Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Groups

Interest in studying group dynamics by comparing characteristics of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups and their relative performance is growing. Much more investigation is needed, not only to fully assess the variables within each setting, but to assess the value and applicability of the research findings. Within this essay, the reader will be presented with background as to why this field of research is important and is burgeoning in our globalized world. The author provides broad definitions of both heterogeneous and homogeneous groups and some key characteristics these groups exhibit and share. This literature review will highlight some of the work of the important sociology researcher Peter Blau and that of researchers attempting to refine his analysis of diversity in group dynamics. Newer research, focused on the impact of diversity and synergy in groups, will be highlighted, emphasizing variables such as socioeconomic standing, race, age, sex, community size, and urbanization.

Keywords Cultural Diversity; Diversity; Dysfunction; Group Think; Heterogeneity; Homogeneity; Sociology

Heterogeneous & Homogeneous Groups

Overview

Successful group communication is driven by many factors. This essay compares and contrasts the impact of a work team's composition and supports the assumption that a group's relative homogeneity or heterogeneity has a material impact on the group's functioning. For purposes of this assessment, a functional group is defined as having the ability to work cohesively, remain intact, identify and meet priorities and goals, and maintain discipline. The science of sociology focuses on understanding how individuals and groups interact with each other in various settings. While sociology experts and others agree that groups have the potential to accomplish what no individual can alone, most of us accept this view as a foregone conclusion by virtue of having been members or observers of groups.

Businesses, families, employers, religious organizations, communities, government agencies, international liaisons, individual societies, and militaries all rely on strong, cohesive work groups to accomplish their goals. This reliance is born out in the research of Barrick, Bradley, Colbert, and others (2007), who have evaluated the impact of interconnectedness within work teams they called top management teams. Though their study found that historical sociological research on professional teams was limited, a component of their hypothesis suggested that "the more that team members need to coordinate their work to achieve collective tasks, goals, and rewards, the more team performance should be influenced by team communication and cohesion" (Barrick et al., 2007, p. 546). Referring to Beal's (2003) work, the authors claimed that "when team members are highly interdependent, there is greater need to communicate to achieve high performance" (Barrick et al., 2007, p. 546).

Given the growing need in so many sectors to understand and facilitate the banding together of appropriate groups of people for maximum efficacy and minimal dysfunction, a continuous theme in the literature is the need for further study on group composition.

Historical Highlights

During the 1960s, Peter Blau's study of individual social dynamics developed into an analysis of group dynamics; his work has since become a foundation upon which numerous researchers have built. Blau was a front runner in relational science. In 1985, he scientifically determined that diverse groups form positive friendship tendencies; he also developed theories about group size and control. He theorized that group dysfunction and estrangement were related to heterogeneity, yet later rescinded this theory to offer one claiming that diversity improves intergroup relations. As Blau and Schwartz (1984) wrote,

Just as an increase in heterogeneity makes it more likely that chance encounters involve persons of different groups, an increase in inequality makes it more likely that chance encounters involve persons whose status is further apart. Hence, increasing inequality constrains individuals to modify their tendencies to associate with peers and find associates who are somewhat less close to them in status. The accordingly revised theorem is: inequality increases the status distance of associates.

Karen S. Cook and Eric Rice (2003) mention Blau's belief that "inequality and power distributions [in individuals and in groups] were emergent properties of ongoing relations of social exchange. Inequalities, [Blau] argued, can result from exchange because some actors control more highly valued resources than do others" (p. 57). In short, Blau believed that heterogeneity in the form of status inequality exhibits itself in many forms, and the extent of its impact has much to do with the perception of group participants.

Applications

Highly Successful versus Highly Challenged Groups

High-performing relational groups that are effective at collaboration and able to produce expected deliverables are sought after in all societies. Organizations seek high performers, people whose ability to interact with others contributes to the success of the overall organization. Social capital, or the resources gained through relationship building and strong work groups, is exceptionally valuable in today's society, regardless of the industry. When a group fails to effectively connect and communicate, the results can be both profound and costly. Though dysfunctional teams can evolve for many reasons, some of which are completely unknown, this article will focus on the impact of homogeneity and heterogeneity relative to group function.

Patrick Lencioni (2002), author of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, writes on the very first page of his book, "Not finance. Not strategy. Not technology. It is teamwork that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare" (p. vii). Though directed at a corporate audience, Lencioni's comments are applicable to interpersonal relations worldwide: communities and societies are all affected by the dynamics of the groups they comprise.

Homogeneity versus Heterogeneity: Key Indicators

From a sociological perspective, understanding the key characteristics of both groups under discussion is the first step to understanding why groups function as they do. Structured groups will exhibit expected sociological tendencies; because these tendencies have been studied over time, many are accepted by sociologists as common and inevitable. Specifically, whether the groups are similar or disparate in their opinions, there exists the potential for stratification of the group by factors such as race, age, and dominant or submissive personalities. Leaders may self-select, as will followers. Groups will naturally coalesce and divide, are capable of alienating participants through interactivity, and may successfully grow or destroy their essential relationships.

Characteristics of Homogeneous Groups

By nature, human beings choose to socialize with those around them with whom they are comfortable. Homogeneous groups, by definition, are comprised of participants who share similar characteristics or attitudes. The groups are likely to be consistent in terms of age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, or other important factors, though not all of these similarities may be present. Established group members with a shared history maintain a central core and tend to legitimize their decisions through a "group think" process. Newcomers enter and exit the group through a sort of rite of passage as they are accepted by established group members. Outsiders joining this type of group, particularly those with contrary views, may challenge the group, and homogeneous groups will tend to censor opinions that deviate from the group standard. Opposition, however, is not necessarily a negative occurrence, as will be discussed further on in this document.

Characteristics of Heterogeneous Groups

Heterogeneous groups, whether formed purposely or by chance, enjoy diversity in their membership. This diversity can encourage discussion of divergent views and cause group members to gain a much broader perspective than they would as members of a homogeneous group. However, some sociologists believe that diversity within groups can lead to unfruitful divisions and arguments. Still others believe that, despite their diversity, heterogeneous groups are capable of successfully rallying, especially during crisis, and reaching favorable outcomes.

Leaders working with heterogeneous groups must pay attention to accountability and keep a close eye on counterproductive behavior and disrespect. A leader with team-building and meeting-management skills is crucial to maintaining integrity of the group, and humor and the acknowledgement of stereotypical differences can help keep these groups on task. Individuals who can synthesize others' conflicting ideas with their own, and thereby think more broadly or systematically, will most quickly adapt to heterogeneous groups (Nemeth & Kwan, 1985; Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983).

Examining the Impact of Diversity of Homogenous and Heterogeneous Stakeholders

As has been stated earlier in this essay, the growing interest in examining group functionality is driven by the understanding that, in almost every arena of life, populations are becoming more and more diverse and integrated. Growing numbers of parties want to better understand motivational factors that impact group performance. Research on homogeneous and heterogeneous functionality in groups is exceptionally complex, given the number of factors that can be introduced and that can produce both positive and negative correlations. Age, race, education, and religious faith can all have widely varying impacts on a group's performance. Additionally, researchers often hold different definitions of group success. As a result, the results of a study may be relative to the group being studied, but it is difficult to generalize them across an entire population.

Viewpoints

Workplace Diversity

Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret Neale (2005) summarize the complexities faced in modern-day theory:

As the workplace has become increasingly diverse, there has been a tension between the promise and the reality of diversity in team process and performance. The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and to opportunities for knowledge sharing, and hence lead to greater creativity and quality of team performance. However, the preponderance of the evidence favors a more pessimistic view: that diversity creates social divisions, which in turn create negative performance outcomes for the group. (p. 31)

The authors wrote that when individuals are required to work in groups, they prefer to align themselves according to their own sets of paradigms. They defer to a comfortable level of social intelligence and expectations, deciding whether others in the proposed group are similar to them or not. Interestingly, when individuals categorize "outsiders" in their minds as having divergent values, they increase the likelihood of less effective group outcomes.

Mannix and Neale have highlighted in their writing the approaches leaders use toward team-building, knowing that they often have no control over their team's composition. As referenced in the prior paragraph, when social factors like race, age, sex, or religion are varied within a group, these factors are more likely to have a negative impact on the group's working ability than are less visible, underlying factors such as education or professional skill. Mannix and Neale (2005) reference authors Robinson and Dechant in summarizing current opinion on the effects of diversity on work groups:

A belief has developed among laypeople, management scholars, and social scientists alike that diversity in teams will lead to a direct increase in the variety of perspectives brought to a problem, to opportunities for synergistic knowledge and information-sharing, and hence to greater creativity and quality of team performance. Both for policy reasons, and perhaps, out of a rosier-than-warranted interpretation of the extant research on the topic, diversity has been credited with myriad positive outcomes for team performance. Indeed, the top reasons cited by human-resource executives for increased diversity in the workplace include not only better utilization of talent and understanding of the marketplace but also enhanced creativity and problem-solving ability (Robinson & Dechant, 1997).

In sum, Mannix's and Neale's (2005) research indicates that there is compelling evidence to demonstrate that heterogeneity among work groups should be explored further. Though the richness derived from incorporating diverging viewpoints can lead to more robust strategy and return, the authors are mindful of the fact that heterogeneous groups do not come without their challenges and that return on investment will more likely pay off with leadership's commitment to promulgating diverse design (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

Race and Ethnicity

In 2001, Townsend and Scott assessed the homogeneity of work teams composed of African Americans and whites (2001). Their research was conducted by interviewing team members, recording observations of team functionality, and recording team members' attitudes about their teams and their individual performances. The researchers theorized that deep-seated level attitudinal differences between the two ethnicities would affect the teams' performances. In formulating this theory, the authors relied on the work of Cox, Lobel, and McLeod (1991), whose study of racially homogeneous work groups found that African American teams were more likely to cooperate with other African American teams for a small reward than white teams, which more frequently chose to work independently for a large reward. Cox and his associates interpreted this difference to mean that the African American teams placed a greater value on collectivity, while the white teams favored the potential for receiving a higher reward, an interpretation with which Townsend and Scott agreed. The final findings of Townsend's and Scott's study were somewhat inconclusive. Heterogeneity has its benefits and its challenges, the authors concluded, and more study is required to understand the sociological question of homogeneity versus heterogeneity in work groups. Townsend and Scott (2001) reported,

There are racial differences in individually held attitudes (team cohesion, team commitment, valence, and efficacy confidence); whites report more positive scores on each dimension. When these attitudes are aggregated to the team level, they are significantly associated with team performance. The racial composition of teams affects team performance even when other demographic factors are controlled. (Townsend & Scott, 2001, p. 332–333)

Heterogeneity in Culture

Building on the work of prior sociological relational research, Vadosek's (2007) study assessed the impact that cultural diversity has on group performance. Regression analysis was employed "to examine the direct relationships between cultural diversity and conflict and between cultural diversity and group outcomes, and to test the mediating effects of conflict on the relationship between cultural diversity and outcomes" (Vadosek, 2007, p. 358).

Statistically significant results found that "the more culturally diverse the groups, the more relationship, process, and task conflict they experienced" and that "culturally diverse groups pose a challenge to their members and to their leadership. The findings of this paper show that cultural diversity is a breeding ground for conflict and unfavorable group outcomes" (Vadosek, 2007, p. 357, 366). Summarizing Adler's work, Vadosek (2007) reports "culturally diverse groups are not only thought to be prone to conflict, researchers have also argued that culturally diverse groups experience more negative group outcomes than culturally homogeneous groups because of ingroup favoritism, prejudice against members of outgroups, errors in communication, and differing perceptions and attributions among group members (p. 346).

Vadosek (2007) describes yet another study by Jehn and Bendersky, which, he wrote, concluded that "cultural diversity was associated with the three types of intragroup conflict that researchers have identified, namely relationship, process, and task conflict" (p. 366).

Community Size, Urbanization, Population Density, and Inequality

Robert J. Sampson (1986) built on the foundation laid down by Peter Blau's work, testing three theories relating to group dynamics in the face of similarity and divergence. His findings were directed at building on prior studies relating to intergroup relations and the victimization of constituents within the groups. Variables included in his impact studies were the size, density, and urbanization of a community; racial makeup; and actual inequalities in income and age. In summary, he found that heterogeneous groups displayed more intergroup victimization than homogeneous groups and that urbanization had a greater effect on interracial victimization than did racial heterogeneity. Finally, his study showed that inequality correlated with more intergroup conflict; that income inequity played a role in the victimization of black and white individuals by their higher-income white counterparts; and that income inequality led to a decrease in intergenerational and interracial victimization. Sampson's findings are not all in concert with Peter Blau's, and they give further evidence that more research is required to better understand the dynamics of group function.

Conclusion

Empirical research has shown that heterogeneity in work groups can lead to dissatisfaction and has a negative impact on group outcomes. At the same time, scientific studies find that diversity allows for variety in perspective and richer experiential output.

Homogeneous work groups experience less discord and more positive results. However, these groups are limited by redundancy in experience and less capable of addressing the complexity inherent to the organization in which they work. They are also more likely to be closed to outsiders and closely guard their internal group knowledge.

The challenge for those relying on group functionality is to either purposely orchestrate the group makeup for maximized functionality or accept the benefits and drawbacks of heterogeneous and homogeneous group constructs. Accepting the challenges faced with either will mean identifying the means by which maximum capacity can be achieved and providing the leadership necessary to make them work.

Terms & Concepts

Cultural Diversity: The existence within a group of such differences as ethnicity, gender, racial, power, or socio-economic status; may also be in the form of subgroups

Diversity: The quality of being different, changeable

Dysfunction: A social behavior that undermines the constancy of a group

Group Think: The tendency of a group to reach consensus on a topic without having evaluated all the information, especially information that is in opposition to the majority

Heterogeneity: The state of being dissimilar or incongruous

Homogeneity: The state of being uniform in structure, unvarying, or similar in nature

Sociology: The study of human social behavior; analysis of a segment of society

Bibliography

Adler, Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.

Barrick, M., Bradley, B., Kristof-Brown, A., & Colbert, A. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50 , 544-557. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25525781&site=ehost-live

Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., & McLendon, C.L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 , 989-1004. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=11785725&site=ehost-live

Blau, P., & Schwartz, J. (1984). Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations . New York: Academic Press.

Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Muller, R., & Moir, R. (2012). Communication, equity and the voluntary provision of a public good by heterogeneous groups. Journal of Socio-Economics, 41, 87–94. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70261192&site=ehost-live

Cook, K., & Rice, E. (2003). Social exchange theory. In Hand book of Social Psychology (pp. 53-76). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18968274&site=ehost-live

Hanaki, N., Peterhansl, A., Dodds, P., & Watts, D. (n.d.). Cooperation in evolving social networks. Management Science, 53 , 1036-1050. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25774886&site=ehost-live

Ibarra, H. (1992), "Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm." Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 , 422-447. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9301240827&site=ehost-live

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6 , 31-55. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19185511&site=ehost-live

Nemeth, C.J. & Kwan, J.L. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 , 277-282. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13568829&site=ehost-live

Nemeth, C.J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13 , 45-55. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12131242&site=ehost-live

O'Reilly, C.A., Williams, K.Y. & Barsade, S. (1998). Group demography and innovation: Does diversity help?. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & D. H. Gruenfeld (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Vol. 1 (pp. 183-207). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Ravlin, E.C., Thomas, D.C., & Ilsev, A. (2000). Beliefs about values, status, and legitimacy in multicultural groups: Influences on intragroup conflict. In P.C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in International and Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 17-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11 , 21-31. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9709231661&site=ehost-live

Sampson, R. (n.d.). Effects of inequality, heterogeneity, and urbanization on intergroup victimization. Social Science Quarterly, 67 , 751-766. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ioh&AN=550665&site=ehost-live

Santmire, T. E., Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., & Holley, K. M. (1998). The impact of cognitive diversity on crisis negotiations. Political Psychology, 19 , 721-748.

Smith, A. (2011). Group composition and conditional cooperation. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 616–622. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65497314&site=ehost-live

Townsend, A. M. & Scott, K. D. (2001). Team racial composition member attitudes, and team performance: A field study. Industrial Relations, 40 , 317-337. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4391932&site=ehost-live

Triandis, H.C. & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , 118-28. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database PsycARTICLES. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=194183&site=ehost-live

Vala, J., Drozda-Senkowska, E., Oberlé, D., Lopes, D., & Silva, P. (2011). Group heterogeneity and social validation of everyday knowledge: The mediating role of perceived group participation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 347–362. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60442288&site=ehost-live

Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management (2004-current), 18 , 345-375. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27984299&site=ehost-live

Suggested Readings

Amaral, L., Uzzi, B., Hanaki, N., Peterhansl, A., Dodds, P., Watts, D., et al. (n.d.). Complex systems. Management science, 53, 1033-1198. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from International Bibliography of the Social Sciences database.

Sawhney, H. (2013). Analytics of organized spontaneity: Rethinking participant selection, interaction format, and milieu for academic forums. Information Society, 29, 78–87. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85797125&site=ehost-live

Zhang, Y., & Hou, L. (2012). The romance of working together: Benefits of gender diversity on group performance in China. Human Relations, 65, 1487–1508. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83158629&site=ehost-live