspects
of diversity in individuals’ personalities or values, but was ineffective in affecting
differential attitudes toward diversity. It may be that teams whose members
believe a bias toward diversity is a natural phenomenon and who alienate those
who are different feel pressure from a transformational leader who seeks to bring
the members together with a common goal and vision. In this interpretation,
teams that looked down on colleagues with different backgrounds, and who
made unwarranted jokes or statements, created such a strong atmosphere that the
efforts of a transformational leader to address this atmosphere and the negative
team-learning behavior, such as by making an open-minded assessment of their
tasks and discussing mistakes, were ineffective.

Managerial Implications
First, as it is impossible for managers to control the rapidly increasing diversi-
fication of organizations, it is critical for them to prepare for this organizational
future by developing programs to train employees to recognize and accept this
reality. In developing and running such programs, they should focus on how
diversity can be employed effectively (D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996).
Second, a more careful approach should be taken to increase the diversity
of team members whose attributes are not immediately apparent but become
clearer over time, such as values, perspectives, or personality. Gaps can be
partly narrowed via aptitude and personality tests conducted during employees’
recruitment. In addition, the positive aspects of team members having different
perspectives, values, and opinions should be highlighted through training. It
should be acknowledged that differences and diversity can be conducive to team
missions at a time when uncertainties are growing and product life cycles are
shortening.
Third, as it is possible in practice to manage attitudes toward diversity
proactively (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004), it is advisable for organizations
to encourage in-house social programs, aside from official training, so that
employees encounter more people from diverse backgrounds. This could be
an effective strategy in addressing any biases that employees may harbor or
exhibit. Finally, organizations should provide full support for reinforcing trans-
formational leadership. This keeps the negative impact of team diversity to a
minimum, taps into the potential diversity of teams, and provides organizational
support for teams. Human resource managers should face the reality of increasing
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1267
diversity and address its management as a routine process rather than a one-time
project (R. R. Thomas, 1991). This should ensure that every employee in an
organization recognizes the potential value of diversity.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are some limitations in this study. First, although I attempted to perform
a comprehensive analysis of the effects of diversity attributes by categorizing
them, I did not include task-related attributes, namely, functional background,
educational background, and tenure. As these attributes possibly have a role
in promoting team-learning behavior, future researchers should examine their
effects in detail. Second, as I conducted empirical research at the team level by
using responses from all employees, this may indicate common method bias. I
investigated causation by setting a time interval between the responses to the
survey to avoid this issue. Future researchers should use observable dependent
variables assessed by the team leader and department head to minimize common
method bias.
The capabilities for sustainable management and success ultimately come from
human resources. Although diversity can potentially have a positive effect in the
long term, it is much more important to find a convergent mechanism that can
diminish the negative effects of diversity and that can be theoretically tested in
the Korean context.

References

Allison, P. D. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43, 865–880. https://
doi.org/cbhkvr
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin,
83, 762–765. https://doi.org/dm75bt
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of
shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 161–177. https://doi.org/drwnpj
Cardo, L. M. (1994). Development of an instrument measuring valence of ethnicity and perception
of discrimination. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 22, 49–59. https://
doi.org/fz2652
Chio, B. I., & Kwon, S. K. (2014). Personality diversity and team effectiveness: Their relationships
and the moderating effects of transformational leadership [In Korean]. Journal of Human
Resource Management Research, 21, 47–71. https://doi.org/bsv4
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. https://doi.org/b9rmv3
1268 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.
https://doi.org/czvmhc
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. https://doi.org/bmzkg6
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, 229–273. https://
doi.org/dcbxht
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence
perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488. https://doi.org/frq3mh
Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000). Factor structure and
short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 33, 157–169.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
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. https://doi.org/b2gg7r
Hiller, N. J., & Day, D. V. (2003). LMX and teamwork: The challenges and opportunities of diversity.
In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 145–182).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement:
The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29,
560–587. https://doi.org/cx7ptb
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. https://doi.org/fxdzv2
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at
work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. https://doi.org/ctm62h
Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, M. J., & Yoon, J. (2012). Effects of educational diversity on decision-making, effectiveness,
and team performance: Status diversity theory [In Korean]. Korean Journal of Management, 20,
129–176.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing
and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236. https://
doi.org/cw6q67
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2013). Diversity attitudes and group knowledge processing in multicultural
organizations. European Management Journal, 31, 124–136. https://doi.org/bsv5
Lee, J. K., Kim, M. H., & Sung, S. H. (2012). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of
perceived team goal interdependence [In Korean]. Korean Journal of Management, 20, 247–280.
 TEAM DIVERSITY AND TEAM-LEARNING BEHAVIOR 1269
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness
and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team
identity. Human Resource Management, 54, 217–239. https://doi.org/bsv6
Nakui, T., Paulus, P. B., & van der Zee, K. (2011). The role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity
in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2327–2351. https://doi.org/d3vn5j
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
O’Reilly, C. A., Snyder, R. C., & Boothe, J. N. (1993). Effects of executive team demography on
organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign:
Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 147–175). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening
process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–631. https://doi.org/cnv
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/czw
Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal
of Sociology, 106, 579–615. https://doi.org/fccn5h
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business
Research, 62, 1027–1030. https://doi.org/bx5bxm
Sanchez, J. I., & Medkik, N. (2004). The effects of diversity awareness training on differential
treatment. Group & Organization Management, 29, 517–536. https://doi.org/cgx65c
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences
organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
1120–1136. https://doi.org/cdc4t7
Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team
member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197–212.
https://doi.org/2f6
Strauss, J. P., Sawyerr, O. O., & Oke, A. (2008). Demographics, individual value structures, and
diversity attitudes in the United Kingdom. Journal of Change Management, 8, 147–170. https://
doi.org/cgkk8c
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing
diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79–90.
Thomas, R. R. (1992). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by
managing diversity. New York, NY: AMACOM, American Management Association.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and
future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in
developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 240–262. https://doi.org/bzwwj3
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:
The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.
https://doi.org/cj2trw
Van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the
performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121,
183–193. https://doi.org/bsv7
Zhang, Y., & Hou, L. (2012). The romance of working together: Benefits of gender diversity on group
performance in China. Human Relations, 65, 1487–1508. https://doi.org/bsv8