Workplace teams with “socially distinct” newcomers perform at a higher level than those comprised of people who have been working together for a while, or of people of similar backgrounds. This comes from research by Katie Liljenquist, reported by Sarah Boesveld in the Globe and Mail a couple weeks ago (a similar report on her research is here if you can’t access the Globe).

Newcomers are often in a position to voice disagreement and create tension, she says, which tends to lead to looking at issues in new ways or renewing focus on the task rather than “chatting about the weekend.”

In her study done with two co-authors, they asked undergraduate volunteers from fraternities and sororities who knew each other to solve mysteries in teams, with or without an outsider. Those without the outsider reported strong group cohesion and having lots of “fun” but did not solve the mysteries as fast or as well as those with an outsider. Those with the outsiders reported that their group lacked “cohesion” yet they performed better.

Liljenquist believes these results are important for managers who put people into teams. Those teams who self-report good social cohesion and spirit should perhaps be re-evaluated for their effectiveness. And, managers may wish to attempt deliberately to make teams more diverse in order to improve efficiency.

Your thoughts? Has the best work you’ve contributed to come from teams of buddies or teams of people less familiar with each other, from different backgrounds?