Skip to main content
Log in

Diversity Composition and Team Learning: The Moderating Role of Error Culture

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although there are many potential benefits to diverse teams, the way in which diversity characteristics are aligned in teams may influence whether teams exploit this potential. In this experimental study, we examined the relationship between diversity composition and the process and outcome of team learning by comparing faultline teams (in which diversity characteristics are aligned) with teams in which diversity characteristics cross-categorize each other. We investigated whether this relationship would be influenced by the teams’ beliefs regarding error handling (i.e., error culture). We assigned 268 participants to 67 four-person groups with faultline or cross-categorized compositions. We hypothesized and found that the relationship between diversity composition and team learning was moderated by error culture, only in faultline teams, not in cross-categorized teams. An error management culture (i.e., a culture in which members value the open discussion of errors) was found to promote inclusive communication and the team learning process in faultline teams. In contrast, an error prevention culture (i.e., a culture in which members believe that errors are harmful and must be prevented) decreased inclusive communication and the processes of team learning in faultline teams. Contrary to our expectations, we found a reversed effect for the outcome of team learning. In line with our prediction, cross-categorized teams were unaffected by error culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To test whether the tasks were equally difficult, we conducted a pilot test on 19 individuals performing both tasks. We assessed how many correct answers individuals reported on each task (range 0-4), and we asked individuals to rank how difficult they found each task on a 1-5 point scale. A paired sample t test indicated that both tasks were considered equally difficult, with a similar number of correct answers for each task, t(18) = 1.29, p = .22, and team members reporting similar levels of difficulty for each task, t(18) = 0.77, p = .45. The means for the number of correct answers were 1.74 (SD = 1.15) on Task 1 and 1.32 (SD = 0.89) on Task 2. The means for perceived difficulty of the task were 2.89 (SD = 1.10) on Task 1 and 2.74 (SD = 0.93) on Task 2.

  2. Social sciences included psychology, pedagogy, anthropology, and political science; life sciences included physics, biology, medical sciences, and (technical) mathematics.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by research Grant 400-04-174 from the Social Sciences Division of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). At the time of the data collection, the first three authors were affiliated with Leiden University. The authors would like to thank the students and research assistants from Leiden University who have assisted with the data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joyce Rupert.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rupert, J., Homan, A.C., Jehn, K.A. et al. Diversity Composition and Team Learning: The Moderating Role of Error Culture. Group Decis Negot 28, 695–722 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09626-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09626-5

Keywords

Navigation