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. Th...Read More

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

unfolds, and to flexibly make use of appropriate leadership behav-
iors to address anticipated or ongoing processes (see Figure 3).
Below, we detail what types of cues leaders can use to predict or
diagnose the dominant team process, discuss possible antecedents
of leaders’ diversity-related competencies that allow them to be
attentive and responsive to these cues (i.e., specific diversity-
related traits and characteristics of leaders; cf. DeRue, Nahrgang,
Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011), and illuminate the mechanisms
driving the functional matching of leader behaviors with team
processes.
Predicting Diverse Team Needs: The Role of Leader
Cognitive Understanding
When leaders are able to make a correct prognosis regarding the
diversity-related process that is most likely to become dominant in
a team they can anticipate which behavior is most likely to be
effective in proactively shaping the diverse team’s processes in a
way that intergroup bias is avoided or information elaboration is
invited. Hence, predicting is associated with proactive action of
leaders to guide dynamics in diverse teams in a more effective
direction. Seeing leaders as active agents who can shape a con-
structive team context (see also Van Knippenberg et al., 2004;
Zhao et al., 2019), we propose that when leaders are able to predict
which process will become dominant, they should act on this
prediction (e.g., preventing categorization when categorization is
predicted or further facilitating information elaboration when elab-
oration is predicted). We argue that cognitive understanding of the
possible effects of team diversity in teams helps leaders to recog-
nize the cues in the team and environment needed to predict
whether the diverse team is more likely to show intergroup bias or
information elaboration (Hooijberg et al., 1997; Mumford, Watts,
& Partlow, 2015).
Cues that help prediction. Leaders can draw on a variety of
predictive cues that can help to anticipate which process is likely
to become dominant. One such predictive cue is the specific
diversity constellation of the team. In particular, teams in which
different diversity characteristics are aligned to form a diversity
“faultline”—such as when all the technicians in a team are younger
women and all the economists are older men—tend to experience
more intergroup bias and less information elaboration (Bezrukova,
Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef,
& De Dreu, 2007b; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Conversely, teams in
which different diversity characteristics do not converge—such as
when sex, age, and education are distributed evenly across team
members (“cross-categorization”)—tend to experience less intergroup
bias and more information elaboration (Homan et al., 2007b; Sawyer,
Houlette, & Yeagley, 2006).
Leaders may also consider the reward structure of the team task.
In interdisciplinary teams, rewards can be linked to members of a
specific discipline or be overarching. The former reward structure
is more likely to result in intergroup bias and less information
elaboration than the latter (Homan et al., 2008). Furthermore,
leaders may attend to cues provided by the organizational context
to predict the team’s needs. For instance, the history of the team
may provide leaders with information about which process is likely
to be dominant in the future (Feldman, 1984; Kelly & Barsade, 2001).
Likewise, organizational diversity climates that ignore or de-
emphasize diversity (e.g., colorblindness; discrimination-and-fairness
perspectives) are more likely to set up for subgroup categorization
than climates that acknowledge and celebrate diversity (e.g., all-
inclusive multiculturalism, learning-and-effectivenessperspectives;
Ely & Thomas, 2001; Nishii, 2013; Nishii et al., 2018; Plaut, Garnett,
Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011).
Possible antecedents of cognitive understanding. Leaders
may develop cognitive understanding as a result of previous ex-
periences with diversity or training. For instance, leaders with
ample multicultural experience— extensive contact with and ex-
posure to foreign cultures (Cheng & Leung, 2013)—are likely to
have a greater cognitive understanding of the effects of team
diversity, because encountering a foreign environment helps ac-
quire new perspectives on different situations and cultures (Guti-
errez & Sameroff, 1990) and anticipate others’ interests and pri-
orities (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Galinsky et al.,
2015). Similarly, cultural intelligence—the awareness of cultural
differences and the ability to take these into consideration when
making judgments about people or situations (Ang et al., 2007;
Triandis, 2006)— can heighten leaders’ cognitive understanding.
Cultural intelligence provides people with knowledge about how
diversity influences interpersonal interactions (Ng, Van Dyne, &
Ang, 2009). Such metacognition, which can be cultivated by
organizational diversity practices (Nishii et al., 2018), shapes
responsiveness to cues that help predict the process that is likely to
become dominant in the diverse team (Adair, Hideg, & Spence,
2013; Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). Antecedents such as
these may contribute to a leader’s cognitive understanding of
diversity in teams, which we propose is critical for the effective
management of team diversity because it allows leaders to antic-
ipate diversity-related processes in teams.
Figure 3. A visualization of how diversity-related competencies of lead-
ers influence their ability to predict, diagnose, and functionally match
leadership behaviors to dominant processes within diverse teams in Lead-
ing Diversity model (LeaD).
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.
1113LEADING DIVERSITY

Proposition 1: Leaders who have a better cognitive under-
standing of how diversity may influence teams will be better
able to predict their team’s future dominant diversity-related
process.
Diagnosing Diverse Team Needs: The Role of Leader
Social Perceptiveness
Besides predicting the process that is likely to become dominant
in diverse teams, it is important for leaders to be able to diagnose
the dominant team process after it has emerged to reactively
manage teams (see Zhao et al., 2019). That is, whereas leaders may
sometimes be able to proactively shape their teams, they also need
to be able to address issues that arise in teams because of situa-
tional requirements (“ebb and flow” effects; McClean et al., 2019).
Team processes and related needs are dynamic and can change
because of contextual variations (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach,
& Alliger, 2014). Moreover, in some cases, predicting the dominant
process before it occurs can be difficult. For instance, leaders may
not have been present during the team’s initial interactions or may
themselves be newcomers to the organization. This makes them
less aware of the specific diversity characteristics or climate of the
team or organization. However, LeaD proposes that effective lead-
ers can diagnose intergroup bias and information elaboration when
these occur. We propose that a leader’s ability to successfully
diagnose the predominant diversity-related process in a team
hinges on the leader’s social perceptiveness—the awareness and
interpretation of social information regarding teams’ needs (Mum-
ford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000; Zaccaro et al.,
1991). Social perceptiveness makes leaders attentive and attuned
to the possible motives, intentions, and sensitivities of team mem-
bers, and helps them understand current relationships and situa-
tions within the team (Zaccaro et al., 1991).
Cues that help diagnosing. Leaders can draw on a variety of
diagnostic cues that can help to identify the dominant process. With
regard to diagnosing intergroup bias,research has shown that inter-
group bias can translate into verbal and nonverbal interpersonal com-
munication within teams (Devine, 1989; Dovidio, Kawakami, &
Gaertner, 2002; Fiske, 1998; Hekman et al., 2010). Teams charac-
terized by intergroup bias are likely to communicate and work in
subgroups rather than as a collective. This often manifests itself in
more distant spatial seating arrangements, increased physical dis-
tance, and closed body postures between (members of) different
subgroups (e.g., Amodio & Devine, 2006; Dotsch & Wigboldus,
2008; Ito & Urland, 2003; King & Ahmad, 2010). In addition to
observing these nonverbal processes, leaders could detect less
friendly communication, discomfort, and heated emotional argu-
ments in teams that experience intergroup bias (Dovidio et al.,
2002; Homan, Van Kleef, & Sanchez-Burks, 2016; King & Ah-
mad, 2010; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003; Zellmer-Bruhn,
Maloney, Bhappu, & Salvador, 2008).
With regard to diagnosing information elaboration, research has
shown that teams that elaborate on information focus attention on
the task at hand rather than on the self (Hinsz et al., 1997).
Moreover, information elaboration requires team members to en-
code the information exchanged within the team. This encoding
may become visible in questions for clarification and explicit
task-related conflicts about different views in team interactions
(Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991; Homan et al., 2007a). Finally,
teams characterized by information elaboration may need fewer
rounds of performance and process feedback to instigate learning
(Sniezek, May, & Sawyer, 1990), which leaders could observe.
Possible antecedents of social perceptiveness. Social per-
ceptiveness is shaped by previous experiences such as multicul-
tural encounters (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Tad-
mor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012) that help
individuals to better interpret and read social processes present in
teams (Swenson & Casmir, 1998). Additionally, social perceptive-
ness is linked to more stable traits and social abilities (Mumford et
al., 2000). For instance, the dispositional trait openness to experi-
ence entails an open mind to feelings, actions, and ideas in all
kinds of situations (Flynn, 2005) and a motivation to clarify
unexpected and new experiences (Canaday, 1980; McCrae &
Costa, 1997). Openness has been linked to social curiosity (Kash-
dan, Sherman, Yarbro, & Funder, 2013) and social competence
(Schneider, Ackerman, & Kanfer, 1996), and has been found to
stimulate more accurate perceptions of others (Hall, Andrzejewski,
& Yopchick, 2009). Similarly, emotional intelligence, defined as a
form of “social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor
one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate among them, and
to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Mayer
& Salovey, 1993, p. 433), contributes to a leader’s social percep-
tiveness and ability to diagnose relational processes in teams
(Ayoko & Konrad, 2012; Homan et al., 2015; Jordan & Troth,
2002; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Little, Gooty, & Williams, 2016;
Lopes et al., 2004; Wang, 2015). Such diversity-related traits and
characteristics shape leaders’ social perceptiveness, which we ar-
gue facilitates their ability to reactively diagnose the dominant
process in diverse teams.
Proposition 2: Leaders who have higher levels of social
perceptiveness will be better able to diagnose their team’s
current dominant diversity-related process.
Functional Matching of Leadership Behaviors and
Team Needs: The Role of Leader Behavioral
Flexibility
Once intergroup bias or information elaboration has been pre-
dicted or diagnosed, leaders must show behaviors that address their
team’s future or current needs that arise from the respective
process (e.g., resolving relational conflict in teams experiencing
categorization and concomitant intergroup bias). Such functional
matching of behaviors to needs requires behavioral flexibility—
“the ability and willingness to respond in significantly different
ways to correspondingly different situational requirements” (Zac-
caro et al., 1991, p. 322). Leaders with more behavioral flexibility
are more adaptable in their behavioral responses, which helps them
to effectively choose those responses that are required in specific
situations. Behavioral flexibility will aid leaders to effectively
match their leadership behaviors to needs arising from the future or
current dominant process instigated by the team’s diversity.
Possible antecedents of behavioral flexibility. Behavioral flex-
ibility can be acquired through multicultural experiences, which
expose individuals to a variety of work-related situations, inform-
ing them about how people in different (cultural) contexts collab-
orate and communicate with each other. Such experiences provide
leaders with tools to flexibly address a variety of needs and
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.
1114 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

understand what behaviors are (in)effective in a specific situation
(Gutierrez & Sameroff, 1990; Leung et al., 2008; Rockstuhl,
Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011; Rosenauer et al., 2016;
Tadmor et al., 2012). Another characteristic that heightens leaders’
behavioral flexibility is their interpersonal flexibility, a personality
trait that captures the ability to alter behavior in different social
situations and to flexibly use a variety of behaviors in different
situations (Paulhus & Martin, 1988; Tracey, 2005). Trait interper-
sonal flexibility is positively associated with behavioral flexibility
because it creates agility in light of existing needs (Paulhus &
Martin, 1988). Similarly, openness to experience is linked to
behavioral flexibility (Blickle, 1996; Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, &
O’Shea, 2006), because openness is associated with receptivity to
change, trying out new things, and being adaptable to changing
situations (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000). Antecedents such as
these may contribute to a leader’s behavioral flexibility in the
management of diverse teams, which in turn allows leaders to
effectively match their leadership behaviors to teams’ diversity-
related needs.
Proposition 3: Leaders who have higher levels of behavioral
flexibility will be better able to functionally match their lead-
ership behaviors to their team’s future or current dominant
diversity-related process.
Matching Leadership Behaviors to Team Needs
We propose that it is important for leaders to be able to prioritize
their focus on one or the other type of behavior (to the degree that
they master both) in light of the demands of the situation that will
be or is instigated by the team’s diversity. We argue that leaders
promote team performance to the degree that their behaviors match
the team’s needs.
Intergroup bias and complementary matching. Diverse teams
that experience intergroup bias are likely to be characterized by
conflicts, distrust, disliking, and low cohesion (Van Knippenberg
& Schippers, 2007). We propose that these negative intragroup
processes need to be managed by the leader, before the team can
effectively start working on the task at hand (e.g., Hewstone,
Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Sherif & Sherif, 1969). In this respect, we
argue that for the leader’s behavior to be effective and have
impact, they should provide to the team what the team is missing
in terms of relational bonding by providing complementary lead-
ership behaviors (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
We propose that person-focused leaders are well equipped to
avoid and counteract these negative relational processes. That is,
when leaders attend to individuals’ well-being, listen to personal
problems, solve frictions, increase trust and coherence, and engage
in conflict management, this will help prevent or address inter-
group bias by bringing together the members from different sub-
groups. Conversely, we argue that task-focused behaviors will be
less effective for managing intergroup bias for two reasons. First,
subgroup formation and concomitant intergroup bias often coin-
cide with representational gaps in teams (Cronin & Weingart,
2007), which hinder effective interpretation and use of task-
relevant information. Primarily focusing on the task and motivat-
ing information exchange may not be effective and potentially
even counterproductive in such cases, given that people tend to
reject information that comes from individuals who are viewed
negatively (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). This can stimulate additional
conflicts and misinterpretations between the different subgroups
(De Dreu et al., 2008; De Dreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005;
Tetlock, 2000; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000). Second, research on
intergroup bias and ingroup favoritism has shown that these be-
haviors are difficult to counter (e.g., Sherif & Sherif, 1969) and
that one needs effort and time to improve relationships between
subgroups (Hewstone et al., 2002). If conflicts are not adequately
managed, they may escalate (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song,
2001; Simons & Peterson, 2000) and result in negative outcomes
such as stress, turnover, absenteeism, and ineffectiveness (Dijks-
tra, De Dreu, Evers, & Van Dierendonck, 2009; Tekleab, Quigley,
& Tesluk, 2009; Zapf & Gross, 2001). In summary, we propose
that intergroup bias requires complementary matching using
person-focused leadership behaviors (rather than task-focused
leadership behaviors). This strategy can work through a number of
processes.
First, through recategorization, leaders can bring together mem-
bers of different subgroups under an overarching, common ingroup
identity (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993).
We propose that person-focused leaders are capable of transform-
ing team members’ cognitive representations of the multiple (po-
tential) subgroups within the team to a single, more inclusive
social entity by stressing egalitarian norms and cooperation and by
promoting interpersonal contact between members of subgroups
(Cook, 1985). Person-focused leaders tend to invite equal partic-
ipation (Burke et al., 2006; Pearce et al., 2003), provide an inspir-
ing overarching identity (Kearney & Gebert, 2009), and facilitate
positive contact between team members (Bass, 1990). These be-
haviors contribute to a common ingroup identity and thereby reduce
bias between subgroups (Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996;
Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990; Huo, Smith,
Tyler, & Lind, 1996).
A second process by which person-focused leaders can limit
intergroup bias is by de-categorization (i.e., individuation) of team
members. Person-focused leaders acknowledge and appreciate in-
dividual feelings and ideas (Fleishman & Peters, 1962) and inspire
participation and positive relationships between team members.
This makes it likely that they will perceive their followers as
unique individuals rather than as members of diversity-related sub-
groups. The tendency of person-focused leaders to prompt individ-
uation should be especially likely to become manifest in diverse
teams, which are characterized by differences between individual
team members that create potential for individuation (Homan,
Greer, Jehn, & Koning, 2010). This individuation is likely to limit
further subgroup activation because it makes the potential social
categories that distinguish team members from one another irrel-
evant (Gaertner et al., 2000). If members of different subgroups
perceive each other as unique individuals (Wilder, 1981) or have
repeated personal interactions that enable them to get to know each
other and even become friends (Pettigrew, 1998), the validity of
outgroup stereotypes is undermined and intergroup bias is reduced
(Brewer & Miller, 1984; Gaertner et al., 2000). This individuation
should in turn positively influence the relationships within the
team as a whole and result in better team performance (Homan &
Greer, 2013).
Finally, person-focused leaders can address intergroup bias by
decreasing identity threat. Intergroup situations can lead to an
experience of threat (Tajfel, 1982). People desire to feel positive
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.
1115LEADING DIVERSITY

about themselves and they derive much of their self-esteem from
the groups to which they belong (Hogg, Van Knippenberg, & Rast,
2012; Turner et al., 1987). When there is another group present
that threatens the positive evaluation of their own ingroup, people
tend to show ingroup favoritism to repair the standing and value of
their own group. In diverse teams, subgroup formation can create
identity threat and lead to ingroup favoritism (Branscombe &
Wann, 1994). Person-focused leaders use relationship manage-
ment and support to create positive relationships (e.g., Nishii &
Mayer, 2009; Stewart & Johnson, 2009), which brings team mem-
bers closer together. This improves feelings of psychological
safety and trust among the team members, which in turn reduce
threat (Matheson & Cole, 2004) and intergroup bias (Hewstone et
al., 2002). These arguments converge in the following proposition:
Proposition 4: Diverse teams that are characterized by greater
intergroup bias will perform better to the degree that the leader
exhibits relatively more person-focused leadership behaviors
(and relatively fewer task-focused leadership behaviors).
Information elaboration and supplementary matching.
Diverse teams that engage in information elaboration are charac-
terized by the exchange and processing of divergent information,
perspectives, and ideas. However, the link between information
elaboration and positive outcomes in teams does not guarantee
better performance. Information elaboration effectiveness may be
hampered, for instance, when teams do not possess a shared mental
model of the task (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), are not suffi-
ciently motivated to think thoroughly about the task (De Dreu et
al., 2008), or focus more on shared rather than unique information
(Gigone & Hastie, 1993; Stasser & Titus, 2003). Therefore, we
propose that leaders should provide a supplementary match, by
facilitating task-focused information exchange and processing.
We argue that task-focused leaders will provide such supple-
mentary matching, by clarifying task structures and goals, provid-
ing feedback, and increasing accountability. Conversely, we pro-
pose that person-focused leaders will be less effective in diverse
teams engaged in information elaboration for two reasons. First,
such teams tend to be characterized by higher levels of intragroup
trust and positive interpersonal relationships (Simons & Peterson,
2000; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As Kerr and Jermier (1978)
note, the effects of person-focused leadership can be neutralized in
this situation as the leader does not address anything that the team
is not already providing to itself. Second, person-focused leaders
might inadvertently lead groups to focus too much on consensus
seeking and thereby limit constructive controversy and the ex-
change of unique information (Asch, 1955; Festinger, 1950; Janis,
1982; Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001; Tjosvold, Wedley, &
Field, 1986). Work on the common knowledge bias, hidden pro-
files, and groupthink shows that too much cohesion and conver-
gence can lead to suboptimal performance, because team members
tend to focus on shared rather than unshared information, under-
utilize diversity, are uncritical, and agree too quickly on a course
of action (Gigone & Hastie, 1993; Homan et al., 2008; Janis, 1982;
Stasser & Titus, 1985, 2003). Therefore, we propose that informa-
tion elaboration requires supplementary matching using task-
focused leadership behaviors (rather than person-focused leader-
ship). This strategy can work through a number of processes.
First, task-focused leaders structure tasks and procedures and
provide team members with a clear context for collaboration.
Within this context, information elaboration occurs on the basis of
objectives, tasks, missions, or collective goals (Kaplan, Schaefer,
& Zinkiewicz, 1994; Lin, 2007). In other words, to effectively
exchange, use, and integrate information, teams need to have a
shared reality of the tasks they confront (Bettenhausen & Mur-
nighan, 1991; Festinger, 1950). Providing structure can further
promote effective information elaboration by organizing the
team’s retrieval and combination of information (Mesmer-Magnus
& DeChurch, 2009; Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989). In line with
this idea, research has revealed that formal procedures, such as
agendas and decision rules, can positively affect information shar-
ing and outcomes of decision-making groups (Kauffeld & Lehmann-
Willenbrock, 2012; Stasser et al., 1989).
Second, feedback—an instrument task-focused leaders often
use—is crucial for team functioning (Tindale, 1989). Feedback can
provide team members with more accurate representations of oth-
ers as well as of task progress, which can result in a better use of
informational diversity (Sniezek et al., 1990). Adequate feedback
can also improve team efficacy (Bandura, 1986), which in turn
may increase the motivation to engage in processes that benefit the
task at hand; thus, boosting information elaboration (Zaccaro et al.,
2001).
Finally, task-focused leaders increase accountability of their
team members by using rewards to distinguish the team’s and
individual team members’ contributions (London, Smither, & Ad-
sit, 1997; Nishii et al., 2018). Enhancing a sense of accountability
within the team can increase epistemic motivation (Scholten, Van
Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2007)—the willingness to
spend effort to develop a thorough, deep, and rich understanding of
a situation (De Dreu et al., 2008; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; see
also Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Such motivation is related to the
discussion of unshared information and the careful processing of
task-relevant material (Kearney et al., 2009; Kelly & Loving,
2004; Van Kleef et al., 2009). In short, we propose:
Proposition 5: Diverse teams that are characterized by greater
information elaboration will perform better to the degree that
the leader exhibits relatively more task-focused leadership
behaviors (and relatively fewer person-focused leadership
behaviors).
Temporal Dynamics
In the previous section, we discussed the matching of leadership
to the dominant process instigated by diversity as occurring in a
(relatively) stable situation, in which the leader was able to predict
or diagnose the team’s needs, which in turn required a certain
leadership behavior. However, teams change and their needs might
change as well. This requires leaders to be dynamic in their
behaviors, depending on the needs that the team’s diversity cre-
ates. In their extensive review of research on dynamic leadership
behaviors, McClean and colleagues (2019) suggest that leader
behaviors change over time for different reasons and in different
ways. Drawing on their work, we suggest that team diversity can
be conceptualized as a dynamic exigency (i.e., need), which might
stimulate leaders (who have the necessary competencies and skills)
to adapt their behavioral responses to the anticipated or current
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.
1116 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

situation in a multidirectional fashion (i.e., from person-focused to
task-focused behaviors and vice versa). That is, leaders should
show behavioral dynamism, adapting their response over time
depending on what is required by the diverse team. We argue that
effective behavioral dynamism demands leaders to understand
when the team’s needs change and necessitates a different ap-
proach. Whereas behavioral flexibility provides the leader with the
ability to show such dynamic leadership behaviors, predicting and
diagnosing are the necessary prerequisites for leaders to be able to
display the adequate dynamic leadership behavior (relatively more
person- or task-focused behaviors) depending on the diverse
team’s needs. We propose that anticipated and unanticipated
events as well as effective matching in itself require behavioral
dynamism.
Anticipated events influencing the team’s composition or environ-
ment provide a unique opportunity for leaders to use their predictive
capabilities. A new team composition, organizational reorganiza-
tion, or altered reward structure may stimulate subgroup categori-
zation and concomitant intergroup bias or might inspire groups to
start elaborating information (Arrow & McGrath, 1995; Hewstone
et al., 2002; Moreland & Levine, 1982). Dormant faultlines, which
did not affect the team before, might be activated by the planned
addition of a new team member who strengthens this faultline
(Thatcher & Patel, 2012). In this situation, leaders should proac-
tively adapt their behavior and become relatively more person-
focused once the new team member joins the team. Similarly,
active faultlines might become dormant and less consequential
when a newly implemented reward structure cross-categorizes an
existing faultline, which in turn should lead the leader to proac-
tively display more task-focused behaviors once the new reward
structure is in place.
Proposition 6a: In case of anticipated events, leaders’ ability
to predict their team’s dominant diversity-related process as a
result of these events stimulates the proactive shifting of their
leadership behaviors.
Unanticipated events affecting the team’s composition or envi-
ronment might be caused by absenteeism and turnover, unexpected
failure or success, or economic instability. Using predictive capa-
bilities in such situations might be more difficult (McClean et al.,
2019), but leaders can use their diagnostic skills to understand how
the diverse team was affected by the unanticipated change or
event. The unexpected failure to finish a project on time because
of equipment malfunction might set off subgroup categorization
and conflict (Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002), requiring
the leader to reactively show more person-focused leadership.
Similarly, the unexpected turnover of two team members could
change communication channels within the team, requiring the
leader to reactively exhibit relatively more task-focused leadership
to manage these new communication channels.
Proposition 6b: In case of unanticipated events, leaders’ abil-
ity to diagnose their team’s dominant diversity-related process
as a result of these events stimulates the reactive shifting of
their leadership behaviors.
Finally, we argue that effective matching by the leader may also
require behavioral changes over time. That is, when a leader has
effectively alleviated intergroup bias within a team, he or she
should then reduce the emphasis on person-focused leadership (as
continuing to focus on relationships would create a mismatch
between the leader’s behavior and existing diversity-related team
processes) and increase the emphasis on task-focused leadership.
This form of leader dynamism can be predictive as well as diag-
nostic. That is, if leaders understand how their behavior affects
diverse teams over time, they will recognize that once conflicts are
solved, person-focused leadership becomes less appropriate. As
such, effective matching will stimulate both proactively and reac-
tively changing leadership behaviors over time to keep matching
the dominant process instigated by the team’s diversity.
Implications
Based on the basic tenets of our LeaD model, we have put
forward propositions that are firmly grounded in theory. Below,
we first suggest various methodologies and research designs that
may be used to empirically test LeaD’s propositions, as well as to
generate additional research questions informed by LeaD. We then
summarize how LeaD helps to integrate current and stimulate
future knowledge on the interplay between team diversity and
team leadership, which is followed by theoretical and practical
implications.
Testing LeaD
LeaD provides researchers with clear guidelines on how to
systematically test the important intersection between team diver-
sity and team leadership. First, controlled tests of the model that
allow for causal conclusions require experimental research. To test
LeaD’s propositions, key diversity-related processes (i.e., inter-
group bias and information elaboration) can be experimentally
turned on (or off) by manipulating established moderators such as
information distribution, diversity beliefs, and subgroup salience
(Brown & Miller, 2000; Homan et al., 2007a, 2008, 2010; Lau &
Murnighan, 1998; Nishii, 2013; Van Knippenberg, Haslam, &
Platow, 2007). Person-focused versus task-focused leadership can
be manipulated by using confederates, written instructions, or
video clips of leaders (e.g., Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997; Van
Kleef et al., 2009).
Second, quasi-experimental setups can help gain insight in the
relationship between leaders’ diversity-related competencies and
their ability to predict, diagnose, and flexibly adapt their behaviors
to team needs. This research could test whether leaders who score
higher on the illustrative traits and characteristics discussed above
(i.e., multicultural experience, cultural intelligence, emotional in-
telligence, interpersonal flexibility, and openness to experience)
are indeed better able to predict, diagnose, and subsequently flex-
ibly adapt their behavior to team needs via better cognitive under-
standing, social perceptiveness, and behavioral flexibility. Such
research could, for instance, measure the strength of leaders’
diversity-related traits (e.g., openness to experience) and record their
behavior or assess their preferred behavioral response toward diverse
teams that either experience intergroup bias or engage in information
elaboration or that are likely to experience these processes in the
future given predictive cues in the environment such as the existence
of diversity faultlines (Phillips, Weisbuch, & Ambady, 2014; Waller,
Sohrab, & Ma, 2013).
Third, field research is needed to establish the generalizability of
the model by examining a broad range of diversity characteristics.
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.
1117LEADING DIVERSITY

Longitudinal research would be particularly valuable. One could
measure the degree to which diverse teams experience intergroup
bias and information elaboration (Gaertner et al., 1990, 2000;
Homan et al., 2007a, 2008; Kearney & Gebert, 2009) and assess
person- and task-focused leadership. A prediction would be that,
over time, team performance increases to the degree that leader-
ship behaviors more frequently match the processes that are dom-
inant in the diverse team at a given time.
Fourth, to speak to the temporal dynamics of diversity effects
and the resulting need for leaders to address changing team needs
with specific behaviors (see also Dinh et al., 2014), diary studies
would be informative (e.g., Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Derks,
2016; Rispens & Demerouti, 2016). Closely following members of
different teams over time could yield rich insights into the variety
and variability of the team’s diversity-related processes. Similarly,
researchers could make use of coding software to look at the
microdynamics in teams over time to see if changes in the team are
diagnosed and correctly matched by the leader (Kozlowski, 2015;
Lehmann-Willenbrock, Meinecke, Rowold, & Kauffeld, 2015). In
this way, not only the dynamics of team processes and associated
needs for certain leadership behaviors can be measured, but also
the leader’s responses to these changes. Including leader traits and
characteristics (e.g., multicultural experiences or emotional intel-
ligence) can contribute to a better understanding of the require-
ments for functional matching.
Fifth, when theorizing about diversity one can conceptualize
diversity as separation, variety, or disparity (Harrison & Klein,
2007). Depending on a researcher’s assumptions about the role of
diversity within the team (e.g., will diversity instigate polarization,
a unique pool of divergent resources, or inequality), theorizing
about the functionality of certain leader behaviors may also change.
We suggest that when diversity is conceptualized as separation
(i.e., degree to which there are opposing subgroups), it is more
likely that the team experiences intergroup bias when separation is
maximal (i.e., in line with faultline theory; Lau & Murnighan,
1998). With regards to variety (i.e., team member differences on a
categorical attribute), we argue that to the degree that a team has
moderate variety, teams are more likely to split up into subgroups
(e.g., three members from China vs. three from Germany vs. three
from Brazil) than when there is maximum variety (i.e., nine
different nationalities within the team). Maximum variety could
facilitate information elaboration (and not intergroup bias). The
work on disparity (i.e., the distribution of a valued resource among
team members) is less clear-cut. Some predicted that maximum
disparity (e.g., one powerful team member vs. all powerless team
members) leads to most conflicts within teams (Siegel & Ham-
brick, 2005), whereas others argued that a clear hierarchy guards
against conflict (Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008) or that
the effects of disparity depend on the average power level of the
team (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010) or on the ambiguity of the task
(Greer, De Jong, Schouten, & Dannals, 2018). Thus, researchers
should be aware that particular conceptualizations of diversity are
more likely than others to be associated with information elabo-
ration or subgroup categorization and intergroup bias, which may
shape interactions between leadership and diversity. For instance,
when theorizing about diversity in terms of separation rather than
variety, one may predict greater effectiveness of person-focused
rather than task-focused leadership, as higher levels of separation
are more likely to instigate intergroup bias.
Finally, the context in which the team operates might require
leaders to be more or less attentive to certain cues. For instance,
Bell and Kozlowski (2002) proposed that virtual teams, which are
composed of members who are spatially and temporally distrib-
uted, require different leadership behaviors than do conventional
teams. Although these team members are still interdependent and
work on a common task, they typically use computer-mediated
communication (e.g., e-mail, Skype), which makes it more diffi-
cult to perceive differences between group members. This could
reduce intergroup bias. However, when social processes go awry,
hostile verbal behavior and negative communication patterns can
be amplified in virtual teams (Thompson, 1996). Leaders’ ability
to show person-focused leadership to address such subgroup cat-
egorization processes might take more time and effort in virtual
teams, as leaders cannot manage conflict in personal face-to-face
interactions. Moreover, leaders may experience more difficulty in
diagnosing team needs, as virtual settings have less rich cues
available (Daft & Lengel, 1986), which could make leaders’ com-
petencies for adequately detecting team processes even more im-
portant. Future research should examine LeaD in virtual teams
given their increased prevalence in modern organizations.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
In unraveling the role of leadership in managing diversity in
teams, LeaD integrates team diversity research with research on
(team) leadership (e.g., Greer et al., 2012; Homan & Greer, 2013;
Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Somech, 2006).
LeaD stresses the critical importance of matching leadership be-
haviors to the specific needs arising from predominant diversity-
related team processes. The model draws on the functional ap-
proach to leadership (Burke et al., 2006; Fiedler, 1965; Osborn et
al., 2002) and specifies conditions under which diverse teams can
optimally perform when diversity-related needs are successfully
addressed by the leader. We argued that competencies of leaders can
help them to be proactive— by accurately predicting the dominant
process associated with the team’s diversity—and reactive— by ac-
curately diagnosing the dominant process associated with the team’s
diversity— diversity managers,who flexibly show complementary
person-focused (in case of intergroup bias) or supplementary task-
focused (in case of information elaboration) leadership behaviors.
Our review of papers on the interactive relationship between
team diversity and team leadership illustrated that (a) diversity
main effects are rare and that leaders can shape diversity effects;
(b) there is need for an integrative theory on how leadership
moderates team diversity effects as similar leadership behaviors
show inconsistent effects; (c) both leadership behaviors and lead-
ership competencies interact with team diversity, but it is unclear
how these leadership concepts interrelate; and (d) leaders have
been examined both as proactive as well as reactive managers of
team diversity. LeaD addresses these four observations and brings
the field forward by describing and illuminating the complex
interplay between team diversity and team leadership.
Speaking to the first two observations, we proposed that diverse
teams that experience intergroup bias require relatively more
person-focused leadership behaviors, whereas diverse teams that
experience information elaboration need relatively more task-
focused leadership behaviors. All types of diversity can potentially
instigate both processes (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) and lead-
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.
1118 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

ers should proactively or reactively adapt their leadership approach
to these two processes. Our approach to leaders as diversity man-
agers helps to explain contrasting empirical evidence on the inter-
action between team diversity and team leadership. As an illustra-
tion, consider the inconsistent findings concerning person-focused
leadership as reported in Klein et al. (2011) and Homan and Greer
(2013). Klein et al. (2011) showed that person-focused leadership
strengthened the positive relationship between team diversity and
relationship conflict, which in turn negatively influenced perfor-
mance. Conversely, Homan and Greer (2013) found that person-
focused leadership decreased the positive relationship between
team diversity and subgroup categorization, which in turn improved
performance. Without an integrative theoretical framework, these two
contrasting findings would be puzzling,and person-focused leader-
ship effects difficult to predict. However, LeaD can illuminate why
the same leadership behavior has positive effects in one study but
negative effects in the other. That is, we would propose that in the
Klein et al. study (that was conducted in a relatively cooperative
nonprofit setting), teams were less likely to experience subgroup
categorization and intergroup bias, which would make person-focused
leadership less relevant. By contrast, in the Homan and Greer (2013)
study (that was conducted in a relatively competitive for-profit set-
ting), teams may have experienced more subgroup categorization and
intergroup bias, which made person-focused leadership a supplemen-
tary match to the team’s needs.
In line with previous research (e.g., Burke et al., 2006), LeaD
distinguishes between two broad categories of leadership behav-
iors (i.e., task- and person-focused). A clear benefit of this ap-
proach is that a broader classification provides a more parsimoni-
ous and broadly applicable theoretical framework to work with.
Rather than restricting researchers to a single (idiosyncratic) frame-
work, LeaD provides researchers with the opportunity to focus on
concrete behaviors that can be grouped under person- or task-focused
leadership. Furthermore, our review showed that next to specific
leadership behaviors, certain characteristics of leaders (e.g., emotional
intelligence, cultural intelligence, diversity beliefs; e.g., Ayoko &
Konrad, 2012; Groves & Feyerherm, 2011; Kunze et al., 2013; Lisak,
Erez, Sui, & Lee, 2016; Schölmerich, Schermuly, & Deller, 2016,
2017; Rosenauer et al., 2016) also moderate team diversity effects.
Instead of focusing on either leader behaviors or characteristics, LeaD
proposes that these interact such that certain leader characteristics
develop or stimulate diversity-related competencies in leaders that in
turn make effective proactive and reactive matching of leadership
behaviors to the diverse team’s needs possible.
That is, we propose that leader competencies are important in
understanding the needs of diverse teams—rather than simply
enacting their preferred style, leaders must actively determine
when to display certain behaviors to be effective. To do so, leaders
require cognitive understanding, social perceptiveness, and behav-
ioral flexibility. These competencies can be developed and learned
over time by stimulating multicultural experiences or by training
leaders’ cultural and emotional intelligence (Black & Gregersen,
2000; Dragoni et al., 2014; McClean et al., 2019; Schutte, Malouff,
& Thorsteinsson, 2013). Additionally, leaders who possess higher
trait-level openness to experience or behavioral flexibility are
more likely to have these competencies. LeaD links these traits to
specific competencies to explain why leader traits moderate diver-
sity effects. As such, LeaD opens up new avenues of research by
proposing that these competencies help leaders to effectively
match certain leadership behaviors with the dominant diversity-
related process.
Finally, speaking to the fourth observation, LeaD sees the leader
as an active manager of diversity effects by influencing the rela-
tionship between team diversity and team processes, but also
acknowledges that leaders can shape processes instigated by di-
versity after they are present in the team. Given the difficulties
associated with predicting the future effects of diversity, reacting
to the current state of the team is sometimes not only the most
practical but also the only option. As such, LeaD extends extant
ideas in the literature (e.g., CEM; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004)
by stressing that the moderating role of leadership takes place not
only before the processes are instigated but also after the process
has been instigated. Focusing on both sides of the coin (i.e.,
proactive and reactive leadership) rather than assuming that lead-
ers can always determine outcomes and processes before these
arise provides a necessary additional outlook on leaders as diver-
sity managers. Whereas some previous research has examined lead-
ership as a moderator of the processes instigated by diversity (Ayoko
& Konrad, 2012; Hsu, Li, & Sun, 2017; Mayo, Van Knippenberg,
Guillén, & Firfiray, 2016; Wickramasinghe & Nandula, 2015; Zhang
& Guo, 2019), empirical research on reactive leadership of team
diversity is still scarce. Therefore, more research is required on the
reactive (in addition to the proactive) side of diversity management by
leaders. LeaD can guide this research by describing when and how a
leader’s reactive role will be effective in diverse teams.
In this respect, we do note that the current work does not suggest
leaders cannot influence teams directly by, for example, their role
in team member selection or by translating organizational diversity
initiatives to the team. That is, we acknowledge that leaders can
have direct (“main”) effects on team processes and outcomes
(Burke et al., 2006; Day et al., 2006; Morgeson et al., 2010;
Zaccaro et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2019). However, these direct
effects of leadership on teams (and individuals and organizations)
are beyond the scope of our model, which specifically focuses on
the interplay between team diversity and team leadership.
LeaD broadens the picture of leaders’ role as diversity manag-
ers, suggesting that leaders should show behaviors that function-
ally match the dominant processes within the team (which can
change over time). We acknowledge that team processes are dy-
namic (Mathieu et al., 2014), and this requires the leader to be
aware of not only the impact of their own behaviors but also of
anticipated and unanticipated changes in the environment. We
argue that cognitive understanding of diversity effects in teams
helps to predict changes in the future processes instigated by
diversity as a result of anticipated events. At the same time,
unanticipated events require social perceptiveness to diagnose the
influence of these events on the dominant process within the team.
LeaD might also have implications that go beyond the direct
management of team processes and outcomes. Whereas diversity
research has generated knowledge about the effects and processes
of exclusion and discrimination, we lack a thorough understanding
of the leader-related processes and practices that foster workplace
inclusion and synergistic performance benefits. LeaD enhances
such understanding by illuminating how leaders can bring mem-
bers of diverse teams to work together effectively by focusing not
only on eliminating intergroup bias, but also on actively stimulat-
ing the use of diversity so that every team member can contribute
to the team. We suggest that effective leadership of team diversity
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.
1119LEADING DIVERSITY

may over time result in more favorable attitudes toward diversity
at the organizational or industry level (Roberson, 2006), because
effective team diversity leadership can develop more inclusive
cultures in which all individuals feel accepted and appreciated.
Furthermore, these effective leadership behaviors might “trickle
down” to team members, who may come to experience better and
more productive interactions with diverse others. This could pro-
mote prodiversity attitudes, which in turn feed into better team
performance (Homan et al., 2007a).
In this respect, it is important to acknowledge previous argu-
ments, reviews, and overviews regarding the effectiveness of di-
versity practices and initiatives on the team and organizational
level (e.g., Bezrukova, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Dobbin, Kalev, &
Kelly, 2007; Ellemers & Rink, 2016; Guillaume et al., 2014; Joshi
& Roh, 2009; Mor Barak et al., 2016; Moss-Racusin et al., 2014;
Nishii et al., 2018; Yang & Konrad, 2011). Besides leadership,
organizations may have a variety of policies and practices in place
that can help in managing the experienced inclusion of their
diverse employees. There still is a strong focus on a “one-size-fits
all” approach to diversity interventions and practices, assuming
that certain interventions, provided that these are effectively im-
plemented in the organization, will have positive consequences for
the experiences of the employees. LeaD calls for a qualification of
these ideas. More specifically, when translating our ideas concern-
ing functional leadership to functional diversity management at the
organizational rather than the team level, we suggest that consid-
ering the needs of the employees is crucial in understanding the
conditions under which such interventions are more or less useful.
For instance, installing buddy systems to stimulate social interac-
tions between demographic subgroups might be more effective for
organizations characterized by subgroup categorization than for
organizations characterized by information elaboration, whereas
actively increasing diversity might be more effective in organiza-
tions characterized by information elaboration rather than inter-
group bias.
We argued that for leaders to functionally adapt their behaviors
to the needs of the team, leaders require certain competencies,
namely predicting, diagnosing, and functional matching. To ex-
plain how leaders may obtain or develop such competencies, we
discussed a number of illustrative constructs (i.e., multicultural
experience, cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, interper-
sonal flexibility, and openness to experience), which range from
more stable traits to characteristics that can be trained or developed
over time (Schutte et al., 2013; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Moreover, by
introducing important leader competencies, which make functional
leadership more likely, our model speaks to the development of
effective diversity leaders. That is, we move beyond leadership
styles, which might be more stable and dispositional, and put
trainable competencies and characteristics of leaders at the fore-
ground of diversity management (cf. Tasselli, Kilduff, & Landis,
2018).
In a practical sense, organizations may benefit from incorporat-
ing these ideas into how they recruit, select, and develop leaders.
In the recruitment and selection of leaders, organizations could
focus on specific diversity-related traits and characteristics such as
time spent abroad and diversity education during college (Bell,
Connerley, & Cocchiara, 2009). Society and teaching institutions
could also stimulate these experiences and thereby develop better
employable workers for the increasingly diverse workforce. Be-
sides selecting leaders with these characteristics, leaders can also
be aided to obtain or further develop relevant behaviors or com-
petencies by means of training, coaching, or experiences (Mathieu,
Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992; McClean et al., 2019; Tannenbaum,
Smith-Jentsch, & Behson, 1998). In this respect, it is important to
understand the needs of leaders, and provide specific training
programs that, for instance, focus on the development of (a com-
bination of) cognitive understanding, social perceptiveness, and
behavioral flexibility rather than overly broad programs (cf. Anand
& Winters, 2008; Guillaume, Dawson, Woods, Sacramento, &
West, 2013). The focus on developing these diversity-related com-
petencies also moves beyond current practices of diversity training
and ideologies to address sensitivities and biases concerning a
variety of diversity characteristics, which are often ineffective
(Homan, Buengeler, Eckhoff, Van Ginkel, & Voelpel, 2015; Nk-
omo & Hoobler, 2014), and may increase exclusion rather than
inclusion (Gebert, Buengeler, & Heinitz, 2017). Finally, incorpo-
rating 360-degree feedback systems could help leaders better un-
derstand the needs of different constituent groups, and as such
stimulate cognitive understanding (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm,
& McKee, 2014).
Conclusion
LeaD offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the
role of leaders in managing team diversity. While primarily
grounded in organizational and social psychological literatures, the
model’s implications are far-reaching. Diversity is not limited to
organizations, but is also present in schools, neighborhoods, sport
teams, and society as a whole. This means that the insights from
this article are relevant for researchers and practitioners in other
social sciences, such as economics, sociology, sport psychology,
political sciences, and education. For instance, research based on
LeaD can also inform sociological research on how to manage
diversity in communities, understanding of the role of the govern-
ment in dealing with diversity issues, and research on diversity in
schools (Oortwijn, Homan, & Saab, 2010). By offering testable
propositions and providing an agenda for future research, we hope
to contribute to a more systematic approach to research on lead-
ership in diverse teams. This will bring us closer to understanding
how to reap the benefits in diversity by creating true synergy
between team diversity and leadership in the workplace.
References
References marked with an asterisk were included in our review.
Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent
team: The impact of team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity
on team shared values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 941–
962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492894
Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in
implicit race bias: Evidence for independent constructs and unique
effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
652– 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.652
Anand, R., & Winters, M. F. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate
diversity training from 1964 to the present. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 7, 356 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008
.34251673
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., &
Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and
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.
1120 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation
and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–
371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at
work - a theoretical framework. Research in Organizational Behavior,
17, 373– 411.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193,
31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
ⴱ
Ayoko, O. B., & Konrad, A. M. (2012). Leaders’ transformational, con-
flict, and emotion management behaviors in culturally diverse work-
groups. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 31, 694 –724. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1108/02610151211277581
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and
research. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in trans-
formational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 9 –32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams:
Implications for effective management. Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 27, 14 – 49.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003
Bell, M. P., Connerley, M. L., & Cocchiara, F. K. (2009). The case for
mandatory diversity education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 8, 597– 609.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an
intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20 –35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2393428
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity
training: Where we have been and where we should go. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 11, 207–227. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/amle.2008.0090
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The
effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cul-
tures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 77–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023684
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (2000). High impact training: Forging
leaders for the global frontier. Human Resource Management, 39, 173–
184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-050X(200022/23)39:2/3 ⬍173::
AID-HRM7⬎3.0.CO;2-W
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance.
European Journal of Personality, 10, 337–352. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5⬍337::AID-PER258⬎3.0.CO;2-7
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homo-
geneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Re-
search, 31, 305–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303
Branscombe, N., & Wann, D. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences
of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641– 657. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/ejsp.2420240603
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2016). Who
takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engage-
ment, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,
309 –325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2041
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A
cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis:
Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer
(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–
302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-497780-8.50019-X
Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-
performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time pressure, and inter-
personal dominance. Small Group Research, 31, 131–157. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/104649640003100201
ⴱ
Buengeler, C., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). National diversity and team
performance: The moderating role of interactional justice climate. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 831– 855.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.991345
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin,
S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?
A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 –307. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary
fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 89, 822– 834. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
Canaday, J. (1980). What is art? New York, NY: Knopf.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chatman, J. A., Greer, L. L., Sherman, E., & Doerr, B. (2019). Blurred
lines: How the collectivism norm operates through perceived group
diversity to boost or harm group performance in Himalayan mountain
climbing. Organization Science, 30, 235–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.2018.1268
Cheng, C. Y., & Leung, A. K. Y. (2013). Revisiting the multicultural
experience– creativity link: The effects of perceived cultural distance
and comparison mind-set. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
4, 475– 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612462413
ⴱ
Choudhury, P., & Haas, M. R. (2018). Scope versus speed: Team diver -
sity, leader experience, and patenting outcomes for firms. Strategic
Management Journal, 39, 977–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2753
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues. The case of school
desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452– 460. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.40.4.452
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group
cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group
task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827– 847.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information
processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of
Management Review, 32, 761–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007
.25275511
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information require-
ments, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32,
554 –571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage
approach to leadership in formal organizations.OrganizationalBehavior
and Human Performance, 13, 46 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(75)90005-7
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A.
(2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25
years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63– 82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based
organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly,
17, 211–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.001
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008).
Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision mak-
ing. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22– 49. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as
a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process
accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345–357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.345
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.
1121LEADING DIVERSITY

ⴱ
De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2014). Leadership and
organizational tenure diversity as determinants of project team effec-
tiveness. Group & Organization Management, 39, 532–560. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1059601114550711
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E.
(2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64,
7–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and
controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56, 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
Dijkstra, M. T. M., De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., & Van Dierendonck, D.
(2009). Passive responses to interpersonal conflict at work amplify
employee strain. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology, 18, 405– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802510880
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu,
J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Cur-
rent theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 25, 36 – 62.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Dobbin, F., Kalev, A., & Kelly, E. (2007). Diversity management in corporate
America. Contexts, 6, 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.4.21
Dotsch, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2008). Virtual prejudice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1194 –1198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jesp.2008.03.003
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit
prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 62– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62
Dragoni, L., OH, I. S., Tesluk, P. E., Moore, O. A., VanKatwyk, P., &
Hazucha, J. (2014). Developing leaders’ strategic thinking through global
work experience: The moderating role of cultural distance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 867– 882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036628
Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What
makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group
Dynamics, 10, 249 –271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249
Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2016). Diversity in work groups. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 11, 49 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.001
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects
of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229 –273. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2667087
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms.
The Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1984.4277934
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Re-
view, 57, 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056932
Fiedler, F. E. (1965). The Contingency Model: A theory of leadership
effectiveness. In H. Proshansky & B. Seidenberg (Eds.), Basic studies in
social psychology (pp. 538 –551). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (pp. 357– 411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin,
A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader
behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 4, 245–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90016-U
Fleishman, E. A., & Peters, D. R. (1962). Interpersonal values, leadership
attitudes and managerial success. Personnel Psychology, 15, 127–143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01855.x
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to
experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 816 – 826.http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.88.5.816
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, E. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust,
M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization
and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Lon-
don, UK: Wiley.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the
contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. Inter-
national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271–290. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00019-3
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., &
McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate
goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation.
Group Dynamics, 4, 98 –114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M.
(1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.59.4.692
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why
it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects
of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Sci-
ence, 19, 378 –384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
Galinsky, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum,
E. P., Sasaki, S. J., . . . Maddux, W. W. (2015). Maximizing the gains
and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 10, 742–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1745691615598513
ⴱ
García-Granero, A., Fernández-Mesa, A., Jansen, J. J., & Vega-Jurado, J.
(2018). Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contin-
gent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust. Long Range
Planning, 51, 881– 893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.11.001
Gebert, D., Buengeler, C., & Heinitz, K. (2017). Tolerance-a neglected
dimension in diversity training? Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 16, 415– 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0252
ⴱ
Georgakakis, D., Greve, P., & Ruigrok, W. (2017). Top management team
faultlines and firm performance: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. The
Leadership Quarterly, 28, 741–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017
.03.004
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information
sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 959 –974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959
Greer, L. L., De Jong, B. A., Schouten, M. E., & Dannals, J. E. (2018).
Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic
integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 591– 613. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/apl0000291
ⴱ
Greer, L. L., Homan, A. C., De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N.
(2012). Tainted visions: The effect of visionary leader behaviors and
leader categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethni-
cally diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 203–213. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025583
Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation:
The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 1032–1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020373
ⴱ
Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in
context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on
leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36,
535–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601111415664
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Brodbeck, F. C., & Riketta, M. (2012). Surface-and
deep-level dissimilarity effects on social integration and individual ef-
fectiveness related outcomes in work groups: A meta-analytic integra-
tion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 80 –
115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02005.x
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S. A., & West,
M. A. (2017). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What
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.
1122 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

moderates the effects of workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 276 –303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2040
Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Priola, V., Sacramento, C. A., Woods,
S. A., Higson, H. E., . . . West, M. A. (2014). Managing diversity in
organizations: An integrative model and agenda for future research.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 783–
802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.805485
Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C. A., & West,
M. A. (2013). Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and
what we still don’t know. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86, 123–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12009
Gutierrez, J., & Sameroff, A. (1990). Determinants of complexity in
Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers’ conceptions of child
development. Child Development, 61, 384 –394. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/1131099
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great perfor-
mances. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations.
In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial
correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonver-
bal Behavior, 33, 149 –180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0070-5
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy
of Management Review, 32, 1199 –1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr
.2007.26586096
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational
demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity
on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96 –107.
ⴱ
Hassan, S. Y., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., & Zubair, A. (2015).
The impact of transformational leadership on employee’s creative self-
efficacy: The moderating role of cognitive diversity. International Jour-
nal of Information, Business and Management, 7, 251–262.
Hekman, D. R., Aquino, K., Owens, B. P., Mitchell, T. R., Schilpzand, P.,
& Leavitt, K. (2010). An examination of whether and how racial and
gender biases influence customer satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 238 –264. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388763
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader
behavior description questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business
Research, Ohio State University.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational
behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 575– 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.psych.53.100901.135109
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging
conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological
Bulletin, 121, 43– 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
ⴱ
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2007). A contextual examination of new
venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior,top management
team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 28, 865– 889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.479
Hogg, M. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III. (2012). Intergroup
leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational
boundaries. The Academy of Management Review, 37, 232–255. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0221
Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Voelpel,
S. C. (2015). The interplay of diversity training and diversity beliefs on team
creativity in nationality diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100,
1456 –1467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000013
ⴱ
Homan, A. C., & Greer, L. L. (2013). Considering diversity: The positive
effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 16, 105–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430
212437798
Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010). Believing
shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group
composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 477– 493.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430209350747
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D.,
Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open
mind: Openness to Experience, salience of intra-group differences, and
performance of diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51,
1204 –1222. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732995
ⴱ
Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2015, August). Regulating
emotional events in diverse teams: The role of leader emotion management.
Paper presented at the 75th conference of the Academy of Management
(AoM), Vancouver, Canada.
Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2016). Team members’
emotional displays as indicators of team functioning. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 30, 134 –149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1039494
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W.
(2007a). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs,infor-
mation elaboration,and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology,92, 1189 –1199.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.92.5.1189
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu,
C. K. W. (2007b). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-
categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dy-
namics, 11, 79 –94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.11.2.79
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G. J., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership com-
plexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Manage-
ment, 23, 375– 408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300305
Horne, A. L., Plessis, Y. D., & Nkomo, S. (2015). Role of department
heads in academic development: A leader-member exchange and orga-
nizational resource perspective. Educational Management Administra-
tion & Leadership, 44, 1–21.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a
reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on
communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635– 650.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266350
ⴱ
Hsu, J. S. C., Li, Y., & Sun, H. (2017). Exploring the interaction between
vertical and shared leadership in information systems development proj-
ects. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 1557–1572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.08.009
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate
identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separat-
ism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7,
40 – 45.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x
Hüttermann, H., & Boerner, S. (2011). Fostering innovation in functionally
diverse teams: The two faces of transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 833– 854. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.524412
Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain:
Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply
categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 616 – 626.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.616
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences
make a difference: A Field study of diversity, conflict, and performance
in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667054
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural com-
petence in international business: Toward a definition and a 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.
1123LEADING DIVERSITY

Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525–543. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict
resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 4, 62–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1523422302004001005
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An
integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 95, 54 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017286
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity
research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
599 – 627.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The
validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.89.1.36
Kaplan, M. E., Schaefer, E. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (1994). Member preferences
for discussion content in anticipated group decisions: Effects of type of issue
and group interactive goal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15,
489 –508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1504_6
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. A., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How are
curious people viewed and how do they behave in social situations? From
the perspectives of self, friends, parents, and unacquainted observers. Jour-
nal of Personality, 81, 142–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494
.2012.00796.x
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Ef-
fects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group
Research, 43, 130 –158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599
ⴱ
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing
team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 77– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013077
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity
benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/amj.2009.41331431
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups
and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 86, 99 –130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974
Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. J. (2004). Time pressure and group performance:
Exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 185–198. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/S0022-1031(03)00094-5
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal
influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of
inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003-2
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning
and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22,
375– 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward
a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initi-
ating structure literature. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,
12, 62– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(74)90037-3
ⴱ
Kim, M. (2017). Effects of team diversity, transformational leadership,
and perceived organizational support on team-learning behavior. Social
Behavior and Personality, 45, 1255–1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp
.6325
King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interper-
sonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology,
63, 881–906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01199.x
ⴱ
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011).
When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team lead-
ership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114,
25–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.004
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or
metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403– 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639402000206
Kozlowski, S. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics:
Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organi-
zational Psychology Review, 5, 270 –299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
2041386614533586
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the
mind: “seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
ⴱ
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational performance
consequences of age diversity: Inspecting the role of diversity-friendly HR
policies and top managers’ negative age stereotypes.Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 50, 413– 442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12016
ⴱ
Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Age-based faultlines and perceived
productive energy: The moderation of transformational leadership. Small
Group Research, 41, 593– 620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649641
0366307
Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The
compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 325–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S.
(2015). How transformational leadership works during team interac-
tions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26,
1017–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.003
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing
task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00214.x
Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008).
Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 63, 169 –181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X
.63.3.169
ⴱ
Li, Q., She, Z., & Yang, B. (2018). Promoting innovative performance in
multidisciplinary teams: The roles of paradoxical leadership and team
perspective taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1083. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01083
Lin, C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing
using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, 36, 457–
475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731374
ⴱ
Lisak, A., Erez, M., Sui, Y., & Lee, C. (2016). The positive role of global
leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 47, 655– 673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-
016-0002-7
Little, L. M., Gooty, J., & Williams, M. (2016). The role of leader emotion
management in leader-member exchange and follower outcomes. The Lead-
ership Quarterly, 27, 85–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.007
London, M., Smither, J. W., & Adsit, D. J. (1997). Accountability: The
Achilles’ heel of multisource feedback. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 22, 162–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601197222003
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., &
Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018 –1034. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0146167204264762
ⴱ
Lu, L., Li, F., Leung, K., Savani, K., & Morris, M. W. (2018). When can
culturally diverse teams be more creative? The role of leaders’ benev-
olent paternalism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 402– 415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2238
ⴱ
Malhotra, M. K., Ahire, S., & Shang, G. (2017). Mitigating the impact of
functional dominance in cross-functional process improvement teams.
Decision Sciences, 48, 39 –70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/deci.12217
Matheson, K., & Cole, B. M. (2004). Coping with a threatened group
identity: Psychosocial and neuroendocrine responses. Journal of Exper-
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.
1124 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

imental Social Psychology, 40, 777–786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp
.2004.04.002
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M.
(2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving
toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40,
130 –160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503014
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of
individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effec-
tiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828 – 847.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelli-
gence. Intelligence, 17, 433– 442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896
(93)90010-3
ⴱ
Mayo, M., Van Knippenberg, D., Guillén, L., & Firfiray, S. (2016). Team
diversity and categorization salience: Capturing diversity-blind, intergroup-
biased, and multicultural perceptions. OrganizationalResearch Methods,
19, 433– 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639130
McClean, S., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2019).
Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integra-
tion and agenda for future research. The Academy of Management
Annals, 13, 479 –508. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0081
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of
Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825– 847). New York,
NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/
50032-9
McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for lead-
ership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Of-
fice of Career Development.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Dechurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and
team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
535–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013773
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups.
Academy of Management Review, 21, 402– 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1996.9605060217
ⴱ
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P.
(2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader
inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity.
Human Resource Management, 54, 217–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.21658
ⴱ
Mo, S., Ling, C. D., & Xie, X. Y. (2019). The curvilinear relationship
between ethical leadership and team creativity: The moderating role of
team faultlines. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 229 –242. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3430-1
ⴱ
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team
performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 54, 489 –508. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2011.61967991
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it
together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global
virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251–1262.
Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M. K., Hsiao,
H. Y., & Brimhall, K. C. (2016). The promise of diversity management
for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis.
Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Gover-
nance, 40, 305–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups:
Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 15, 137–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601
(08)60297-X
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in
teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and
processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206309347376
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L.,
Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2014). Social science. Scientific diversity
interventions. Science, 343, 615– 616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science
.1245936
ⴱ
Muchiri, M. K., & Ayoko, O. B. (2013). Linking demographic diversity to
organisational outcomes: The moderating role of transformational lead-
ership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 384 – 406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-0086
Mumford, M. D., Watts, L. L., & Partlow, P. J. (2015). Leader cognition:
Approaches and findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 301–306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.005
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleish-
man, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving
complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11–35. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
ⴱ
Na, D. M., Park, S. H., & Kwak, W. J. (2018). The demographic faultline
is a new situational factor for team management: The effect of leader
teamwork behaviors on support for innovation. Journal of Asian Fi-
nance, Economics and Business, 5, 149 –160.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experi-
ential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global
leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8,
511–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.4.zqr511
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-
diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1754 –1774.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018). A multi-
level process model for understanding diversity practice effectiveness.
The Academy of Management Annals, 12, 37– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/annals.2016.0044
ⴱ
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce
turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member
exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1412–1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017190
Nkomo, S., & Hoobler, J. M. (2014). A historical perspective on diversity
ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource manage-
ment research and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 24,
245–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.03.006
Oortwijn, M., Homan, A. C., & Saab, N. (2010). Methodologies of peer
interactions: Insights from face-to-face, computer-supported, and group
decision-making learning settings. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Collaborative
learning: Methodology, types of interactions and techniques (pp. 197–
224). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual
theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797– 837. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00154-6
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new
conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 88 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.88
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A.,
& Trevino, L. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-
method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of
Management Development, 22, 273–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0262
1710310467587
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box:
An analysis of work group diversity,conflict, and performance.Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667029
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 65– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Phillips, L. T., Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. (2014). People perception:
Social vision of groups and consequences for organizing and interacting.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 101–127. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.riob.2014.10.001
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.
1125LEADING DIVERSITY

Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders
influence the impact of affective events on team climate and perfor-
mance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561–581. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00144-3
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011).
“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and whites’ reactions to
multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
337–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022832
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making
and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
918 –930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.918
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consid-
eration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive lead-
ership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79,
37– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X36731
ⴱ
Reuveni, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2015). Innovation in multidisciplinary
teams: The moderating role of transformational leadership in the rela-
tionship between professional heterogeneity and shared mental models.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 678 –
692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1001377
Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Conflict at work, negative emotions,
and performance: A diary study. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 9, 103–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12069
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and
inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31,
212–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added
value of positive scholarship. The Academy of Management Review, 31,
292–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208681
Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011).
Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The
role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effective-
ness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 825– 840.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x
ⴱ
Rosenauer, D., Homan, A. C., Horstmeier, C. A., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016).
Managing nationality diversity: The interactive effect of leaders’ cultural
intelligence and task interdependence. British Journal of Management,
27, 628 – 645.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12131
ⴱ
Rowold, J. (2011). Relationship between leadership behaviors and per -
formance: The moderating role of a work team’s level of age, gender,
and cultural heterogeneity. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 32, 628 – 647.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111161094
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992).
Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W.
Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp.
3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yeagley, E. L. (2006). Decision performance
and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent,crosscut, and
racially homogeneous groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 99, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.006
ⴱ
Scheuer, C. L. (2017). Maximizing the potential of age-diverse work
groups and their leaders in contemporary workplaces. Unpublished
dissertation.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. (2003).
Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome inter-
dependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779 – 802.http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/job.220
Schneider, R. J., Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (1996). To “act wisely in
human relations:” Exploring the dimensions of social competence. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 21, 469 – 481.http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/0191-8869(96)00084-0
ⴱ
Schölmerich, F., Schermuly, C. C., & Deller, J. (2016). How leaders’ diver-
sity beliefs alter the impact of faultlines on team functioning. Small Group
Research, 47, 177–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496416630960
ⴱ
Schölmerich, F., Schermuly, C. C., & Deller, J. (2017). To believe or not
to believe? The joint impact of faultlines and pro-diversity beliefs on
diplomats’ performance. Human Performance, 30, 99 –115. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1313258
Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W.
(2007). Motivated information processing and group decision making:
Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision
quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539 –552. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2013). Increasing
emotional intelligence through training: Current status and future direc-
tions. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 5, 56 –72.
ⴱ
Seong, J. Y., & Hong, D. S. (2018). Age diversity, group organisational
citizenship behaviour, and group performance: Exploring the moderat-
ing role of charismatic leadership and participation in decision-making.
Human Resource Management Journal, 28, 621– 640. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1748-8583.12197
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A review of
perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s
composition affect team processes and outcomes? Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 37, S89 –S106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1957
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
ⴱ
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heter-
ogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Trans-
formational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1709 –1721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
Siegel, P. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Pay disparities within top
management groups: Evidence of harmful effects on performance of
high-technology firms. Organization Science, 16, 259 –274. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0128
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship
conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.85.1.102
Sniezek, J. A., May, D. R., & Sawyer, J. E. (1990). Social uncertainty and
interdependence: A study of resource allocation decisions in groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 155–180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90027-7
ⴱ
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on
performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Jour-
nal of Management, 32, 132–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920
6305277799
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style
and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision
support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89 –
103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.89
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in
structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group
decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 14, 304 –313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI
1403&4_21
ⴱ
Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader-member exchange as a
moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team
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.
1126 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF

performance. Group & Organization Management, 34, 507–535. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331220
Swenson, J., & Casmir, F. L. (1998). The impact of culture-sameness,
gender, foreign travel, and academic background on the ability to inter-
pret facial expression of emotion in others. Communication Quarterly,
46, 214 –230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370096
Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y. Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang,
W. (2012). Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through
epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
103, 750 –772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029719
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 33, 1–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33
.020182.000245
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., & Behson, S. J. (1998). Training
team leaders to facilitate team learning and performance. In J. A.
Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress:
Implications for individual and team training (pp. 247–270). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/10278-009
Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Landis, B. (2018). Personality change: Impli-
cations for organization behavior. The Academy of Management Annals,
12, 467– 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0008
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal
study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effec-
tiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34, 170 –205. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218
Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both
disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative
Science Quarterly, 45, 293–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667073
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity
research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance.
Group Decision and Negotiation,12, 217–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1023325406946
Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review,
integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38,
969 –1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311426187
Thompson, P. A. (1996). What’s fueling the flames in cyberspace: A social
influence model. In L. Strate, R. Jacobson, & S. B. Gibson (Eds.),
Communication and cyberspace: Social interaction in an electronic
environment (pp. 297–315). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Tindale, R. S. (1989). Group vs. individual information processing: The
effects of outcome feedback on decision making. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 454 – 473. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0749-5978(89)90019-8
Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. G. (1986). Constructive
controversy, the Vroom–Yetton model, and managerial decision mak-
ing. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7, 125–138. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.4030070205
Tracey, T. J. (2005). Interpersonal rigidity and complementarity. Journal of
Research in Personality, 39, 592– 614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp
.2004.12.001
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural intelligence in organizations. Group &
Organization Management, 31, 20 –26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059
601105275253
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Van der Vegt, G., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence
and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729 –
751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00033-3
Van Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying
conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences
between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with per-
formance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
119, 38 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van
Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold cal-
culation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance
depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management
Journal, 52, 562–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331253
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work
group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and re-
search agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008 –1022. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity
through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and
group identification. Group Dynamics, 11, 207–222. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.207
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.58.110405.085546
Waldersee, R., Simmons, R., & Eagleson, G. (1995, August). Pluralistic
leadership in service change programs: Some preliminary findings.
Academy of Management Proceedings (pp. 296 –300). Briarcliff Manor,
NY: Academy of Management.
Waller, M. J., Sohrab, G., & Ma, B. W. (2013). Beyond 12 angry men:
Thin-slicing film to illustrate group dynamics. Small Group Research,
44, 446 – 465.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496413487409
ⴱ
Wang, P., Rode, J. C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., & Chen, W. (2013). A workgroup
climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leader-
ship, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group & Organi-
zation Management, 38, 334 –360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960
1113488163
Wang, S. (2015). Emotional intelligence, information elaboration, and perfor-
mance: The moderating role of informational diversity.Small Group Re-
search, 46, 324 –351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496415578010
ⴱ
Wang, X. H. F., Kim, T. Y., & Lee, D. R. (2016). Cognitive diversity and
team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transforma-
tional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3231–3239. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). The impact of highly and less
job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/014920630102700202
Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K. H., & Kanfer, R. (2008). Age
and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public
organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1301–1313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012680
ⴱ
Wickramasinghe, V., & Nandula, S. (2015). Diversity in team composi -
tion, relationship conflict and team leader support on globally distributed
virtual software development team performance. Strategic Outsourcing,
8, 138 –155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SO-02-2015-0007
Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and
intergroup relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in
stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. (2011). Understanding diversity management
practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory.
Group & Organization Management,36, 6 –38.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1059601110390997
Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making:
Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior
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.
1127LEADING DIVERSITY

and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260 –281.http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
obhd.2000.2909
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and
trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility
across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
308 –315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.308
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991).
Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and
behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,
2, 317–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90018-W
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team
processes. Group & Organization Management, 27, 4 –13. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/1059601102027001002
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451– 483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1048-9843(01)00093-5
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with work-
place bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13594320143000834
Zellmer-Bruhn,M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., & Salvador, R. B.
(2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived
similarity in teams. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 107, 41–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.004
ⴱ
Zhang, L., & Guo, H. (2019). Enabling knowledge diversity to benefit
cross-functional project teams: Joint roles of knowledge leadership and
transactive memory system. Information & Management, 56, 103156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.03.001
ⴱ
Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Advice networks in teams: The role
of transformational leadership and members’ core self-evaluations. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1004 –1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0023254
Zhao, E. Y., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Jehn, K. A. (2019). Instigating, engaging
in, and managing group conflict: A review of the literature addressing the
critical role of the leader in group conflict. The Academy of Management
Annals, 13, 112–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0153
Received April 18, 2018
Revision received November 30, 2019
Accepted December 16, 2019 䡲
Call for Nominations
The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board of the American Psychological
Association has opened nominations for the editorships of Developmental Psychology,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General. Eric Dubow, PhD, Joanne Davila, PhD, and Nelson Cowan, PhD are the
incumbent editors.
Candidates should be members of APA and should be available to start receiving
manuscripts in early 2022 to prepare for issues published in 2023. The APA Journals
program values equity, diversity, and inclusion and encourages the application of mem-
bers of all groups, including women, people of color, LGBTQ psychologists, and those
with disabilities, as well as candidates across all stages of their careers. Self-nominations
are also encouraged.
Search chairs have been appointed as follows:
● Developmental Psychology, Chair: Pamela Reid, PhD
● Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Chair: Danny Wedding, PhD
● Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Co-Chairs: Richard Petty, PhD and
Michael Roberts, PhD
Nominate candidates through APA’s Editor Search website (https://editorsearch.apa.org).
Prepared statements of one page or less in support of a nominee can also be submitted by
e-mail to Jen Chase, Journal Services Associate ([e-mail]).
Deadline for accepting nominations is Monday, January 11, 2021, after which phase one
vetting will begin.
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.
1128 HOMAN, GU¨ NDEMIR, BUENGELER, AND VAN KLEEF