Perhaps all offices could use a Dwight

PROVO — He hides weapons in his desk drawers, clings to the somewhat facetious title of assistant regional manager and can be easily trained to ask for Altoids at the sound of a bell.

Yet despite these quirky personality traits, working with socially diverse people — like Dwight Schrute, the paper salesman from NBC's hit show "The Office" — can actually make groups more effective, professors say.

"If you have someone who's different than you, but yet you do share some similarity, that's what really forces you into a much more critical decision-making process," said Katie Liljenquist, assistant professor of organizational leadership at Brigham Young University's Marriott School of Management.

In a co-authored study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Liljenquist, Katherine W. Phillips of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and Margaret Neale, professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, explain that "socially distinct newcomers" are not just beneficial in groups because they may bring new ideas, but because they create a bit of uncomfortableness, which enables new ways of thinking.

"If I'm a manager and I want this team to be a problem-solving team, the team needs to understand the power of this discomfort," Neale said. "The last thing I want is for my (teams) to be comfortable. Teams composed of familiar others actually spend less time on the task and more time on 'what did you do last night?' "

Not that work has to be painful, but employees and managers must realize that a small amount of discomfort produces the best results, according to the study.

Which means if you find yourself in a work group with a socially distinct, though not socially inept, member, like a Dwight Schrute, the study shows you will be more productive, even if you don't feel as comfortable.

"Having people who are different and bringing in newcomers can certainly catalyze a new way of looking at the problem," Neale said.

To test their hypotheses, the authors had 200 college-age students from two fraternities or sororities read a set of interviews, then write who they believed committed a fictitious crime.

They were then put into groups of four. Three of the students, "old-timers," were from the same fraternity or sorority and chatted for five minutes before they were joined by a fourth person.

Sometimes it was an "in-group newcomer," while other times it was an "out-group newcomer" from the rival fraternity or sorority.