Leading Diversity: Towards a Theory of Functional Leadership

This report presents the Leading Diversity (LeaD) model, an integrative conceptual review of functional leadership in diverse teams. It addresses the critical need for a dynamic theory on the interplay between team diversity and leadership, reviewing existing research and identifying shortcomings. The LeaD model proposes that effective leadership requires knowledge of diversity-related processes (informational vs. intergroup), mastery of task- and person-focused leadership behaviors, and the competencies to diagnose team needs and apply appropriate leadership actions. The model integrates findings from various studies, highlighting the importance of proactive and reactive attention to team needs and the management of these processes. It emphasizes the role of leaders in shaping the influence of team diversity on team outcomes, and the importance of specific competencies that enable leaders to effectively manage diverse teams to promote optimal processes and performance. The report covers definitions of team and diversity, and its scope focuses on interdependent teams working on complex tasks.

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
effectb (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
effectb (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
effectb (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

Table 1 (continued)
Study Diversity type a
Diversity main effect b
(direction)
Leadership
behavior/characteristic
Pro- (P) or
reactive (R)
leadership
Leadership main
effectb (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Muchiri and Ayoko
(2013)
Gender Mixed (⫺ only for OCB,
collective efficacy,
general productivity)
Transformational P Yes (⫹) OCB, affective commitment,
collective efficacy,
general productivity
Number of women in the work team was positively
related to OCBs when TFL was high rather than
low.
Na, Park, and Kwak
(2018)
Faultline on age, gender,
and educational
specialty
NA Teamwork behaviors P Yes (⫹) Support for innovation High faultline teams benefitted more from leader
teamwork behaviors than low faultline teams.
Nishii and Mayer (2009) Composite measure of
race, gender, and age;
No; Leader-Member exchange
mean;
P No; Turnover The positive relationship between demographic
diversity and turnover was attenuated under high
mean LMX mean and low LMX differentiation.
For tenure diversity there was no relationship
with turnover under low mean LMX and under
high LMX differentiation but a negative
relationship under high mean LMX and low LMX
differentiation There also was a three-way
interaction between demographic diversity, LMX
mean, and LMX differentiation on turnover.
Teams with a high mean LMX combined with
high LMX differentiation showed the strongest
positive relationship between demographic
diversity and turnover. For teams with high mean
LMX-level and low LMX differentiation,
demographic diversity was negatively related to
turnover (unclear if the slope was significant).
Demographic diversity was not related to turnover
for teams with a low mean LMX level,
independent of the level of LMX differentiation.
Tenure No Leader-Member exchange
differentiation
No
Reuveni and Vashdi
(2015)
Profession Mixed (⫹ only for team
shared mental model)
Transformational P No Innovation
[Team and task shared
mental models]
Profession diversity was positively related to
innovation via team shared mental models. The
mediation was moderated such that it existed
under low but not under high levels of TFL. TFL
weakened the positive relationship between
profession diversity and team shared mental
models.
Rosenauer, Homan,
Horstmeier, and
Voelpel (2016)
Nationality No Cultural intelligence P Mixed (⫺ only for
performance)
Performance, diversity
climate
Nationality diversity was positively related to
diversity climate and performance only when
leader cultural intelligence and task
interdependence were high rather than low.
Rowold (2011) d Age (perceived);
Gender (perceived);
Culture (perceived)
NA;
NA;
NA
Transactional;
Transformational;
Laissez-faire;
Consideration;
Initiation structure
P NA;
NA;
NA;
NA;
NA
Performance Three interactions were found to be significant, but
slope tests were not reported. Inspection of the
figures suggest that gender diversity had a
stronger positive effect on performance under
high TFL than under low TFL, and under high
consideration than low consideration. Cultural
diversity had a positive (negative) effect on
performance when laissez-faire leadership was
high (low).
Scheuer (2017; Study 3;
Chapter 4)
Age (perceived) No TFL; P Unclear (⫹ for performance,
NA for information
elaboration);
Performance
[Information elaboration]
Age diversity was negatively (positively) related to
performance under higher (lower) levels of TFL.
Age diversity was positively (negatively) related
to performance under higher (lower) levels of
empowering leadership. Age diversity was
negatively (not) related to information elaboration
under higher (lower) levels of TFL. Age diversity
was positively (not) related to information
elaboration under higher (lower) levels of
empowering leadership. Information elaboration
mediated the moderating effects of TFL and
empowering leadership on the relationship
between age diversity and performance
Empowering Unclear (no for
performance, NA for
information elaboration)
(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.
1107LEADING DIVERSITY

Table 1 (continued)
Study Diversity type a
Diversity main effect b
(direction)
Leadership
behavior/characteristic
Pro- (P) or
reactive (R)
leadership
Leadership main
effectb (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Schölmerich, Schermuly,
and Deller (2016)
Sociodemo-graphic
faultlines (i.e., on
gender and age);
Experience-based
faultlines (i.e., on
education and tenure)
Yes (⫺ for cohesion
and ⫹ for social
loafing);
No
Prodiversity beliefs P Mixed (⫹ only for cohesion) Cohesion, social loafing Leaders’ prodiversity beliefs weakened the negative
relationship between sociodemographic faultlines
and cohesion and the positive relationship
between sociodemographic faultlines and social
loafing.
Schölmerich, Schermuly,
and Deller (2017)
Faultline on gender and
age
No Prodiversity beliefs P No Performance
[Leader-Member Exchange]
Faultline strength was positively related to
performance when both leader’s and team
members’ prodiversity beliefs were stronger
rather than weaker.
Seong and Hong (2018) Age No Charismatic P No Performance, OCB Charismatic leadership moderated the inverted u-
shaped (curvilinear) relationship between age
diversity and performance (but not OCB). Even
though slope tests are not reported, inspection of
the figure shows that the relationship between age
diversity and performance is an inverted u-shape
relationship under high charismatic leadership,
but is almost linear negative under low
charismatic leadership.
Shin and Zhou (2007) Education specialization No Transformational P Mixed (⫹ only for creative
efficacy)
Creativity
[Creative efficacy]
Educational specialization diversity was more
positively related to creativity when TFL was
high than when it was low. This relationship was
mediated by team creative efficacy.
Somech (2006) Functional No Participative; P Mixed (⫹ only for
innovation and
reflection);
Innovation, in-role
performance
[Reflection]
Functional diversity was more positively related to
team reflection and innovation under higher (as
compared with lower) participative leadership.
Team reflection mediated the interaction on
innovation. Functional homogeneity was
positively related to team reflection under higher
(but not lower) directive leadership. Functional
diversity was negatively (positively) related to
team in-role performance under higher (rather
than lower) participative leadership. Functional
diversity was positively related to team in-role
performance under higher (rather than lower)
directive leadership.
Directive Mixed (⫹ only for in-role
performance and
reflection)
Stewart and Johnson
(2009)
Gender; Yes (⫹); Leader-member exchange
mean;
P Yes (⫹); Performance There was no three-way interaction between
functional background diversity, LMX mean and
LMX differentiation on performance. For gender
diversity, LMX mean and LMX differentiation
interacted to predict performance, such that
gender diversity was positively (non-significantly)
related to performance in teams with high LMX
mean when LMX differentiation was high (low).
When LMX mean was low, gender diversity and
LMX differentiation did not interact.
Functional background No Leader-member exchange
differentiation
No
Wang, Kim, and Lee
(2016)
Cognitive (perceived) Yes (⫹) Transformational P Unclear (⫹ only for intrinsic
motivation, NA for
creativity)
Creativity
[Intrinsic motivation]
Cognitive diversity had a positive (negative) effect
on intrinsic motivation when TFL was high (low).
The interaction between diversity and TFL on
creativity was not tested, but the indirect effect
on team creativity via intrinsic motivation was
significant.
Wang, Rode, Shi, Luo,
and Chen (2013)
Composite measure of
age and gender
No Transformational P Yes (⫹) Innovation climate strength Demographic diversity was positively related to
climate strength when TFL was high, but not
when TFL was low.
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.
1108 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
effectb (direction)
Dependent
variables [Mediators]
Relevant findings pertaining to the interplay between
team diversity and team leadership c
Wickramasinghe and
Nandula (2015) d
Background (perceived
on nationality,
language, geographical
region, and age)
Unclear (NA for
performance, ⫹ for
relationship conflict)
Perceived task support R Unclear (⫹ for performance,
NA for relationship
conflict)
Performance
[Relationship conflict]
Interaction between diversity and perceived leader
task support was not tested. Team leader support
weakened the negative relationship between
relationship conflict and performance (but no
slope tests reported).
Zhang and Guo (2019) Knowledge (perceived) No Knowledge (consisting of
leadership skills,
cooperation and trust,
and knowledge
integration and
innovation)
P and R Unclear (⫹ for transactive
memory system, NA for
performance)
Performance
[Transactive memory
system]
Knowledge leadership moderated the relationship
between knowledge diversity and performance as
well as between transactive memory system and
performance. There was a positive (non-
significant) indirect relationship between
knowledge diversity and performance via
transactive memory system when knowledge
leadership was high (low).
Zhang and Peterson
(2011)
Core self-evaluations No TFL P Mixed (⫹ only for advice
network density)
Performance
[Advice network density]
The interaction between TFL and core self-
evaluation diversity on advice network density
was not significant, but the three-way interaction
with mean level of core self-evaluation was. The
positive relationship between TFL and team
advice network density was stronger when team
core self-evaluation diversity was low and team
core self-evaluation mean was high. The
interaction between core self-evaluation diversity
and TFL on performance was not tested.
Note. TFL ⫽ transformational leadership; LMX ⫽ leader-member exchange; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior; TMT ⫽ top management team; CEO ⫽ chief executive officer.
a Within most studies team diversity was determined objectively, however, some researchers measured team diversity subjectively. This is indicated by the adding the word “perceived” in
brackets. b The direct relationships between diversity and leadership and the dependent variables and/or mediators were obtained from the regression or path analysis in which the main effects were
tested. The relationships were coded as Yes (i.e., there are significant relationships between the predictor and all outcomes), No (i.e., there are no significant relationships between the predictor and
outcomes), or Mixed (i.e., there are significant relationships between the predictor and some, but not for all, outcomes). If no or partial information about main effects was provided, we coded this
as NA (not available) or as Unclear (if statistical information was provided for some but not all of the outcome measures). c Some papers included additional moderators or predictors (e.g.,
organizational context, task type) that are outside of the scope of the current review. However, when these variables were deemed important for understanding the main findings, they are reported in
the narrative in this column. d The analyses within a study or for a specific variable were conducted on the individual- rather than the team-level.
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.
1109LEADING DIVERSITY

First, while most of the reviewed work revealed no direct
relationship between diversity and processes or outcomes, some
work found consistent positive effects of diversity across processes
and outcomes, other work found consistent negative effects, and
still other work found inconsistent effects (either differential ef-
fects of different diversity types on outcomes, or effects of diver-
sity only on the more proximal mediator and not on the dependent
variable). Altogether, our review corroborates metaanalytical find-
ings (Van Dijk et al., 2012) that team diversity often has no
consistent direct effects on team processes and outcomes. More-
over, our review supports the general consensus that diversity
effects are moderated, underlining the significance of identifying
and understanding the role of key moderating factors, such as
leadership.
Second, our review reveals that a large variety of leadership
styles, behaviors, skills, and characteristics have been examined,
such as transformational leadership (e.g., Kearney & Gebert,
2009), visionary leadership (Greer, Homan, De Hoogh, & Den
Hartog, 2012), participative and directive leadership (Somech,
2006), temporal leadership (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011), task-
focused and person-focused leadership (Homan & Greer, 2013;
Klein et al., 2011), ethical leadership (Mo, Ling, & Xie, 2019),
inclusive leadership (Mitchell et al., 2015), leader cultural intelli-
gence (e.g., Rosenauer, Homan, Horstmeier, & Voelpel, 2016),
leader emotion management (e.g., Ayoko & Konrad, 2012), as
well as leader behaviors that contribute to positive leader-member
exchange (LMX) patterns in diverse teams (Nishii & Mayer, 2009;
Stewart & Johnson, 2009). To date, transformational leadership is
the most widely studied leadership style, but its moderating effects
are inconsistent. This work illustrates that transformational lead-
ership can stimulate positive effects of team diversity (De Poel,
Stoker, & Van der Zee, 2014; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Muchiri &
Ayoko, 2013; Rowold, 2011; Shin & Zhou, 2007; Wang, Kim, &
Lee, 2016; Wang, Rode, Shi, Luo, & Chen, 2013), hinder positive
effects of team diversity (Reuveni & Vashdi, 2015; Scheuer,
2017), weaken negative effects of team diversity (Kearney &
Gebert, 2009; Kim, 2017; Kunze & Bruch, 2010), diminish neg-
ative effects of negative intragroup processes (Ayoko & Konrad,
2012), or have no impact on the effects of team diversity (Hassan,
Bashir, Abrar, Baig, & Zubair, 2015; Kim, 2017; Zhang & Peter-
son, 2011).
Third, across studies we observe that scholarly attention for
leadership styles and behaviors and leader characteristics has de-
veloped in isolation. That is, previous research has exclusively
examined either styles or behaviors (e.g., directive leadership) or
abilities (e.g., cultural intelligence). A notable exception is the
work by Greer and colleagues (2012) who examined leaders’
categorization tendencies (indicating a lack of diversity-related
competencies) in combination with visionary leadership behaviors
in diverse teams.
Fourth, leaders have been studied as shapers of diversity effects
(as for instance proposed in CEM by Van Knippenberg et al.,
2004) as well as managers of diversity-related processes. That is,
team leadership has been found to moderate the relationship be-
tween team diversity and emergent states or processes (e.g.,
Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2013) as well as the relationship between
the processes instigated by diversity and team outcomes (e.g.,
Ayoko & Konrad, 2012). Notably, most empirical work tends to
focus on leaders’ role in the relationship between team diversity
and subsequent team processes (i.e., first-stage moderation) rather
than in the relationship between the processes instigated by diver-
sity and team outcomes (i.e., second-stage moderation). In our
theorizing below, we incorporate this distinction between first-
stage and second-stage moderation to develop new insights into
how leaders can shape diversity-related processes (i.e., which we
will refer to as proactive diversity leadership) and/or manage
diversity-related processes (that we will refer to as reactive diver-
sity leadership).
Overall the current literature review underlines the need for a
comprehensive theoretical framework, by exposing a number of
shortcomings. First, there are no consistent effects of team diver-
sity on team outcomes, which confirms the necessity of consider-
ing moderators. Second, interestingly, even though existing re-
search has conceptualized diversity leadership primarily in terms
of one-size-fits-all solutions, our review shows that the same type
of leadership can have divergent effects on team outcomes. This
points to the importance of considering the specific needs of
diverse teams to identify when leadership behaviors are effective.
Third, past work mostly examined leadership styles and behaviors
and leadership abilities in isolation, preventing insights into po-
tential synergistic benefits of considering them in conjunction.
Fourth, there is a limited understanding of leaders’ role as both
proactive shapers of team processes resulting from team diversity
and as reactive managers of the team process to team outcome
relationship. We propose that addressing these shortcomings re-
quires synthesizing theory regarding the processes that are insti-
gated by diversity with theoretical and empirical insights concern-
ing the effects of leader behaviors. We provide this synthesis in
LeaD (see Figure 1). Below we introduce LeaD and clarify how
this model addresses the theoretical needs emerging from our
review of the literature.
Leading Team Diversity: Introducing LeaD
In line with the first conclusion of our review, the central tenet
of LeaD is that emerging or existing diversity-related team pro-
cesses and leadership behaviors interact to determine team perfor-
mance. In so doing, our model highlights leaders’ role as diversity
managers, shaping and addressing the effects of diversity in teams.
That is, instead of exhaustively describing all the different ways
leaders can influence team dynamics (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 2001;
Zhao, Thatcher, & Jehn, 2019), LeaD highlights the impact lead-
ership can have on emergent processes in diverse teams and on the
relationship between processes and team outcomes. More specif-
ically, and in line with the second conclusion of our review, we
argue that teams experiencing intergroup bias have different lead-
ership needs than teams engaging in information elaboration. As
such, leadership behaviors’ effectiveness should differ substan-
tially between these situations. Additionally, building on the third
conclusion that we draw from the review, we propose that leaders’
ability to exhibit effective leadership behaviors depends on their
diversity-related competencies (i.e., cognitive understanding, so-
cial perceptiveness, and behavioral flexibility, which we discuss in
detail below). Relating to the fourth conclusion of our review,
these competencies allow leaders to proactively predict likely
future diversity-related processes and/or reactively diagnose ongo-
ing diversity-related processes in teams, enabling them to flexibly
adapt their behaviors to the (anticipated or occurring) dominant
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.
1110 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

process and, thereby, actively shaping team dynamics and out-
comes.
To determine which type of leadership is effective for address-
ing these main processes, we draw on functional leadership per-
spectives (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962), which hold
that effective leadership is a function of the interaction between the
leader and the situation in which the leader operates (see also
Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002). Team leaders should allocate their
time and energy in a way that maximizes the likelihood of enhanc-
ing the team’s performance, that is, by adequately matching their
behavior to the current or future needs of the team (Burke et al.,
2006; Fiedler, 1965; Fleishman et al., 1991; Kerr, Schriesheim,
Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974; McGrath, 1962; Osborn et al., 2002;
Zaccaro et al., 2001). As such, the matching principle we propose
is that leader behavior should counteract ineffective processes and
maximize effective ones. This means that leaders need to display
certain leadership behaviors and avoid displaying others that are
not useful or superfluous (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Given this focus
on functionality, the key question is: What can leaders do to
effectively manage the processes that transpire in diverse teams?
We propose that a distinction between person- and task-focused
leadership is useful for answering this question as it allows for a
theoretically meaningful mapping of leadership behaviors onto
diversity-related processes in teams. This is because the distinction
between person-focused and task-focused leadership behaviors
shows conceptual overlap with the distinction between the two
processes (i.e., intergroup bias and information elaboration) that
diversity can trigger.
Leader Behaviors: Person- and Task-Focused
Leadership
Over 65 different classifications of leadership can be found in
the literature (see, e.g., Bass, 1990; Burke et al., 2006; Fleishman
et al., 1991; House, 1996; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Morgeson
et al., 2010; Yukl, 2010). However, calls for parsimony have
encouraged researchers to develop a more practical categorization
system. This quest has resulted in ample theoretical and empirical
evidence that leadership behaviors can be broken down into two
broad categories. These categories include behaviors focused on
task accomplishment (henceforth labeled task-focused leadership)
and behaviors focused on facilitating team relationships and/or
development (henceforth labeled person-focused leadership; Burke et
al., 2006; Fleishman et al., 1991; Salas, Dickinson, Converse, &
Tannenbaum, 1992; Yukl, 2010; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002; Zac-
caro et al., 2001). Task-focused behaviors are those that facilitate
the understanding of task requirements, operating procedures, and
obtainment of task-relevant information. Leaders who show task-
oriented behaviors (e.g., initiating structure, intellectual stimula-
tion, contingent reward, directive leadership, concern for produc-
tion, and autocratic leadership; Bass, 1990; Fiedler, 1965; Judge et
al., 2004; Somech, 2006) focus on rewards, performance feedback,
assignment of tasks, establishment of effective communication
channels, and goal direction to concentrate team members on the
task at hand (e.g., Burns, 1978; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; Judge
et al., 2004; Pearce et al., 2003). In contrast, person-focused
leadership behaviors (e.g., supportive leadership, [individualized]
consideration, and concern for people; Bass, 1990; Judge et al.,
2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006) facilitate the social interactions
and attitudes that must be established to enable effective team
work (Hemphill & Coons, 1957). Leaders with a person-focused
approach may exhibit charisma, coaching, conflict management,
and consideration with personal problems, and promote mutual
respect, trust, positive LMX (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975),
and coherence to create motivated and cohesive teams (e.g., Bass,
1990, 1999; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; Judge et al., 2004; Kerr et
al., 1974).
We follow previous work showing that task-focused and person-
focused leadership behaviors are distinct but not mutually exclu-
sive—they can vary independently of one another. An extensive
meta-analytic review of the literature revealed a weak (often
nonsignificant) positive relationship ( ⬃r ⫽ .17) between task-
focused and person-focused leadership (Judge et al., 2004). This
Figure 1. Leadership of team diversity: The Leading Diversity (LeaD) model.
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.
1111LEADING DIVERSITY

implies that leaders can score high or low on either or both
dimensions (Blake & Mouton, 1964) and, thus, possess both types
of behaviors in their repertoire. However, even though leaders may
have the potential to use both types of behavior, task- and person-
focused behaviors do not have to be, and often cannot be, exhibited
at the same time (Kerr et al., 1974). Indeed, Waldersee, Simmons,
and Eagleson (1995) concluded that “the idea that the one indi-
vidual can, at the same time, be both task and relations-oriented is
manifestly unreasonable for the majority of managers” (p. 297).
Integrating the team diversity literature with the literature on
team leadership, we propose that person-focused leadership matches
the needs of diverse teams experiencing subgroup categorization
processes, whereas task-focused leadership matches the needs of
diverse teams experiencing information/decision-making pro-
cesses (see Figure 2). More specifically, we argue that when
diverse teams are likely to experience or are experiencing inter-
group bias, team leaders should try to prevent or suppress this
process by stimulating or facilitating cohesion and manage rela-
tionship conflicts, which may be labeled “complementary match-
ing.” Conversely, when diverse teams are likely to exhibit or are
exhibiting information elaboration, team leaders could facilitate
this process by further stimulating task understanding, epistemic
motivation, and shared mental models, which may be labeled
“supplementary matching.” Thus, we propose that leadership be-
haviors can complement (in case of diverse teams that will be or
are experiencing subgroup categorization) or supplement (in case
of diverse teams that will be or are exhibiting information elabo-
ration) the needs of diverse teams (see Cable & Edwards, 2004).
Using this matching approach, LeaD can explain inconsistent
findings from previous research in which the same leadership
behaviors had different effects (e.g., Homan & Greer, 2013; Klein
et al., 2011), as these inconsistencies potentially arise from differ-
ential needs that were present in teams.
When managing diversity in teams, we propose that leaders can
influence the relationship between team diversity and the likeli-
hood that one of these two processes will be activated as well as
manage these processes once these have been activated, which we
term proactive and reactive leadership, respectively. LeaD holds
that proactive and reactive approaches to diversity management
are important and that insights into the antecedents and contingen-
cies of both types of leader diversity management are pertinent for
a comprehensive outlook on diversity management. Proactive di-
versity leadership can set the stage for effective processes in
diverse teams by preventing categorization and concomitant inter-
group bias and/or by inviting information elaboration. However,
leaders may not always be able to proactively shape how diversity
affects team processes, and may encounter (situational) factors that
are outside of their control (McClean, Barnes, Courtright, & John-
son, 2019), such as the fact that categorization processes can occur
automatically (Ito & Urland, 2003). In such cases, reactive diver-
sity leadership is required. Reactive diversity leadership can ame-
liorate dysfunctional and facilitate functional processes and, thereby,
enhance team functioning and productivity.
In summary, we argue that at any point in time diverse teams
primarily exhibit (or display an increased tendency to exhibit)
either intergroup bias or information elaboration, which creates
different needs. We propose that leaders can proactively or reac-
tively adjust their use of person- or task-focused leadership de-
pending on what their teams need (also see McClean et al., 2019).
Consequently, leaders who have both types of behavior in their
repertoire have the potential to be more effective than leaders who
master only one (or none) of these behaviors (Blake & Mouton,
1964), but this potential can only be realized when leaders are able
to effectively and strategically shift between these behaviors de-
pending on the future or current needs of the team (McClean et al.,
2019; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991).
For leaders to be able to functionally match their leadership
behaviors to the needs of the diverse team, they must be able to
proactively predict these needs and/or reactively diagnose these
needs, and to flexibly adapt their behaviors accordingly. To do so,
we propose that leaders require three diversity-related competen-
cies: cognitive understanding, social perceptiveness, and behav-
ioral flexibility (Hooijberg et al., 1997; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, &
Mumford, 1991). These competencies help leaders predict what
processes are likely to arise in their diverse team or, if predicting
is infeasible, to diagnose the predominant process in the team as it
Key Leadership Behavior
Person-focused
(behaviors that facilitate the social interactions
and attitudes that must be established to enable
effective team work; Hemphill & Coons, 1957;
Judge et al., 2004)
Task-focused
(behaviors that facilitate the understanding of task
requirements, procedures, and obtainment of task-
relevant information; Salas et al., 1992; Zaccaro
et al., 2001)
Dominant Diversity-
related Process
Intergroup Bias
(the systematic tendency to
evaluate the in-group more
favorably than the out-group;
Hewstone et al., 2002)
Complementary Match
(e.g., by re-categorization, de-categorization,
limiting identity threat)
Mismatch
(e.g., by broadening representational gaps,
enabling conflict escalation)
Information Elaboration
(exchanging, processing, and
integrating task-relevant
information and ideas; Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004)
Mismatch
(e.g., by promoting groupthink/common
knowledge effect, rubbing away differences)
Supplementary Match
(e.g., by clarifying task structure and goals,
providing feedback, stimulating epistemic
motivation through accountability)
Figure 2. The main predictions following from Leading Diversity model (LeaD): Matching between the
diversity-related processes likely within teams and the two sets of leadership behaviors.
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.
1112 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF