After reading "Tensions Between Diversity and Shared Leadership: The Role of Team Political Skill" (Xu, Chiu, & Treadway, 2019) with the GRIP Lab, Tianke and Katherine discuss their thoughts on the paper.
Tianke and Katherine are really glad to have been part of the discussion about the function of “demographic heterogeneity” on shared leadership in teams. In their article, Xu et al. argue that demographic diversity — in gender and race specifically — inhibits people’s motivation to share leadership roles with others. Since people with similar backgrounds are more likely to identify with their team, they are more likely to hold shared group values and engage in a higher magnitude of shared leadership. On the other hand, people who have different backgrounds tend to be less inclined to share leadership with others in their group (Xu et al., 2019).
Katherine thinks some parts of the article to be valid and relatable to her own experiences and observations. Over the course of her life, she has gravitated toward people who were similar to her. However, she believes that some parts of the article may be overgeneralizations. There are many forms of diversity, including age, major, socioeconomic status, and political ideology. She wonders what the results of a study that examined these other forms of diversity while controlling for ethnicity and gender would look like.
Tianke, on the other hand, feels strongly that diverse groups work best together. He believes that humans are meant to experience new ideas, to meet new people, to embrace new ideologies and perspectives, and to grow. To do that, they need to encounter demographic heterogeneity in their lives. In a group work setting, this demographic diversity matures discussion, helping the group draw a fuller picture of the world by combining the perspectives of many people’s eyes.
Katherine and Tianke both also had some reflections about Zoom breakout rooms. Katherine believes that through random allocation, breakout rooms eliminate personal biases in creating groups, so everyone has the chance to interact with people they might never have otherwise. However, she has found, in general, that communication through a screen is more awkward and uncomfortable than communication in person, that it is harder to develop and maintain connections with other people, especially when some of them turn their cameras off. Although diversity is promoted, Katherine wonders if the tempering effects of political skill could be hindered. She also wonders how relationships forged solely through on-screen calls would carry over in real-life –– whether they’ll grow weaker or stronger.
Tianke, on the other hand, recently had an experience that showed more promise for relationships within heterogeneous groups, even those in virtual environments. This past Friday, he organized an event called “Space Gathering,” where he invited eight of his friends who didn’t know each other beforehand to a Zoom meeting where they had a dialogue for two hours. He purposely selected the participants to promote diversity, as there was a mix of genders, majors, personality types, and nationalities. He designed several group activities to see if connections could be made among these “familiar” strangers. To maximize heterogeneity for each team, he pre-arranged breakout rooms so that every person would meet two people who have different backgrounds with them. After each person shared two identities and real stories behind, Tianke told the groups to use generative and reflective listening skills to validate each others’ stories and feelings so that each person could be heard.
As Xu et al. suggest in their article, people are disinclined to share leadership roles with dissimilar others. Tianke expected his friends’ discussion to go into a dead end; however, that was not the case. During the debrief, people shared that their natural curiosity towards those who were different inspired them to explore the others’ stories, experiences, and ideas.
“As a person who always interacts with people who are similar to me and who usually stays in my comfort zone, I was really excited to listen to people’s diverse experiences and imagine their living environments,” one participant reflected. “I agree,” replied another participant. “My desire to connect with people dissimilar to me, along with our shared curiosity, made us consciously active when engaging in conversation, motivating us to seek an optimal solution using group efforts.”
Tianke and Katherine are really glad to have been part of the discussion about the function of “demographic heterogeneity” on shared leadership in teams. In their article, Xu et al. argue that demographic diversity — in gender and race specifically — inhibits people’s motivation to share leadership roles with others. Since people with similar backgrounds are more likely to identify with their team, they are more likely to hold shared group values and engage in a higher magnitude of shared leadership. On the other hand, people who have different backgrounds tend to be less inclined to share leadership with others in their group (Xu et al., 2019).
Katherine thinks some parts of the article to be valid and relatable to her own experiences and observations. Over the course of her life, she has gravitated toward people who were similar to her. However, she believes that some parts of the article may be overgeneralizations. There are many forms of diversity, including age, major, socioeconomic status, and political ideology. She wonders what the results of a study that examined these other forms of diversity while controlling for ethnicity and gender would look like.
Tianke, on the other hand, feels strongly that diverse groups work best together. He believes that humans are meant to experience new ideas, to meet new people, to embrace new ideologies and perspectives, and to grow. To do that, they need to encounter demographic heterogeneity in their lives. In a group work setting, this demographic diversity matures discussion, helping the group draw a fuller picture of the world by combining the perspectives of many people’s eyes.
Katherine and Tianke both also had some reflections about Zoom breakout rooms. Katherine believes that through random allocation, breakout rooms eliminate personal biases in creating groups, so everyone has the chance to interact with people they might never have otherwise. However, she has found, in general, that communication through a screen is more awkward and uncomfortable than communication in person, that it is harder to develop and maintain connections with other people, especially when some of them turn their cameras off. Although diversity is promoted, Katherine wonders if the tempering effects of political skill could be hindered. She also wonders how relationships forged solely through on-screen calls would carry over in real-life –– whether they’ll grow weaker or stronger.
Tianke, on the other hand, recently had an experience that showed more promise for relationships within heterogeneous groups, even those in virtual environments. This past Friday, he organized an event called “Space Gathering,” where he invited eight of his friends who didn’t know each other beforehand to a Zoom meeting where they had a dialogue for two hours. He purposely selected the participants to promote diversity, as there was a mix of genders, majors, personality types, and nationalities. He designed several group activities to see if connections could be made among these “familiar” strangers. To maximize heterogeneity for each team, he pre-arranged breakout rooms so that every person would meet two people who have different backgrounds with them. After each person shared two identities and real stories behind, Tianke told the groups to use generative and reflective listening skills to validate each others’ stories and feelings so that each person could be heard.
As Xu et al. suggest in their article, people are disinclined to share leadership roles with dissimilar others. Tianke expected his friends’ discussion to go into a dead end; however, that was not the case. During the debrief, people shared that their natural curiosity towards those who were different inspired them to explore the others’ stories, experiences, and ideas.
“As a person who always interacts with people who are similar to me and who usually stays in my comfort zone, I was really excited to listen to people’s diverse experiences and imagine their living environments,” one participant reflected. “I agree,” replied another participant. “My desire to connect with people dissimilar to me, along with our shared curiosity, made us consciously active when engaging in conversation, motivating us to seek an optimal solution using group efforts.”
RSS Feed
