P RESSURES TOWARDS H OMOGENEITY

and combining knowledge all together, if they are not able to reach agreement on common goals for pursuing such knowledge processes. Henderson (1994) adds that when mutually exclusive goals obstruct interaction, it may result in one party winning by defeating or reducing the power of the other, in order to accomplish his goals. This win-loose situation may allow for knowledge to be exchanged, due to problems being solved according to the values of the

‘winner’. However, a win-loose solution in contradicting goals will not be able to foster a combination of different values and perspectives, but will deny this creative practice of the benefits of diversity.

tend to agree and comply with people they like (Hogg and Terry, 2000). Such reinforcement is according to Fisher (1981) evidently a pleasing experience causing people with similar attitudes to tend to like one another. That is, similarity is reassuring in that it reaffirms our beliefs, and serves as a signal that future interaction will be free of conflict. Furthermore, similarity engenders a sense of unity, all of which are interpersonally rewarding.

Schneider’s (1987) famous attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework suggests that individuals with similar personalities will tend to be found in the same work setting, as attraction to an organization, selection by it, and attrition from it yield particular kinds of persons in an organization. Schneider’s (1987) basic argument is the claim that people are attracted to careers as a function of their own interests and personality. In the same way, people’s preferred environments tend to have the same personality profile as they do themselves.

Similar kinds of people are likely to have similar kinds of personalities, and often choose to do similar things, as well as they behave similarly. Thus, attraction to an organization and attrition from it is likely to moderate the diversity of people in an organization.

The likelihood of small teams to become increasingly homogeneous over time grows when team members already share much in common. This is due to the fact that members are more likely to share and discuss information, which they have in common, rather than sharing personal views and information. The views of the majority are, therefore, amplified by this frequency-dependent bias, and those of the minority further suppressed, and thereby, reducing the variety of views in the team. Once developed, routines are fairly resistant to change among other things because they—as mentioned above—simplify member’s lives (Aldrich, 1999). Ruef, Aldrich, and Carter (2003) clarify, that the similarity of individuals disposes them toward a greater level of personal attraction, trust and understanding and consequently greater levels of social

affiliation, than would be expected among dissimilar individuals. Individuals are usually more comfortable with people perceived to be similar to the self.

Another expression of homophily is the fact that managers tend to recruit people similar to them, and that organizations tend to attract people who believe that the organizations’ members are similar to themselves. Once inside an organization, members get to know one another better, and they remain according to Aldrich (1999) satisfied members as long as their initial judgment of similarity is retained. If differences are perceived as unpleasant or tension creating, the most dissimilar will often be encouraged to leave to retain group harmony. Over time these processes create psychologically homogeneity. New members discover fairly quickly that they do not fit into the setting well, therefore, the likelihood of quitting is higher in the early years of a member’s tenure than in later years. In this way, homophilic selection forces tend to reduce internal variability and instead create a pressure towards homogeneity.

Conformity as defined by Kiesler and Kiesler (1969:2) is ‘a change in behavior or belief toward a team as a result of real or imagined team pressure, and thus, involves an alteration of behavior and belief toward a team’. As West (2004) indicates, team members are subject to social conformity effects causing them to withhold opinions and information contrary to the majority view – especially if the majority view is an organizationally dominant view.

More specifically, conformity entails an alteration that occurs as a result of group pressure, which is ‘a psychological force operating upon a person to fulfill others’ expectations of him, especially those expectations of others relating to the person’s roles or to behaviors specified or implied by the norms of the team to which he belongs’ (Kiesler and Kiesler, 1969:32). When people try to conform to a team of others, for example by trying to get others to like them, they often attempt to express opinions similar to those of the other, to agree with the other. People apparently develop a strong need to be personally

and socially ‘correct’ in their behaviour and opinions. To further ensure the continuation of a team, they will attempt to avoid conflict with the others resulting in conformity of individual goals. People in a common situation will, therefore in time, come to perceive themselves as similar to each other. This, plus the motive to be ‘at one’ with the others, will result in the feeling that

‘we’ are a team. West (2004) illustrates that most people would go along with the majority view, even though they are aware that this is the incorrect line.

There are according to Nemeth (1997) two primary reasons for adopting majority viewpoints, even when incorrect. One is that people assume that truth lies in numbers and are quick to infer that they themselves are incorrect when faced with a unanimous majority. The other reason is that they fear disapproval and rejection for being different. When individuals are faced with a majority they search for information in a biased manner, as they consider primarily information that confirms the majority position.