Astrid C. Homan

Evidence of the gender diversity–team creativity relationship is inconsistent, highlighting the importance of managing the underlying processes. Building on the two predominant perspectives on team diversity processes, social categorization and information/decision-making, we propose that diversity training is most conducive to gender-diverse teams’ creativity when it stimulates information elaboration in addition to strengthening team identification. In a randomized field experiment with 446 individuals nested within 57 intact organizational teams, we examined the effectiveness of two team diversity training designs versus no training in enhancing the creativity of gender-diverse teams. One training focused solely on the social perspective (identification-focused), while the other addressed both the social and informational perspectives (identification-and-elaboration-focused). We tested the interactive effects of the two training conditions (vs. no training) and gender diversity on team creativity using pre- and post-measures. The findings provide partial support for our model. Identification-focused training did not stimulate the creativity of gender-diverse teams, and neither training condition affected team identification. Relative to no training, identification-and-elaboration-focused training was positively linked to team creativity via improved information elaboration among highly gender-diverse teams. The contrast between the two active training conditions was however not significant, and the evidence for the information-elaboration pathway should be interpreted cautiously. These findings provide initial field experimental evidence that team diversity training targeting information elaboration can help highly gender-diverse teams use their informational resources for creativity, contributing to the literature on managing (gender-)diverse teams. They further underscore the need for replication and testing the effectiveness of specific training components.

Team creativity is central to organizational success and relies on the open exchange and integration of diverse ideas, a process known as information elaboration. Yet, the differences members naturally bring to their team can sometimes impair effective team functioning and hinder creativity. Specifically, subgrouping can undermine information elaboration, thereby limiting team creativity. Team leaders have an important role in managing team functioning and are well‐positioned to counteract subgrouping effects. Building on the functional leadership perspective, we argue that relationship‐focused leadership better helps teams with higher subgrouping than task‐focused leadership to strengthen team identification, thereby fostering information elaboration and enhancing team creativity. To test this prediction, we conducted an experimental laboratory study with N = 103 teams performing a creativity task in an immersive escape room, assessing in‐game indicators of subgrouping (higher vs. lower) and manipulating leadership behavior (relationship‐focused vs. task‐focused). Results of hierarchical regression analyses support our predictions, showing that teams with higher subgrouping benefitted from relationship‐focused (as compared to task‐focused) leadership through increased identification and subsequent information elaboration, which in turn positively related to creativity. We discuss these findings and their implications for theorizing and for the practice of managing subgrouping and leading diverse teams.

Even though ethnic discrimination after resume screening has received much research attention, it is not well understood under which conditions it is particularly likely to occur. Biased resume screening is often based on prejudice. However, prejudice does not always translate into discriminatory behavior. Building on the Justification‐Suppression Model of Prejudice, we examine two moderating factors of the relationship between prejudice and biased evaluations of job applicants. First, we propose that making selection decisions under time pressure hinders the suppression of prejudice. Second, we propose that a diversity‐unfriendly organizational climate acts as a justification for prejudice expression. We conducted two studies to test these expectations. In the first study, 482 Dutch participants evaluated a resume of a Dutch‐Moroccan or Dutch job applicant while we experimentally manipulated time pressure. We then assessed participants' prejudice towards Moroccans or Dutch and their current organizations' diversity climate. For Dutch‐Moroccan applicants, we found that more prejudice was associated with a lower self‐reported invitation likelihood only under high time pressure or in a climate that is relatively diversity‐unfriendly. For Dutch applicants, we found no association between prejudice and invitation likelihood. Unfortunately, data from the second study ( n = 255) failed to replicate these results. While the replication study indicates that more research is needed, the results of study one suggest that organizations might be able to prevent biased resume screening of minority applicants by creating an environment that supports prejudice suppression and removes opportunities for prejudice justification.

Studying teams comes with notable theoretical and analytical challenges. One major challenge is data aggregation, the process of bringing a variable that was measured at the individual level to the team level of analysis. We provide an accessible resource about data aggregation that integrates theoretical and empirical insights, dispels common misconceptions, and provides practical guidelines for researchers. We stress that decisions about aggregation should be based on theoretical considerations about the nature of variables and their interrelations. Based on the logic of latent variable models, we distinguish reflective and formative team constructs. For reflective team constructs, we discuss issues of within-team agreement and the notion of the conceptual mean. For formative team constructs, we distinguish between well-defined and ill-defined constructs, and offer guidelines for their aggregation. This discussion results in twelve concrete guidelines that can be used by researchers, reviewers, and editors in the design and evaluation of team studies.

Growing research evidence points towards a mental health crisis in PhD students. High-quality support services for PhD students are scarce as is research on interventions. Inspired by Conservation of Resources theory, we introduce a novel type of PsyCap intervention—a self-compassion-based PsyCap training—that aims to improve PhD students’ well-being (i.e., in terms of reducing work pressure and increasing positive affect and support seeking) through PsyCap and self-compassion. 115 PhD students in the Netherlands were randomized to a self-compassion-based PsyCap intervention, a PsyCap-only intervention, or a wait-list control group. Results indicated that the self-compassion-based PsyCap intervention increased self-compassion, reduced work pressure, and increased support seeking in the short term following the intervention. The PsyCap-only intervention increased psychological capital and reduced work pressure in the short term. Notably, increase in self-compassion was a key mechanism through which participants of the self-compassion-based PsyCap intervention, but not the PsyCap-only intervention, experienced improvements in all well-being outcomes over the longer term. Unexpectedly, the self-compassion-based PsyCap intervention increased psychological capital only at follow-up via self-compassion. This study provides initial evidence that developing PsyCap, alongside self-compassion, may take longer but benefits PhD students’ well-being and does so more than developing PsyCap alone.