Towards a Theory of Functional Leadership in Diverse Teams: A Conceptual Review

INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Leading Diversity: Towards a Theory of Functional Leadership in
Diverse Teams
Astrid C. Homan and Seval Gündemir
University of Amsterdam
Claudia Buengeler
Kiel University
Gerben A. van Kleef
University of Amsterdam
The importance of leaders as diversity managers is widely acknowledged. However, a dynamic and
comprehensive theory on the interplay between team diversity and team leadership is missing. We
provide a review of the extant (scattered) research on the interplay between team diversity and team
leadership, which reveals critical shortcomings in the current scholarly understanding. This calls for an
integrative theoretical account of functional diversity leadership in teams. Here we outline such an
integrative theory. We propose that functional diversity leadership requires (a) knowledge of the
favorable and unfavorable processes that can be instigated by diversity, (b) mastery of task- and
person-focused leadership behaviors necessary to address associated team needs, and (c) competencies
to predict and/or diagnose team needs and to apply corresponding leadership behaviors to address those
needs. We integrate findings of existing studies on the interplay between leadership and team diversity
with insights from separate literatures on team diversity and (team) leadership. The resulting Leading
Diversity model (LeaD) posits that effective leadership of diverse teams requires proactive as well as
reactive attention to teams’ needs in terms of informational versus intergroup processes and adequate
management of these processes through task- versus person-focused leadership. LeaD offers new insights
into specific competencies and actions that allow leaders to shape the influence of team diversity on team
outcomes and, thereby, harvest the potential value in diversity. Organizations can capitalize on this model
to promote optimal processes and performance in diverse teams.
Keywords: team diversity, team leadership, team performance, intergroup bias, information elaboration
With the influx of diversity in today’s organizations and work
teams, leaders are increasingly at the forefront of managing the
potential advantages and disadvantages of team diversity. Team
leaders are vital for promoting, managing, supporting, and devel-
oping team functioning (Burke et al., 2006; Horne, Plessis, &
Nkomo, 2015; Yukl, 2010; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002; Zaccaro,
Rittman, & Marks, 2001), and diversity management is inherent to
leading teams. In the current work, we first present an extensive
review of the literature on the intersection of team diversity and
team leadership, which reveals critical lacunae in our current
understanding that call for an integrative theoretical account of
functional diversity leadership in teams. Next, we present such an
integrative theoretical model, integrating knowledge on two core
leadership functions with emergent insights on the complexities of
team diversity in shaping team processes and outcomes.
Recently, scholars have begun to investigate the interface be-
tween team leadership and team diversity, by focusing on how
leadership behaviors and skills moderate the effects of team di-
versity (e.g., Homan & Greer, 2013; Hüttermann & Boerner, 2011;
Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Somech, 2006). This research has fo-
cused on a variety of diversity dimensions, examined both lead-
ership behaviors and characteristics, and suggests that leaders can
both proactively influence as well as reactively attend to diversity-
This article was published Online First January 23, 2020.
X Astrid C. Homan and Seval Gündemir, Department of Work and
Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam; Claudia Buengeler,
Institute of Business, Department of Human Resource Management and
Organization, Kiel University; Gerben A. van Kleef, Department of Social
Psychology, University of Amsterdam.
Portions of this article were presented at the International Association
for Conflict Management conference (2012), the Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations Conference at Stanford University (2018), the Inter-
national Workshop on Teamworking 23 (2019), Solvay Brussels School
(2019), and the Dutch Association for Social Psychological Research
conference (2019).
We are very grateful to Drew Carton, John Hollenbeck, Stephen Hum-
phrey, and Barbara Nevicka for their useful feedback, ideas, and insights.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Astrid C.
Homan, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of
Amsterdam, P.O. Box 15919, 1001NK Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail:
[e-mail]
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Applied Psychology
© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 105, No. 10, 1101–1128
ISSN: 0021-9010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000482
1101

related processes in teams. Our comprehensive review of this
literature reveals inconsistent findings pertaining to the interplay
of leadership and team diversity. For instance, research on the role
of transformational leadership behaviors—the most widely studied
leadership behavior in diverse teams— demonstrates positive, neg-
ative as well as null effects for its moderating influence on the
effects of team diversity (e.g., Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Kim,
2017; Scheuer, 2017). Based on the current empirical findings, it
remains unclear why the same leadership behaviors result in dif-
ferential outcomes of team diversity.
The idiosyncratic approaches adopted in previous empirical
work do not allow for generalized conclusions about the mecha-
nisms and contingencies that govern effective leadership of team
diversity. New empirical research is unlikely to successfully tackle
this challenge in the absence of a guiding theoretical framework.
Diversity characteristics and leadership styles can converge in
myriad ways, and scattered investigations of random combinations
are unable to provide theoretical insights necessary to derive
broadly applicable managerial implications and effective interven-
tions. As a result, academics and practitioners alike continue to
face the challenge of understanding why certain types of leader-
ship facilitate the performance of diverse teams in some cases and
frustrate performance in others (Homan & Greer, 2013; Klein,
Knight, Ziegert, Lim, & Saltz, 2011; Nishii & Mayer, 2009;
Stewart & Johnson, 2009).
Here we systematically integrate theory on the potential conse-
quences of team diversity with theory on functional team leader-
ship. This integration offers a novel lens to (re)interpret past
research findings and guides future research through a unique
theoretical synthesis of diversity and (team) leadership literatures.
Our Leading Diversity (LeaD) model provides a dynamic perspec-
tive to diversity management that goes beyond prevailing static
empirical approaches, which explicitly or implicitly assume that
particular leadership behaviors have similar effects across diverse
team contexts. LeaD accounts for variations in team-specific needs
(that are related to the dominant process instigated by diversity)
and the ability of leaders to adapt to those anticipated or existing
needs. Moreover, LeaD generates actionable insights by revealing
antecedents of functional leadership in diverse teams that can be
influenced by organizations through, for example, training and
selection. As such, LeaD can help leaders more effectively manage
diverse teams as well as aid organizations in pairing leaders with
teams to enhance performance.
LeaD incorporates the psycho-behavioral processes that can be
instigated by diversity, the behaviors that leaders may exhibit to
address these processes proactively and reactively, and the
diversity-related competencies of leaders that facilitate these be-
haviors. First, we propose that team diversity can create highly
different situations for leaders to operate in, depending on the
predominant processes instigated by team diversity (i.e., subgroup
categorization and concomitant intergroup bias or information
elaboration). Second, to be able to address these processes, leaders
must possess diversity-related competencies (i.e., cognitive under-
standing, social perceptiveness, and behavioral flexibility), which
help them to predict and/or diagnose the team’s needs and perform
functional leadership behaviors (i.e., diversity-related actions; cf.
Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997). Third, leaders must be able to
exhibit functional leadership behaviors (i.e., enact person- and
task- focused leadership), and to flexibly adopt these behaviors to
address distinct diversity-related processes. In short, as we elabo-
rate below, LeaD specifies how leaders’ diversity-related compe-
tencies shape their proactive and reactive behaviors vis-a`-vis di-
verse teams, and when and how the exhibited leadership behaviors
improve or deteriorate the relationship between team diversity and
team performance.
Developing an integrative theory of the interplay between team
diversity and team leadership is important for two interrelated
reasons. First, it is widely accepted that diversity can bring about
favorable as well as unfavorable processes in teams (Milliken &
Martins, 1996; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004;
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), but scholarly understanding of what
team leaders can do to promote the favorable effects and curtail the
unfavorable effects of diversity is limited. LeaD systematically
explains how diversity-related processes give rise to specific needs
at the team level for certain forms of leadership. We will argue
that, depending on the nature of those needs, leaders can proac-
tively or reactively provide complementary or supplementary
matching leadership behaviors. While we acknowledge leaders’
direct influence on team dynamics (independent of diversity; e.g.,
Burke et al., 2006; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue,
& Karam, 2010; Zaccaro et al., 2001), the current work aims at
contributing to a better understanding of the requirements of
leaders who operate in and with diverse teams by focusing spe-
cifically on the interplay between team diversity and team leader-
ship (cf. Burke et al., 2006). Second, there is a deficiency in the
current literature with respect to understanding when and how
which types of leader behaviors are instrumental in diverse teams.
LeaD advances researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of
when and why which types of leadership behaviors are effective in
managing diverse teams. By considering team leaders’ role at the
forefront of day-to-day diversity management, our model offers a
fine-grained understanding of the management of team diversity
through leadership.
Definitions and Scope of the Current Model
We define a team as an interdependent group of people with
relative stability and a clear collective goal (e.g., a group task;
Hackman, 2002). This definition includes (but is not limited to)
boards, management teams, R&D teams, brainstorming teams,
service teams, and project teams. Teams can be composed of
members with a variety of different demographic backgrounds,
personalities, values, knowledge, and expertise. We view diversity
as a team-level construct, that is, the distribution of differences
among the team members (Guillaume, Brodbeck, & Riketta,
2012). Diversity is defined as “differences between individuals on
any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is
different from the self” (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p. 1008).
Some scholars have proposed that diversity effects depend on the
type of diversity (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998), with surface-level diversity (e.g., gender) being
associated with intergroup bias and reduced performance, and
deep-level diversity (e.g., personality) being linked to information
elaboration and increased performance. Nonetheless, previous re-
search has not found consistent effects of surface- or deep-level
diversity on team functioning (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000;
Van Dijk, Van Engen, & Van Knippenberg, 2012; Webber &
Donahue, 2001). Rather, all dimensions of diversity can instigate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1102 HOMAN, GU ̈ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

positive as well as negative effects depending on moderating
influences (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), provided that team
members are aware of the respective differences (Shemla, Meyer,
Greer, & Jehn, 2016). Our model is, therefore, applicable to the
wide range of possible diversity characteristics.
We focus our theory development primarily on smaller (rather
than larger) teams, in which leaders can more easily observe and
address group processes. In line with Zaccaro and colleagues
(2001), we presume that a team has a clear hierarchical structure,
in which the leader is held responsible and accountable for its
functioning. We assume that the leader is motivated to understand
the team’s needs and manage team diversity (see also Nishii,
Khattab, Shemla, & Paluch, 2018). Additionally, as diversity has
greater potential to benefit performance on complex and interde-
pendent rather than simple and independent tasks (Bowers et al.,
2000; Chatman, Greer, Sherman, & Doerr, 2019; Jehn, Northcraft,
& Neale, 1999; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Wegge, Roth,
Neubach, Schmidt, & Kanfer, 2008), our analysis focuses on
interdependent teams working on more complex tasks (e.g.,
problem-solving, creativity, decision-making). Finally, we exam-
ine leader effectiveness at the team level. This means that effective
team leadership should be reflected in the team’s performance,
including its productivity, decision-making quality, innovation,
creativity, viability, and member satisfaction (Yukl, 2010).
Setting the Stage for LeaD
Diversity Effects: Two Overarching Processes
According to the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM; Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004), the effects of diversity on team perfor-
mance can be understood by considering the favorable and unfa-
vorable processes that diversity may instigate (Joshi & Roh, 2009;
Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The
negative effects of diversity arise from subgroup categorization
and intergroup bias. When diversity triggers subgroup categoriza-
tion, teams are divided into subgroups— creating ingroups (i.e.,
subgroups one is part of) and outgroups (i.e., subgroups one is not
part of)— based on the (perceived) differences between the team
members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). These subgroups, in turn, are
prone to experience intergroup bias. People tend to favor members
of their ingroup over outgroup members, which may result in
negative intrateam interactions, conflict, distrust, disliking, and
limited communication between members of different subgroups
(Brewer, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).
Thus, subgroup categorization and concomitant intergroup bias
can impair team performance (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999;
Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
The positive effects of diversity can be explained by the avail-
ability of a richer pool of information. Given their heterogeneous
makeup, diverse teams often have more different perspectives,
information, and ideas available than do homogeneous teams
(Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991). As a result, diverse teams can
potentially outperform homogeneous ones to the extent that they
engage in information elaboration (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
Team information elaboration refers to “the degree to which in-
formation, ideas, or cognitive processes are shared, and are being
shared, among the group members” (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
1997, p. 43; see also De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008)
and involves “feeding back the results of [. . .] individual-level
processing into the group, and discussion and integration of their
implications” (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu,
2007a, p. 1189). Information elaboration is related to positive
outcomes of diverse teams, such as increased creativity and en-
hanced decision-making quality (Homan et al., 2007a; Kearney &
Gebert, 2009; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009).
In summary, two distinct processes—intergroup bias and infor-
mation elaboration—resulting from differences between team
members can explain the differential effects of diversity on team
performance. These processes are not mutually exclusive, but they
tend to be negatively related, and at any given point in time one
process will typically be more dominant and predict performance
better than the other (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). If diverse
teams experience intergroup bias, information elaboration is less
likely to occur. Conversely, if information elaboration is promi-
nent, intergroup bias is likely to be less pronounced.
Informed by CEM (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), research in
the last decade has examined a variety of moderators that can
explain why diversity in some cases instigates intergroup bias and
in other cases stimulates information elaboration (for an overview,
see Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, & West, 2017).
One stream of research has shown that diverse teams are less likely
to experience intergroup bias when social categories are less
salient (Homan et al., 2007a, 2008; Nishii, 2013; Van Knippenberg
et al., 2004). Another stream of research has shown that teams are
more likely to engage in thorough information elaboration when
team members are more open to different information (Homan et
al., 2008; Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009; Schippers, Den
Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003). Within this focus on moder-
ators of team diversity effects, the interest in the role of leaders in
addressing diversity has been steadily increasing (e.g., Guillaume
et al., 2014, 2017; Nishii et al., 2018; Roberts, 2006).
Review of Research on the Interplay Between
Diversity and Leadership
We conducted an extensive review of the literature on the
interplay between team diversity and leadership. We performed a
literature search using Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar
(using the key words “team” or “group” AND “diversity” AND
“leadership”) and identified 44 empirical papers out of approxi-
mately 500 hits that examined the interplay between team diversity
and team leadership on a variety of team processes and outcomes.
A detailed description of the 44 reviewed articles and findings can
be found in Table 1.
Our review reveals that authors have adopted idiosyncratic
approaches in studying the intersection between diversity and
leadership, focusing on a myriad diversity dimensions and over 30
different leadership behaviors and leader characteristics. In terms
of diversity, scholars have investigated, among other things, ef-
fects of diversity in demographic characteristics (e.g., nationality,
ethnicity, gender, and age), personality (e.g., traits, values), and
informational background (e.g., education, professional experi-
ence). These dimensions were crossed with an even larger number
of leadership behaviors and characteristics (see below). The het-
erogeneity of the available set of studies notwithstanding, our
review allows for four broad conclusions about the current state of
the art.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1103LEADING DIVERSITY

Table 1
Overview of Papers on the Interplay Between Team Diversity and Team Leadership
Study Diversity type a
Diversity main effect b
(direction)
Leadership
behavior/characteristic
Pro- (P) or
reactive (R)
leadership
Leadership main
effect b (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Ayoko and Konrad
(2012)
Racioethnic Mixed ( only for task
conflict)
Conflict management; R Mixed ( only for
performance);
Performance, Morale
[Task conflict, relationship
conflict]
The interaction between diversity and leadership was
not tested. Active leader conflict management
weakened the negative effect of relationship
conflict on team morale. Leader emotion
management weakened negative effects of
relationship and task conflict on team
performance. TFL weakened negative effects of
relationship and task conflict on team
performance.
Emotion management; Mixed ( only for
performance);
Transformational Mixed ( only for task and
relationship conflict, 
on performance)
Buengeler and Den
Hartog (2015)
Nationality Yes () Interpersonal justice
behaviors
P No Performance The relationship between team nationality diversity
and team performance was positive when leader
justice behavior mean was high and leader justice
behavior dispersion was low. Conversely, the
relationship between team nationality diversity
and team performance was negative when leader
justice behavior mean and dispersion were both
low, both high, and when the mean was low and
dispersion was high (the latter slope being not
significant).
Choudhury and Haas
(2018)
Functional area; Mixed ( only for patent
application scope);
Job and patent experience P NA Patent approval speed
[Patent application scope]
Functional and community membership diversity
increased patent application scope, which in turn
was negatively related to patent approval speed.
Leaders’ lack of job or prior patenting experience
weakened these relationships.
Community membership Mixed ( only for patent
application scope)
De Poel, Stoker, and Van
der Zee (2014)
Tenure Mixed ( only for job
satisfaction)
Transformational;
Participative
P No;
Mixed ( only for job
satisfaction and team
performance)
Commitment, creative
behavior, job satisfaction,
innovation, performance,
conflict
Tenure diversity was positively related to
commitment and satisfaction when TFL was high
rather than low, tenure diversity was positively
related to performance and innovation when
participative leadership was low rather than high.
García-Granero et al.
(2018)
Age;
Functional
Yes ();
No
Cognitive trust in team;
Shared responsibility with
TMT members
P No;
No
Ambidexterity Functional diversity was positively associated with
TMT ambidexterity under high CEO trust,
whereas age diversity was negatively associated
with TMT ambidexterity under high CEO trust.
Age diversity was positively associated with TMT
ambidexterity under high CEO’s shared
responsibility.
Georgakakis, Greve, and
Ruigrok (2017)
Knowledge-based
faultlines (i.e., on
functional background
and international
experience)
Yes () Career experience variety P No Performance (ROA) A greater variety in leaders’ career experience
weakened the negative effect of knowledge-based
faultlines on firm performance.
Greer, Homan, De
Hoogh, and Den
Hartog (2012)
Ethnic No Visionary; P Mixed ( only for
communication adequacy)
Financial performance
[Communication adequacy]
For ethnically diverse teams, visionary leadership
enhanced team communication adequacy and
financial performance when leader categorization
tendencies were low, but harmed communication
and performance when leader categorization
tendencies were high. There were no effects of
visionary leadership and leader categorization
tendencies in ethnically homogeneous teams.
Categorization tendencies Mixed ( only for financial
performance)
Groves and Feyerherm
(2011)
Composite measure of
ethnicity and
nationality
No Cultural intelligence;
Emotional intelligence
P No;
No
Performance Team diversity was positively related to team (and
leader) performance under higher levels of leader
cultural intelligence. Leader emotional
intelligence did not moderate diversity’s effects.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1104 HOMAN, GU ̈ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

Table 1 (continued)
Study Diversity type a
Diversity main effect b
(direction)
Leadership
behavior/characteristic
Pro- (P) or
reactive (R)
leadership
Leadership main
effect b (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Hassan, Bashir, Abrar,
Baig, and Zubair
(2015)
Cognitive diversity
(perceived)
Yes () Transformational Yes () Creative self-efficacy
(individual)
The interaction between TFL and cognitive diversity
was significant. Slopes were not tested, but
inspection of the data suggests that TFL increased
individual creative self-efficacy more under
perceptions of low rather than high cognitive
diversity.
Hmieleski and Ensley
(2007)
Composite measure of
functional specialty,
educational specialty,
educational level, and
skill diversity
Yes () Empowering;
Directive
P Yes ();
Yes ()
New venture performance
(i.e., revenue growth and
employment growth)
In highly dynamic environments, diversity was
negatively related to new venture performance
when empowering leadership was high, whereas
this relationship was positive under low
dynamism. Conversely, in highly dynamic
environments, diversity was positively related to
new venture performance when directive
leadership was high, whereas this relationship
was negative under low dynamism.
Homan and Greer (2013) Tenure No Consideration P No Performance quality
[Subgroup formation, leader
individuation]
Tenure diversity was negatively related to subgroup
formation and positively related to leader
individuation when considerate leadership was
high rather than low. Tenure diversity was
positively related to team performance quality
when leader consideration was high, but not
related to team performance quality when leader
consideration was low. The interactive effect on
performance was mediated only by leader
individuation.
Homan, Van Kleef, &
Côté (2015)
Conscientiousness No Emotion management P No Satisfaction, Performance
[Cohesion, information
elaboration]
Conscientiousness diversity was positively related to
team satisfaction, cohesion and information
elaboration when the leader scored higher on
emotion management, whereas these relationships
were negative when the leader scored lower on
emotion management. The interaction between
conscientiousness diversity and leader emotion
management indirectly influenced team
performance via cohesion and information
elaboration.
Hsu, Li, and Sun (2017) Value (perceived) Mixed ( only for
shared leadership)
Vertical (i.e., sense
making, providing
feedback, solving
problems and
supporting social
relationships)
P and R NA System quality
[Shared leadership]
There was an interaction between value diversity and
vertical leadership on shared leadership, and
between shared leadership and vertical leadership
on system quality. Vertical leadership weakened
the negative effect of value diversity on shared
leadership and the positive effect of shared
leadership on system quality.
Kearney and Gebert
(2009)
Age; No; Transformational P Mixed ( only for
identification and
information elaboration)
Performance ratings (by
leader)
[Identification, information
elaboration]
Under high levels of TFL, nationality and
educational diversity were positively related to
team performance. These relationships were
nonsignificant when TFL was low. Age diversity
was not related to team performance when TFL
was high, but was negatively related to team
performance when TFL was low. Team
identification and information elaboration
mediated these effects.
Nationality; No;
Educational background No
Kim (2017) Composite measure of
sex and age;
No; Transformational P Yes () Learning behavior The relationship between surface-level diversity and
team learning behavior was not moderated by
TFL. Even though slope tests are not reported,
inspection of the data suggests that the negative
effects of perceived deep-level diversity were
weakened under higher rather than lower TFL.
Deep-level diversity
(perceived)
Yes ()
(table continues)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1105LEADING DIVERSITY

Table 1 (continued)
Study Diversity type a
Diversity main effect b
(direction)
Leadership
behavior/characteristic
Pro- (P) or
reactive (R)
leadership
Leadership main
effect b (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Klein, Knight, Ziegert,
Chong Lim, and Saltz
(2011)
Values (i.e., work ethic,
traditionalism)
Unclear (no for conflict,
NA for effectiveness)
Task-focused; P Unclear ( for conflict, NA
for effectiveness);
Effectiveness [Conflict] Under high levels of task-focused leadership, work
ethic diversity was negatively related to team
conflict and positively related to team
effectiveness. Under high levels of person-
focused leadership, traditionalism diversity was
positively related to team conflict and negatively
related to team effectiveness.
Person-focused Unclear ( for conflict, NA
for effectiveness)
Kunze and Bruch (2010) Faultline based on age,
gender, and tenure
No Transformational P Yes () Perceived productive energy The negative relationship between faultlines and
team productive energy was attenuated by higher
levels of TFL.
Kunze, Boehm, and
Bruch (2013)
Age Mixed ( only for
discrimination climate)
Negative age-related
stereotypes
P Unclear (no for age
discrimination climate,
NA for performance)
Performance
[Age-discrimination climate]
Top managers’ negative age-related stereotypes
strengthened the positive relationship between age
diversity and age-discrimination climate, which in
turn resulted in more negative organizational
performance.
Li, She, and Yang (2018) Expertise No Paradoxical P Unclear ( for perspective
taking, NA for innovative
performance)
Innovative performance
[Perspective taking]
Expertise diversity was positively related to
innovative performance under higher but not
under lower levels of paradoxical leadership.
Team perspective taking mediated this effect.
Lisak, Erez, Sui, and Lee
(2016)
Cultural (perceived) NA Global identity; P NA Innovation
[Communication inclusion]
Cultural diversity was positively related to team
communication inclusion when leader’s fostering
of shared innovation goals was high rather than
low. Under high (but not under low) levels of
cultural diversity, leader global identity positively
related to team innovation via shared goals and
inclusive communication.
Fostering of team shared
innovation goals
Unclear ( for
communication inclusion,
NA for innovation)
Lu et al. (2018) Cultural (perceived) Unclear ( for
intercultural
communication
openness; NA for
other relationships)
Benevolent paternalism P Unclear (no for intercultural
communication openness,
NA for creativity and
information elaboration)
Creativity
[Intercultural communication
openness, information
elaboration]
The negative relationship between cultural diversity
and intercultural communication and information
elaboration was weakened by higher leader
benevolent paternalism. Leader benevolent
paternalism reduced the negative influence of
intercultural diversity on information elaboration
via intercultural communication openness.
Malhotra, Ahire, and
Shang (2017)
Functional dominance Mixed ( only for
psychological safety)
Interpersonal justice
behaviors
P Mixed ( only for
psychological safety)
Performance
[Psychological safety]
The negative effect of functional dominance on
psychological safety was weakened under higher
leader interpersonal justice behaviors.
Mayo, Van Knippenberg,
Guillén, and Firfiray
(2016)
Sex; Mixed ( only to
salience of sex);
Charisma P and R Mixed ( only for
performance)
Task performance
[Salience of categorizations]
Charisma did not moderate sex and race diversity
effects on category salience. Charisma weakened
the positive relationship between the race/sex
faultline and faultlines salience. Charisma also
weakened the negative relationship between sex
salience on team performance.
Race; Mixed ( only for
salience of race);
Faultline based on sex
and race
Mixed ( only for
salience of sex and
race)
Mitchell et al. (2015) Professional NA Inclusive P Mixed ( only for perceived
status differences and
team identity)
Performance
[Perceived status differences,
team identity]
For teams with high professional diversity, inclusive
leadership was positively related to performance
via a reduction of perceived status differences.
Mo, Ling, and Xie
(2019)
Faultline based on
gender, education, and
tenure
Yes () Ethical P No Creativity The negative relationship between high faultline
strength was attenuated when ethical leadership
was high. For low faultline strength, low ethical
leadership was positively related to creativity, and
high ethical leadership was negatively related to
creativity.
Mohammed and
Nadkarni (2011)
Temporal (i.e., time
urgency, pacing style,
and future time
perspective)
No Temporal P Yes () Performance Time urgency diversity and pacing style diversity
positively interacted with temporal leadership to
predict team performance, but simple slopes were
not significant. Slopes suggested less negative
effects of diversity on team performance under
higher temporal leadership.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1106 HOMAN, GU ̈ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF