Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Board diversity has become a highly debated subject among academics and
practitioners, not least because boards are very homogenous in terms of
gender, age, and ethnicity (Brammer, Millington, and Pavelin 2007). Yet,
our knowledge about the effects of board diversity is limited because studies
rarely consider diversity beyond a limited number of demographic
25
26 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
but argued that such research would, nevertheless, produce indicative find-
ings on which later studies with more rigorous operationalizations of diver-
sity could be founded. Unfortunately, to date, few studies have attempted to
measure cognitive diversity, and these efforts have produced either weak or
inconsistent results in relation to organizational outcomes (Miller, Burke,
and Glick 1998; Barsade et al. 2000; Kilduff et al. 2000). However, what
these studies did show was that demographic and cognitive diversity were
not related, and that further research is needed on how different dimensions
of diversity interact (Kilduff et al. 2000; Nielsen 2010). In responding to calls
for research on surface versus deeper-level cognitive diversity and its effects
on team processes (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan 2004), we
investigate the effects of personality traits alongside gender, age, and tenure
on board cognitive and affective conflict.
In order to understand deeper-level diversity, we turn to the psychology
literature and the concept of personality. Psychologists describe personality
as a person’s characteristic pattern of behavior, thinking, and feeling, which
distinguishes him/her from others and, most important, is predictive of
future team behavior and performance (Cattell 1965; Hurtz and Donovan
2000). Many psychologists describe personality as deriving from internal
mental processes (cognition) that have a biological rationale and can be
measured (Cattell 1965; Matthews, Deary, and Whiteman 2003). Some
critics claim that measurements of personality must be treated with caution
because they can divert attention from the impact of environmental
influences on a particular situation, which may have greater influence on
behaviors than “inbuilt” personality traits (Mischel 1999). Nevertheless,
scholars have used the concept of personality in predicting team behaviors
and performance (cf. Neuman et al. 1999).
While there is increasing consensus that the concept of personality has
utility in predicting behaviors, there is some disagreement on how person-
ality is to be measured, specifically how many traits are involved (Neuman
et al. 1999). Here, we adopt Cattell’s personality trait theory and its associa-
ted 16 personality factors (Cattell 1965). Not only have Cattell’s traits been
extensively used in measuring personality (Pystech 2003; Garcia-Sedeno,
Navarro, and Menacho 2009), they also exhibit good behavioral predictabil-
ity (Matthews et al. 2003), and the instrument has been extensively tested to
validate its psychometric properties (Psytech 2003; Revelle 2009).
Personality trait diversity is the extent to which individual team members
differ in their laterally opposing personality traits, and, as such, is congruent
with the conceptualization of diversity as separation (Harrison and Klein
2007). Put differently, teams are diverse at a deeper cognitive level when
individuals within that team vary in their personality trait dispositions. A
well-established phenomenon in the psychology literature is the similarity-
attraction effect (Byrne 1971; Senn 1971). Individuals that are similar in
30 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
explanation may lie in how salient these categories are perceived to be.
According to Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), salience can be based on norma-
tive expectation (the belief that a difference is meaningful) and cognitive
accessibility (the readiness with which people use the categorization). We sug-
gest that gender, age, and tenure are three such salient diversity categories in
the board context that moderate deeper-level personality diversity in boards.
Gender differences can be described as normatively and cognitively sali-
ent. For example, studies have argued that a critical mass of women results
in more challenges to the status quo in the boardroom (Torchia, Calabro,
and Huse 2011; Elstad and Ladegard 2012); therefore, we expect female
directors to introduce different behaviors. Age is normatively salient in
boards as people are socialized into equating it with greater experience
(Van Knippenberg et al. 2004), which may affect whether and how alternative
viewpoints are received in the board. Finally, tenure diversity may be norma-
tively salient as boards develop distinct working styles, and tenure differences
may affect the integration of the team (Milliken and Martins 1996; Machold
et al. 2011). Based on these arguments from social category salience, we con-
tend that gender, age, and tenure diversity, as highly salient social categories,
positively moderate the effect of deeper-level personality diversity on both
cognitive and affective conflict. We, therefore, hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between personality diversity and
cognitive conflict is positively moderated by gender, age, and tenure diversity.
Methods
The hypotheses are tested through a quantitative study based on survey data
in the United Kingdom. The UK governance system is characterized by
dispersed ownership structures, strong reliance on equity financing, single-
tiered boards, and a clear division of responsibilities between boards, share-
holders, and management (Denis and McConnell 2003). UK boards are also
typically portrayed as highly homogenous in terms of gender, age, and eth-
nic composition (Brammer et al. 2007) and are, therefore, a particularly
fruitful empirical setting for our research.
The choice of a survey method was motivated by the need to avoid using
archival data as proxy measures for board processes. Further, our interest in
deeper-level diversity necessitated the capture of actual personality traits
32 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
rather than relying on proxies (Priem et al. 1999). We, therefore, designed a
survey instrument based on established measures in the psychology and
board process literature.
Data were collected through an online questionnaire in 2010. Given our
conceptualization of personality trait diversity, data from all board mem-
bers were collected (i.e., measures of each director’s personality traits)
rather than a single representative respondent from each board, as is com-
mon in board process research (Minichilli et al. 2012). Because of the chal-
lenges associated with gaining access to board members and having all
board members participate in the survey (Pettigrew 1992), we used a con-
venience sampling approach. Board chairpersons and CEOs known to
one of the authors were approached through a mail-out letter inviting the
board to participate in the research in return for individualized feedback
on personality traits of each director and group feedback based on an over-
all board evaluation. We highlighted in the letter that boards can use the
(free) analysis and feedback as part of their annual board evaluation, a
practice recommended by the UK Corporate Governance Code. Although
such convenience sampling may be seen as introducing biases to the
research, analyses from psychological research comparing convenience
and random sampling show that there are fewer variances between random
and convenience sampled data than might be expected, and only minimal
differences in diversity (Hultsch et al. 2002), which is the particular focus
of this research. Participating companies and boards were also similar to
UK companies in terms of sector distribution, board size, and the percent-
age of women directors.
For this study, we used data collected in the pilot phase of the research,
while continuing with data collection for the full study. The questionnaire
comprises two parts. The first part measures 16 personality traits using
the 15FQþ, available from Psytech, a commercial company that publishes
the manual online (Psytech 2003). To this first survey, a second one was
added, which included measures of board processes (see section below).
The final dataset used for this article comprises 98 respondents from 16
boards.
Common methods bias is less likely to be a problem in this research since
we did not collect data from a single board respondent but from each board
member. However, we performed a number of procedural remedies in the
instrument development and data collection phase as recommended by
Podsakoff et al. (2003). Further, the personality trait questionnaire has
built-in questions to test for social desirability bias (on a scale from 1 to
10), which are independent from the 16 personality trait factors. In our data,
the mean social desirability bias is 7 (standard deviation 1.95), which is gen-
erally considered to be acceptable and representing no cause for concern
(Psytech 2003).
DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT IN BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 33
Dependent variables
Cognitive conflict was measured using three items on a five-point Likert scale
that represent the degree to which respondents perceive the board to have dis-
agreements about the tasks at hand (see Appendix). The variable cognitive
conflict was computed as the mean of these items from each respondent. The
variable group cognitive conflict was computed as the mean of each board mem-
ber’s cognitive conflict score. The Cronbach alpha for this variable was 0.72.
Affective conflict was measured using five items on a five-point Likert
scale that represent the degree to which respondents perceive the board
to have disagreements based on emotional and relationship clashes (see
Appendix). The variable affective conflict was computed as the mean of
these items, the variable group affective conflict as the mean of all individual
board members’ affective conflict score. The Cronbach alpha for this
variable was 0.85.
We also performed confirmatory factor analyses on all items that showed a
good model fit (GFI ¼ 0.95; AGFI ¼ 0.91; CFI ¼ 0.99; RMSEA ¼ 0.03). For
discriminant validity between the constructs, we checked regression weights
and correlations. The VE AC and VE CC are both greater than the corre-
lation squared term (0.42); hence, discriminant validity is established.
Independent variables
8. Hard-headedness;
9. Trusting;
10. Concreteness;
11. Directness;
12. Confidence;
13. Conventionalism;
14. Group-orientation;
15. Informality; and
16. Composedness.
The questionnaire outputs these traits as raw scores and as normed scores
(against a population of 1,186 male and female adults, Psytech 2003), which range
from 1 to 10. For the purposes of this analysis, normed score data were used.
We define personality trait diversity as the extent to which each board
member is dissimilar from the others in the team in respect of personality
traits. This is in line with conceptualization of diversity as separation, and
similar to the study by Barsade et al. (2000), who also measured dissimilarity
(distance) but in affective traits only. Following Barsade et al. (2000), we
computed the variable personality traits dissimilarity as the mean Euclidian
distance that each board member has to all others in respect of the 16 per-
sonality traits. For example, in a board with four members, the dissimilarity
score for each board member was computed by first calculating the
Euclidian distance in the 16 traits to the other three members and then
taking the mean of the three Euclidian distance scores. In this way, we ended
up with a unique dissimilarity, or distance, score for each board member.
For the remaining diversity variables, we obtained data on gender, age, and
tenure for each board member. We computed gender diversity as the Blau
index (Kilduff et al. 2000). As we have two categories (male and female),
the value of the Blau index can range from 0 (entirely homogeneous) to 0.5
(both categories are equally present). For age and board tenure, we computed
for each board member the mean Euclidian distance from the others. High
values indicate high levels of dissimilarity from the rest of the team.
To compute the interaction effects, we first mean-centered the originating
variables and then computed the new variable as the product of the originat-
ing mean-centered variables.
Control variables
As the size of the team can affect levels of conflict (Amason and Sapienza
1997), we needed to control for board size. This was measured as the total
DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT IN BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 35
Results
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Notes: Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients 2 tailed: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, N ¼ 98.
Table 2
Regression analyses for cognitive and affective conflict
(standardized beta coefficients) Model 1a Model 2a Model 3a Model 4a Model 1b Model 2b Model 3b Model 4b
Notes: Levels of significance are: þ p < 0.10 level, *p < 0.05 level, **p < 0.01 level, ***p < 0.001 level.
38 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
When examining the results for affective conflict, we find that personality
trait diversity has no significant relationship (on its own) with affective con-
flict, and, hence, H2 is not supported (Model 3b). However, as in the case of
cognitive conflict, we find the best model fit for the interaction effects
(adjusted R2 ¼ 0.67). Gender diversity in conjunction with dissimilar person-
alities has no effect on affective conflict. However, tenure positively moder-
ates personality diversity effects on affective conflict (b ¼ 0.43, p < 0.001)
whereas age diversity in conjunction with personality diversity lowers affect-
ive conflict (b ¼ 0.28, p < 0.003). Thus, we only find partial support for
Hypothesis 4 in respect to tenure.
Finally and surprisingly, the outsider ratio has a strong negative
relationship with both cognitive and affective conflict. This suggests that
non-executives do not contribute to the explanation of the cognitive con-
flict, that is, to offering alternative and opposing viewpoints and opinions
(Finkelstein and Mooney 2003; Zona and Zattoni 2007).
Discussion
We set out to investigate how diversity can affect board behaviors that are
associated with process gains (cognitive conflict) and process losses (affect-
ive conflict). Based on the similarity-attraction thesis, we found support for
the hypothesis that board members with similar personalities would enjoy
positive interactions, resulting in heightened cognitive conflict, which echoes
results from TMT research (Barsade et al. 2000). However, we found no
support for the hypothesis that differences in personalities, on their own,
influence affective conflict. The most interesting result is that diversity in
salient demographic categories moderates the relationship between person-
ality diversity and cognitive and affective conflict.
There are a number of implications for research and practice. First, we
have shown the utility of deeper-level diversity in understanding antecedents
to board behaviors that encompass both process gains and losses (Forbes
and Milliken 1999). Research like ours has the potential to contribute to
behavioral perspectives on boards by investigating how actual, rather than
stylized, personalities shape boardroom interactions (Van Ees et al. 2009).
Second, in responding to calls for investigating diversity more comprehen-
sively (Milliken and Martins 1996), we showed that psychological diversity
interacts with salient demographic diversity categories. This finding suggests
that, theoretically and empirically, we need to move away from considering
diversity categories in isolation from each other. For example, some of the
inconclusive results on how women affect boardroom behaviors and
processes may well be explained by whether or not these women possess
similar personality traits, share similar ages, and if they are newcomers to
DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT IN BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 39
an established board (Nielsen and Huse 2010). A promising new avenue for
enquiry could be the study of fault lines in boards, specifically how directors’
social, demographic, functional, and psychological characteristics align to
create single or multiple schisms (Kaczmarek, Kimino, and Pye 2012).
Our research also has implications for practice. Board nomination com-
mittees may wish to move away from prioritizing functional skills and experi-
ence to consider also the personality profiles of candidates and their fit with
the existing board team. Further, our research supports the case for appoint-
ing more women directors because, in conjunction with different personal-
ities, gender diversity increases cognitive conflict while having no effect on
affective conflict. Thus, by having both different personalities and gender,
process losses are minimized and there is strong potential for process gains
(Amason and Sapienza 1997). Finally, boards should rethink the role that
non-executive directors play and the degree to which they challenge and
propose alternative viewpoints (Finkelstein and Mooney 2003).
Conclusion
References
Amason, A.C. and H.J. Sapienza. 1997. “The Effects of Top Management Team
Size and Interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict.” Journal of
Management 23(4): 495–516.
40 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
Barsade, S.G.; A.J. Ward; J.D. Turner;, and J.A. Sonnenfeld. 2000. “To Your
Heart’s Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 45(4): 802–836.
Brammer, S.; A. Millington; and S. Pavelin. 2007. “Gender and Ethnic Diversity on
UK Boards.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 15(2): 393–403.
Buchholtz, A.K.; A.C. Amason; and M.A. Rutherford. 2005. “The Impact of Board
Monitoring and Involvement on Top Management Team Affective Conflict.”
Journal of Managerial Issues 17(4): 405–422.
Byrne, D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cattell, R.B. 1965. The Scientific Analysis of Personality. Baltimore: Penguin
Denis, D.K. and J.J. McConnell. 2003. “International Corporate Governance.”
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38(1): 1–36.
Elstad, B. and G. Ladegard. 2012. “Women on Corporate Boards: Key Influencers
or Tokens?” Journal of Management and Governance 16(4): 595–615.
Finkelstein, S. and A.A. Mooney. 2003. “Not the Usual Suspects: How to Use Board
Processes to Make Boards Better.” Academy of Management Executive 17(2):
101–113.
Flynn J.R. 2007. What is Intelligence?. New York: CUP.
Forbes D.P. and F.J. Milliken. 1999. “Cognition and Corporate Governance:
Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision Making Groups.”
Academy of Management Review 24(3): 489–505.
Garcia-Sedeno, M.; J.I. Navarro; and I. Menacho. 2009. “Relationship between
Personality Traits and Vocational Choice.” Psychological Reports 105(2): 633–642.
Hair, J.F.; W.C. Black; B.J. Babin;, and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data
Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hambrick, D.C., and P.A. Mason.1984. “Upper Echelons: The Organization
as a Reflection of Its Top Managers.” Academy of Management Review 19(2):
193–206.
Harrison, D. and K. Klein. 2007. “What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as
Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations.” Academy of Management
Review 32(4): 1199–1228.
Hultsch, D.F.; S.W. MacDonald; M.A. Hunter; S.B. Maitland;, and R.A. Dixon.
2002. “Sampling and Generalizability in Developmental Research: Comparison
of Random and Convenience Sampling of Older Adults.” International Journal
of Behavioral Development 26(4): 345–359.
Hurtz, G.M. and J.J. Donovan. 2000. “Personality and Job Performance: The Big
Five Revisited.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6): 869–879.
Jehn, K.A. 1995. “A Multi-Method Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of
Intragroup Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 256–282.
Jehn, K.A.; G.B. Northcraft; and M.A. Neale. 1999. “Why Differences Make
a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in
Workgroups.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 741–763.
Kaczmarek, S.; S. Kimino; and A. Pye. 2012. “Board Task-Related Fault Lines
and Firm Performance: A Decade of Evidence.” Corporate Governance: An
International Review 20(4): 337–351.
Kilduff, M.; R. Angelmar; and A. Mehra. 2000. “Top Management—Team Diver-
sity and Firm Performance: Examining the Role of Cognitions.” Organization
Science 11(1): 21–34.
Machold, S.; M. Huse; A. Minichilli;, and M. Nordqvist. 2011. “Board Leadership
and Strategy Involvement in Small Firms: A Team Production Approach.”
Corporate Governance: An International Review 19(4): 368–383.
DIVERSITY AND CONFLICT IN BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 41
Matthews, G.; I.J. Deary; and M.C. Whiteman. 2003. Personality Traits. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: CUP.
Miller, C.C.; L.M. Burke; and W.H. Glick. 1998. “Cognitive Diversity among
Upper-Echelon Executives: Implications for Strategic Decision Processes.”
Strategic Management Journal 19(1): 39–58.
Milliken, F.J. and L.L. Martins. 1996. “Searching for Common Threads: Under-
standing the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups.” Academy
of Management Review 21(2): 402–433.
Minichilli, A.; A. Zattoni; S. Nielsen;, and M. Huse. 2012. “Board Task
Performance: An Exploration of Micro-and Macro-Level Determinants of Board
Effectiveness.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 33(2): 193–215.
Mischel, W. 1999. Introduction to Personality. 6th ed. New York: Wiley.
Mooney, A.C.; P.J. Holahan; and A. Amason. 2007. “Don’t Take It Personally:
Exploring Cognitive Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict.” Journal of
Management Studies 44(5): 733–758.
Neuman, G.A.; S.H. Wagner; and N.D. Christiansen. 1999. “The Relationship
between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of
Teams.” Group and Organization Management 24(1): 28–45.
Nielsen, S. 2010. “Top Management Team Diversity: A Review of Theories and
Methodologies.” International Journal of Management Reviews 12(3): 301–316.
Nielsen, S. and M. Huse. 2010. “The Contribution of Women on Boards of
Directors: Going beyond the Surface.” Corporate Governance: An International
Review 18(2): 136–148.
Pelled, L.H.; K.M. Eisenhardt; and K.R. Xin. 1999. “Exploring the Black Box: An
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 44(1): 1–28.
Pettigrew, A. 1992. “On Studying Managerial Elites.” Strategic Management Journal
13(S2): 163–182.
Pitcher, P. and A.D. Smith. 2001. “Top Management Team Heterogeneity:
Personality, Power, and Proxies.” Organization Science 12(1): 1–18.
Podsakoff, P.M.; S.B. MacKenzie; J.Y. Lee;, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common
Methods Bias in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.
Priem, R.L.; D.W. Lyon; and G.G. Dess. 1999. “Inherent Limitations of Demo-
graphic Proxies in Top Management Team Heterogeneity Research.” Journal of
Management 25(6): 935–953.
Psytech. 2003. 15FQþTechnical Manual. Available at http://www.15fq.com/
Downloads/15fq+man.pdf
Revelle, W. 2009. “Personality Structure and Measurement: The Contributions of
Raymond Cattell.” British Journal of Psychology 100(S1): 253–257.
Ruef, M.; H.E. Aldrich; and N.M. Carter. 2003. “The Structure of Founding Teams:
Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among US Entrepreneurs.” American
Sociological Review 68(2): 195–222.
Senn, D.J. 1971. “Attraction as a Function of Similarity-Dissimilarity in Task
Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(1): 120–123.
Torchia, M.; A. Calabro; and M. Huse. 2011. “Women Directors on Corporate
Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass.” Journal of Business Ethics 102(2):
299–317.
Van Ees, H.; J. Gabrielsson;, and M. Huse. 2009. “Toward a Behavioral Theory of
Boards and Corporate Governance.” Corporate Governance: An International
Review 17(3): 307–319.
42 WALKER (UK), MACHOLD (UK), & AHMED (MALAYSIA)
Van Knippenberg, D.; C.K. De Dreu;, and A.C. Homan. 2004. “Work Group
Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 89(6): 1008–1022.
Wiersema, M.F. and K.A. Bantel. 1992. “Top Management Team Demography and
Corporate Strategic Change.” Academy of Management Journal 35(1): 91–121.
Zahra, S.A. and J.A. Pearce. 1989. “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial
Performance: A Review and Integrative Model.” Journal of Management 15(2):
291–334.
Zona, F. and A. Zattoni. 2007. “Beyond the Black Box of Demography: Board
Processes and Task Effectiveness within Italian Firms.” Corporate Governance:
An International Review 15(5): 852–864.