The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes Karen A. Jehn a,*, Katerina Bezrukova b a b

Melbourne Business School, 200 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 June 2006 Accepted 25 November 2009 Available online 11 February 2010 Accepted by Dave Harrison Keywords: Faultlines Conflict Coalition formation Group entitlement configuration Team identification

a b s t r a c t This research examines the effects of group faultline activation on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. We distinguish between dormant faultlines (potential faultlines based on demographic characteristics) and activated group faultlines (members actually perceive subgroups based on the demographic characteristics) and hypothesize that while dormant faultlines do not automatically turn into active group divisions, a group’s entitlement configuration can activate divisions among group members. Study 1 was a construct validity study to verify the psychometric properties of the activated group faultline measure and explain its connection to other process variables. In Studies 2 and 3, we tested our hypotheses and found that groups with activated faultlines were more likely to form coalitions, have high levels of group conflict, and lower levels of satisfaction and group performance than dormant faultline groups. Furthermore, team identification moderated the effects of activated faultlines on group processes such that a strong workgroup identity decreased the likelihood that activated faultlines led to coalition formation and conflict. Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Group composition and its effect on group processes and outcomes are central to the study of organizations. However, much research on group diversity has shown mixed results (cf. Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduced the concept of group faultlines to forward research on group composition. Group faultlines ‘‘divide a group’s members on the basis of one or more attributes” (p. 325). The group faultline framework allows group composition researchers to make predictions about subgroup interactions within the group based on member demographic characteristics. However, much of the empirical work has neglected a number of aspects of faultlines that we consider critical to understanding the theoretical link between members’ demographics and group performance: faultline activation, group personality configuration, and superordinate team identification. Our main research question is when are objective demographic alignments (dormant faultlines) actually perceived by group members? That is, when do dormant faultlines become activated faultlines? According to Lau and Murnighan (1998), groups may have many potential faultlines, ‘‘each of which may activate or increase the potential for particular subgroupings” (p. 328). Subgroups, in general, are two or more individuals within a group separated from * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.A. Jehn), [email protected] (K. Bezrukova). 0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008

other group members (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; O’Leary & Mortensen, 2008). Faultline subgroups are based on demographic alignments that divide groups; for instance, into male and female subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) or even based on location (Cramton & Hinds, 2005; O’Leary & Mortensen, 2008; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). We define faultline activation as the process by which an objective demographic alignment (a potential, or dormant faultline) is actually perceived by group members as the division of the group into separate subgroups based on demographic alignment (an activated faultline). While Lau and Murnighan’s initial conceptualization of faultlines infers activation, the majority of the recent work on faultlines operationalizes faultlines based on objective demographic characteristics such as gender, nationality, and race (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Molleman, 2005; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008; Polzer et al., 2006; Sawyer, Houlette, & Yeagley, 2006; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). Despite the theorizing, much of this past work on faultlines (see Earley and Mosakowski (2000) for exception) does not examine whether the members actually perceive these subgroup distinctions based on demographics that Lau and Murnighan (1998) suggested were the basis for consequent intragroup processes and outcomes. We therefore draw on the diversity research which has suggested: (a) that diverse groups are likely to contain subgroups (Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004; Polzer et al., 2006); (b) that there is a conceptual distinction between objective and

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

perceived demographic differences within groups (Garcia-Prieto, Bellard, & Schneider, 2003; Harrison & Klein, 2007; Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, & Salvador, 2008) that has been acknowledged in the empirical work on surface- and deep-level diversity (Cunningham, 2007; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006), mentoring relationships (e.g., Lankau, Riordan, & Thomas, 2005), value and goal diversity (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Mannix & Jehn, 2004; Rink, 2005), face-to-face vs. computer mediated communication (e.g., Bhappu, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1997), and perceived variability/homogeneity in ingroups and outgroups (e.g., Lee & Ottati, 1993). In addition, research on supervisor–subordinate relations has suggested that perceived differences often have a greater effect on interactions than objective demographic differences (cf. Riordan, 2000; Strauss, Barrick, & Connerley, 2001; Turban & Jones, 1988). Ashforth and Mael (1989) explain this by suggesting that the effect of demographic differences is through individuals’ perceptions. A recent study by Zellmer-Bruhn et al. (2008) shows that the demographic composition within a group is not necessarily related to perceived demographic similarity. They discuss implications for faultline research and suggest that the ‘‘congruence between potential faultlines and activated faultlines is not a foregone conclusion” (p. 14). We believe that it is therefore critical for research on faultlines to examine the activation of dormant faultlines into activated faultlines thus taking into account members’ perceptions of the demographic composition within the group in addition to the objective demographics as, we believe, this is the foundation for future interactions among group members. In fact, we propose that the objective demographic subgroup divisions (dormant faultlines) examined in the past research on faultlines may not necessarily be perceived by the members (activated faultlines) and therefore the past studies have provided a limited examination of the faultline construct. Configural aspects of groups are considered an important aspect of the context of group interaction (cf. Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004) that until now have been generally overlooked in research examining group composition, and in faultline research in particular. Configural concepts (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) are those having meaning at the team level because of their form of dispersion, but that stem from individual attributes, such as personality or ability variables (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Molleman, Nauta, & Jehn, 2004; Neuman, Wagner, & Christiansen, 1999; Stellmacher & Petzel, 2005). We specifically examine the team entitlement configuration as key to faultline activation based on equity sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987; King, Miles, & Day, 1993; Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1994) and political aggression theories (Chirot, 1997; Dekker, Malova, & Hoogendoorn, 2003; Duckitt, 1989). Entitlement refers to the belief of an individual that they are deserving of rewards, regardless of their effort (Moore, 1991). Entitled individuals increase power struggles and adversity in groups (Kirkpatrick, Waugh, Valencia, & Webster, 2002; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000) and hence, when specific team entitlement configurations are present in a group we propose that dormant faultlines are more likely to be activated. Political history provides many examples of abusive leaders with high entitlement beliefs who intensively exploited nationalistic rhetoric to emphasize conflict between races or classes (Chirot, 1997) to extend their political power (Dekker et al., 2003; Weiss, 2003). An example of an entitlement configuration leading to dormant faultline activation is that of the MBA learning team with two members with high levels of entitlement polarizing the group. We propose that this configuration, two entitleds, is most likely to activate demographic faultlines. That is, in a group when there are two individuals vying for power and control (i.e., entitleds) in opposing faultline subgroups, this is the most likely configuration to activate

25

the effects of dormant faultlines. We argue that the configuration of entitlement beliefs within a group, which are associated with authority seeking and power struggle initiation (Miles et al., 1994; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004; Silverman & Williamson, 1997), can trigger the activation of dormant faultlines. We therefore include in our model the moderating role of group entitlement configuration in activating dormant faultlines. In addition, the internal group dynamics, according to Lau and Murnighan (1998), are a key component of the process by which group composition influences group and individual level outcomes. While some studies have suggested mediating factors between faultlines and group outcomes, they often do not directly test these relationships (e.g., Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Sawyer et al., 2006; for exceptions see Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005). One common group process that is examined in diversity research, and that is indicated in the original theory as key to performance losses in groups with faultlines, is conflict (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; cf. Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). In addition to examining conflict, we also investigate coalition formation as a behavioral process indicated in the original faultline theory (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) but neglected in the subsequent empirical work. Therefore, in these studies we examine the faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Finally, while we propose that faultline activation will lead to coalition formation and conflict, we also suggest a more positive view of this situation by proposing a moderator that alleviates the negative aspects of faultline activation: superordinate team identification. We draw upon social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and social categorization theory (Turner, 1984; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to understand how a superordinate workgroup identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005) may reduce conflict and coalition formation between activated subgroups by reducing the salience of the subgroup categorization. We propose that when group members are both committed to and hold the superordinate team identity as primary (team identification) the entire group becomes more internally cohesive and thus negative group processes such as conflict and coalition formation are less likely. In sum, in these studies we examine the group faultline activation process and propose a micromediational chain linking activated group faultlines to behaviors (coalition formation and conflict) which ultimately effect group outcomes. We examine how negative effects of activated faultlines can be alleviated by workgroup identity to more fully specify the processes that occur in diverse workgroups (see Fig. 1).

A model of activated faultlines, group processes, and outcomes The activation process: dormant to activated group faultlines Similar to the geological concept of faults in the Earth’s crust, dormant faultlines in groups can be inactive and go unnoticed for years without any changes in group processes (Lau &

Fig. 1. Model of faultline activation and the effects of activated faultlines.

26

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

Murnighan, 1998; Wiprut & Zobrack, 2000). We therefore distinguish between dormant faultlines and activated group faultlines and define dormant faultlines as the demographic alignment across members that may (or may not) divide a group into subgroups based on objective demographic alignment across members. This objective alignment is what most past faultline research has studied (for an exception see Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). Activated group faultlines occur in groups when members actually perceive these divisions into subgroups based on demographic attributes. While dormant faultlines are based on the objective demographics of group members, activated group faultlines exist when members perceive two separate subgroups. In the geological literature, to continue with the metaphor, there are certain things that lead to the likelihood of a dormant fault being activated: (1) the predisposition of the fault orientation (i.e., the alignment exists, the dormant fault) and (2) and increase in stress or pressure that pushes on the sides of the faults (Wiprut & Zobrack, 2000). Most past organizational and team research has assumed that the first criterion is enough, but we focus on the second aspect, the faultline activation process and propose that dormant faultlines do not necessarily turn into active group divisions, but that certain group personality configurations activate potential dormant alignments. Theoretically, according to Lau and Murnighan (1998) and more recently Cramton and Hinds (2005), faultlines increase the potential for demographic subgroupings (two or more members separate from other group member based on demographics). We propose that there are certain situations in which demographic alignments become salient to the members in the group (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Li & Hambrick, 2005). Identity and self theories suggest an activation process within individuals based on the salience of social categories (cf. Oakes, 1987; Pearsall et al., 2008). For instance, Brewer and Gardner (1996) review theories of the social self and state that different selves are activated at different times or in different contexts. From the perspective of multiple identities or identity complexity, Roccas and Brewer (2002) discuss objective (what the person is; White, Christian, young, female) vs. subjective identities (who they see themselves, and others, as at a specific time; White Christian) and the processes by which subjective identities are decided. Diversity and workgroup research has also examined the processes by which a specific individual characteristic becomes salient in a workgroup (cf. Harrison & Klein, 2007; e.g., Moreland, Levine, & Wingert, 1996; Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2008), focusing on the ease of assessment or visibility of the characteristic. The visible, salient demographics provide the basis for subgroup salience to be primary to the employee (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). Note, however, that we propose that not all potential faultline situations are necessarily activated; that is, while the demographics of the group members suggest the potential for faultlines (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), the members may never actually feel or behave as separate groups; that is, there may be no perceived differences across boundaries by members. For our research, we specifically want to know what activates demographic subgroup identity, or the perception of the group members that demographically aligned subgroups exist. Based on the work on multiple identities (e.g., Roccas & Brewer, 2002) and workgroup researchers who have considered configural aspects (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neuman et al., 1999), we propose that the configuration of personality characteristics within the group (group personality configuration) is an important factor that will determine whether or not the faultlines are activated, and a factor that has thus far been ignored in the faultline research (cf. Molleman, 2005). Most past research attempting to address team level personality characteristics has

examined aggregated individual scores (e.g., Molleman et al., 2004) or variance across members (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998) and has ignored the configural aspects. In our model, member entitlement placement as a configural aspect is part of the group context (Colquitt & Jackson, 2006; Kirkman et al., 2004), and an important component of the explanation of why groups with objective faultlines will have members who actually perceive these faultlines. Group entitlement configuration We introduce group entitlement configuration as an activator of dormant faultlines which determines whether faultlines are encouraged or tolerated within groups. This specific personality variable is one that, we propose, given the specific entitlement configuration, has the potential to pull groups apart, rather than unite them (Chirot, 1997; Silverman & Williamson, 1997). We define entitlement beliefs as the feeling of deserving, regardless of effort, held by the members (adapted from Moore (1991)). This construct is often associated with arrogance, conceit, authority seeking, and grandiosity (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Silverman & Williamson, 1997). Entitleds are predisposed to compete for glory, personal worth, and power (Miles et al., 1994; Raja et al., 2004) and hence, are likely to establish themselves as a center of a communication often in opposition to others (Duckitt, 1989). Equity sensitivity theory (Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993; Miles et al., 1994) implies that individuals respond in different ways to perceived equity and inequity; that is, they are differentially sensitive to equity issues. The term ‘‘entitleds” is used to refer to those individuals who are looking for ways to improve their own situation and increase the rewards they can receive from the organization compared to others (Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005; King & Miles, 1994). Entitleds are often characterized as ‘‘takers” looking to get their way and improve their own situations (Kickul, Gundry, & Posig, 2005; Mintu-Wimsatt, 2003). When examining potential activators of dormant to activated faultlines, we propose based on theories of political aggression, justice, and equity sensitivity that a key construct to consider is the group entitlement configuration as a contextual trigger of attention and even opposition across demographically aligned subgroups (dormant faultlines). We argue that a group entitlement configuration with dispersion of two entitleds across dormant faultlines will influence the degree to which the dormant faultlines are activated. Political aggression theory (Chirot, 1997; Dekker et al., 2003; Duckitt, 1989) posits that entitled individuals increase power struggles and animosity within and between groups. This research suggests that individuals who possess high entitlement beliefs attempt to extend their political power in divisive ways (Dekker et al., 2003; Weiss, 2003) by encouraging divides between races or classes (Chirot, 1997). In addition, the high level of self-perceived superiority possessed by such individuals has been shown to incite tension and polarization among employees (Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990) note that managers with a strong sense of entitlement make judgments with greater confidence and become disproportionally more influential in group situations. Justice researchers find that different levels of equity beliefs within groups (e.g., entitleds dispersed with others) causes negative affective reactions and decreased member motivation to perform group roles (Colquitt, 2004; Grienberger, Rutte, & van Knippenberg, 1997; van den Bos & Lind, 2001). We propose that these effects will be exacerbated if the entitled members are in opposite faultline subgroups. A group consisting of an entitlement configuration of two high entitled members will experience polarization over leadership and inevitable competition over power (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Mannix, 1993; Pearce & DeNisi, 1983), thus

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

activating dormant demographic faultlines within the group. This configuration of members allows the influential ability of ‘‘entitleds” to trigger the activation of dormant faultlines. Since entitleds require complimentary followers, a group consisting of more than one entitled may experience battles over followers (Barry & Stewart, 1997) which we suggest will be activated along dormant faultlines. That is, followers will unite behind influential members most likely based on demographic alignment (similarity-attraction; Byrne, 1971; Kirkman et al., 2004; Rand & Wexley, 1975). We suggest that this influential ability of two people, each with a strong sense of entitlement, may promote the process whereby dormant faultlines actually become active divides along demographic lines within a group. In this sense, our personality configuration reflects Harrison and Klein’s (2007) notion of ‘‘diversity as separation” as it suggests a bimodal distribution with most unit members occupying the same position or uniformly spreading across the continuum with the two outliers on each side of the faultline. Here, separation is at its maximum with members polarizing and the group’s social network bifurcating into two dense clusters (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Equally weighted centers of potential power within a group might give a rise to the emergence of competing and nonoverlapping subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Mannix, 1993; Murnighan & Brass, 1991; Pearce & DeNisi, 1983) and, in our model, activate dormant faultlines based on demographics. Note, therefore, that not all potential faultline situations are activated; that is, while the demographics of the group members suggest the potential for faultlines, the members may never actually feel or behave as separate groups unless activated by the group personality configuration. Specifically, based on the above, we propose that the group personality configuration in which two members have strong entitlement beliefs is the most likely situation for faultlines to be activated. Hypothesis 1. Group entitlement configuration will moderate the relationship between dormant faultlines and activated faultlines; that is, groups with dormant faultlines and with a group personality configuration of two members with strong entitlement beliefs in opposing faultline subgroups will be more likely to have activated faultlines than groups without this group personality configuration. Mediators of the relationship between activated faultlines and group outcomes: coalition formation and conflict The next step in the model of faultlines that we investigate, once faultlines are activated, is the group processes that mediate the relationship between activated faultlines and group outcomes (see Fig. 1). We propose that coalition formation and conflict are mechanisms by which activated faultlines (perceived subgroups based on demographic alignment) have an impact on group outcomes. We define a coalition as two or more parties who cooperate to obtain a mutually desired outcome that satisfies the interests of the coalition rather than those of the entire group within which it is embedded (Komorita & Kravitz, 1983). This reflects members’ behaviors that involve joint action to achieve a goal (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). It has been argued that people form coalitions on the basis of agreement on issues or similar definitions of their task situation (Murnighan & Brass, 1991). We predict that coalitions are more likely to occur when group members perceive subgroups based on demographic similarities within the group. For example, Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) found that the demographic similarity of group members predicted coalition patterns through the processes of initial attraction and social integration of group members. Therefore, we test a prior held assumption of whether or not the demographic similarities that form faultlines will automatically lead to coalitional behavior.

27

The multiparty negotiation and coalition literature suggest that once a coalition is formed, the parties in the coalition cooperate with each other, favorably influencing their own outcomes at the expense of noncoalition members (Polzer, Mannix, & Neale, 1998). This coalition formation promotes intergroup distrust and social competition (Brewer, 1996; Insko & Schopler, 1998; Insko et al., 1993). Implicit competition between coalitions may interfere with the individual’s ability or willingness to make choices that benefit all members of a group (Brewer, 1995) thus decreasing group performance. The existence of two distinct coalitions creates ingroup/outgroup membership which leads to intergroup biases and lower satisfaction (Polzer et al., 1998; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). We, therefore, also propose that coalition formation within a group will likely lead to lower levels of group productivity and performance given the split efforts and allegiances. Hypothesis 2. Coalition formation mediates the relationship between activated group faultlines and group outcomes (member satisfaction, perceived performance, and objective performance). Interindividual–intergroup discontinuity theory suggests that intersubgroup relations may be more competitive, less trusting, and more conflictful than those between two individuals (Insko & Schopler, 1987; Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990; Schopler et al., 1993) or in a group that does not have activated faultlines. One explanation is that ingroup–outgroup distinctions cause animosity and competition between the subgroups as they distinguish themselves from one another (Insko et al., 1990). When demographic subgroups are salient, according to Li and Hambrick (2005), negative processes such as conflict are likely to arise as the two sides become wary of one another. Because of negative categorization processes, subgroups are likely to experience frustration, discomfort, hostility, and anxiety that can result in conflict in the group (Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward, & Banker, 1999; Lipponen, Helkama, & Juslin, 2003; Polzer, 2004; Polzer et al., 2006). Conflicts, in general, are perceived incompatibilities or discrepant views among group members (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Conflicts can cause extreme negative process problems such as lack of coordination, cooperation, and cohesion (Brewer, 1995, 1996; LaBianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998). A recent meta-analysis indicates that they have similar negative effects on group outcomes based on a cognitive processing perspective that all conflict is detrimental to performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Conflict increases the cognitive load which interferes with complex thinking and processing of information. Research suggests that the threat and anxiety associated with conflict can inhibit employees’ cognitive functioning in their processing of complex information (Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). According to this perspective, a negative conflict schema narrows the range of attention and triggers negative memory material which in addition to interfering with group performance also negatively influences commitment, cohesiveness, and satisfaction (Carnevale & Probst, 1998). These conflicts deplete energy and effort that could be expended toward task completion and the attainment of mutual goals (Amason & Mooney, 1999; Northcraft, Polzer, Neale, & Kramer, 1995). Therefore, we predict that: Hypothesis 3. Intragroup conflict mediates the relationship between activated group faultlines and group outcomes (member satisfaction, perceived performance, and objective performance). Team identification and faultline activation Given the negative consequences of faultline activation outlined above, we next propose a moderator that can reduce the likelihood that activated faultlines lead to negative group processes.

28

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

According to Lau and Murnighan (1998), faultlines can lead to salient subgroups that then become a basis for social identification and categorization. Groups in which members identify with a particular demographic subgroup are likely to have the negative outcomes associated with categorization (e.g., negative stereotyping and prejudice) which can increase the likelihood of activated faultlines leading to coalition formation and conflict (Thatcher & Jehn, 1998). However, if there is a strong superordinate workgroup identity within the team (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993; Kane et al., 2005) this may override the negative process effects of activated faultline subgroups. That is, in groups with strong team identification (a meta-identity, focused on the workgroup), activated faultlines will be less likely to lead to negative group processes based on stereotyping and outgroup biases (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993; Hogg & Terry, 2000). A workgroup identity as that part of an individual’s self-concept, which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her membership in a group, together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (adapted from Tajfel, 1982). That is, groups in which members have strong team identification will have a high level of commitment and hold the workgroup goals as primary (Kane et al., 2005). The team identification acts as a ‘‘social glue” and common uniting force to keep an activated faultline group working toward a common performance goal without process loss (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Therefore, we propose that the stronger the team identification within the group, the less likely activated faultlines will lead to conflict and coalition formation. Hypothesis 4. Team identification will moderate the relationship between activated faultlines and coalition formation and conflict such that the positive relationship between activated faultlines and the process variables weakens as the moderator, team identification, increases. Methods Overview of studies In Study 1, we develop and test our measure of activated faultlines and demonstrate its construct validity (convergent and discriminant; Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Campbell, 1960) and internal reliability utilizing 65 student workteams. The second study provides the cross-validation of our constructs and an empirical test of our theoretical model using 40 student workteams with dormant faultlines based on one demographic characteristic, race. The third study again replicates the construct validity of Studies 1 and 2 with 32 workteams and also tests the hypotheses with dormant faultlines based on two demographic characteristics (race and gender). In our research, we relied on a multimethod approach to examine member alignment and resulting group processes.

According to Cook, Campbell, and Peracchio (1990) and others (Singleton, Straits, & Miller, 1993), construct investigation is more accurate and reliable when multiple measurement methodologies are utilized; therefore, we used five measurement methodologies in each of the following three studies: pre- and post-experimental questionnaires, contextual ratings by independent raters, contentanalyzed audiotapes, observational reports with behavioral indicators, and objective measures of group performance (see Table 1). Task The groups in all three studies worked on a sequentially interdependent production task – tower building – based on the origami product task used in previous studies (e.g., Insko et al., 1980; Kane et al., 2005). During the first part of the task, teams were asked to draw schematic diagrams of a tower and provide a set of instructions for construction. They were given 10 min to perform this task. In the second part of the task, teams had 20 min to construct the tower. This task was chosen as one that would be unfamiliar to participants to control for prior task experience (Kane et al., 2005), unrelated to the faultline demographic characteristics (so as not to bias a certain demographic group), and allowed data collection in steps of the faultline formation process. Procedure The participants in all three studies participated for course credit and were told that they were participating in a group process and team performance study. One month before each study, participants were asked to provide information about their demographics (e.g., race, gender, age) and complete items regarding entitlement. We used a 4-item adapted short version of Sauley and Bedeian’s equity sensitivity measure of entitlement which had a Cronbach alpha of .83 (‘‘I feel I am entitled to certain things even if I put in little effort;” ‘‘I feel I am worthy of having everything without significant exertion of mental or physical energy;” ‘‘I feel I am entitled to certain privileges even if I don’t contribute;” ‘‘I feel I deserve a piece of the world because I am an extraordinary person.”). Groups were formed in each study using the collected data on participants’ demographics and entitlement (see Studies 2 and 3 for details). At the beginning of the experiment, groups received identical task instructions and building materials (e.g., blocks, paperclips, string, glue) across all studies and all conditions. They were given 30 min to build the highest tower possible that would freely stand for at least 5 min. Groups were audio-taped during the experiment and observers were present for each group. All groups gave their permission to be taped and observed. After the task was completed, the experimenters distributed a post-experimental questionnaire. After the questionnaires were completed, participants

Table 1 Measurement approaches. Construct

Study 1 (construct validity)

Study 2 (hypothesis testing, one faultline characteristic)

Study 3 (hypothesis testing, two faultline characteristics)

Group entitlement configuration Dormant faultlines Activated faultlines Coalition formation Intragroup conflict Team identification

Manipulated

Manipulated

Manipulated

Manipulated Measured: EQ Measured: CA, CR, BO Measured: CA, CR, BO

Manipulated Measured: EQ Measured: CA, CR, BO Measured: CA, CR, BO Measured: EQ, CA, CR

Manipulated Measured: EQ Measured: CA, CR, BO Measured: CA, CR, BO Measured: EQ, CA, CR

Measured: tower height Measured: EQ, CA, CR Measured: EQ

Measured: tower height Measured: EQ, CA, CR Measured: EQ

Group outcomes: Objective performance Perceived performance Satisfaction

EQ, experimental questionnaire; CA, content-analysis of verbatim; CR, contextual ratings; BO, behavioral observations.

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

were carefully debriefed about the goal and the purpose of the exercise, and winners were awarded T-shirts with the University logo. Measurement approach Given that some measurement methods are more appropriate for assessing perceptual constructs such as activated faultlines (e.g., questionnaires; Schwab, 1999) and some are more appropriate for assessing behavioral constructs such as coalitions and conflict (e.g., observational reports, contextual ratings; Schwab, 1999), we included multiple methodologies to develop a valid measurement system to test our full model which included both perceptions and behaviors. In addition, this allowed us to strengthen our examination of construct validity and achieve greater measurement accuracy via triangulation of multiple measurement techniques (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Runkel & McGrath, 1972). For instance, listening to audiotapes allows a more nuanced and accurate consideration of verbal responses and reactions (e.g., the tone of voice, sarcasm, humor; Jehn & Shah, 1997), while coding the transcripts makes it easier to identify ‘‘thought units” (Folger, Hewes, & Poole, 1984; Weingart, 1997; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991) and allows for more extensive and deeper cognitive processing by the coders as they read and reflect on each thought unit (Krosnick & Alwin, 1987). In contrast, observational reports often provide more consistent assessments across research participants (Schwab, 1999). Research findings in cognitive psychology have further shown how different presentation formats of response alternatives (i.e., visual vs. oral presentation) may guide different interpretations, memory biases, and allow for various levels in participants’ cognitive processing (Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996; Krosnick & Alwin, 1987). Thus, as we utilized different formats (i.e., listening, reading, watching), we ensured that no valuable data were lost and, following recommendations in the psychometric literature (e.g., Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981; Hinkin, 1998), we were able to develop more accurate and complete measures that capture the full domain of our conceptual definitions and operationalized constructs. We discuss the triangulation of these multiple methods in our measures and results sections below. Contextual ratings In this measurement methodology, two trained raters who were unaware of the experimental conditions listened to each group’s audiotape and rated the behavioral constructs under study (we used different raters to code different constructs as per Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003)). In creating, testing, and implementing our coding scheme, we have closely followed the Weber protocol (Weber, 1990) (e.g., definition of the coding categories, revision of the coding rules, etc.). Raters were given definitions of each construct and were asked questions such as ‘‘To what extent have coalitions formed in this team?” (coalition formation) or ‘‘How much conflict is there in this team?” (conflict). As suggested by Saal, Downey, and Lahey (1980), we further enhanced our coding procedure by clearly defining anchor points with a uniform standard of reference (1 = not at all and 5 = a lot). When raters assigned the score farther than one point apart, they discussed an issue until they reached agreement. One-third of the tapes were coded by two raters to provide data for tests of interrater reliability. Content-analysis of verbatim This measurement technique involved text analysis of the audiotapes. First, an individual who was familiar with the participants identified group members within each team on the audiotapes and checked for accuracy of transcription by randomly selecting segments from the audiotapes and comparing them with

29

the transcripts. The results showed that the discussions were accurately transcribed. Second, two raters (different coders coded different variables as per Podsakoff et al. (2003)) blind to hypotheses and conditions, were trained to segment the group discussion data into ‘‘thought units” (Folger et al., 1984) often defined as ‘‘a sequence of a few words conveying a single thought” (Weldon et al., 1991). They segmented roughly 30% of all the data together with high reliability (percentage of exact agreement = 97%) and then divided in half the remaining data to unitize independently. They further coded all thought units for content categories directly relevant to the proposed research model (Jehn & Shah, 1997): activated faultlines, coalition formation, intragroup conflict, team identification, team entitlement configuration, member satisfaction, and perceived group performance. For each variable with an exception of activated faultlines (0 = no demographic-based split and 1 = demographic-based split), the coders were asked to assign a score on a scale of 1–5 (1 = not at all and 5 = a lot) based on the coded instances. One-third of the transcripts were coded by two raters to provide data for tests of interrater reliability. Although perceptual constructs can be best measured using survey and behavioral variables using behavior coding, we collected all variables with all measures for our construct validity study (Study 1). Behavioral observations This form of measurement is specifically focused on the behaviors of team members. Observers used Structured Observational Reports to capture behavioral indications of coalition formation and conflict utilizing conversational analysis (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). Conversational analysis is a disciplined way of studying the communication within interactional episodes (Ten Have, 1986). The total of six observers were advanced undergraduate students working full-time in an organizational behavior laboratory and were present during the task to measure behaviors by assessing the direction of conversation. They received two hours of behavioral observation training prior to this study and then were grouped into two-person teams to observe the actual group interactions (different teams were asked to observe different variables as per Podsakoff et al. (2003), and rate them on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = a lot). We checked if observers were able to detect information relevant to the attribute in the stream of behavior (i.e., conflict, coalitions) by conducting a mock discussion in the laboratory setting. The results were consistent across observers. These observational reports taken during the studies provided additional behavioral verification of our audiotape and survey measures of coalition formation and conflict (see Table 1). Experimental questionnaire We collected self-reports on perceived activated faultlines, coalition formation, conflict, team identification, perceptions of workgroup performance, and member satisfaction. The items were interspersed to avert contrast, consistency or order effects. All measures were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale with anchors of 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much). Objective measures of group performance Group performance was assessed by the objective outcome of the motor task that groups had to perform. This measure was based on the height of a tower constructed by a group, given that the tower could stand on its own for at least 5 min. Study 1 In Study 1, we focused on developing the measure of activated faultlines, assessing its construct validity, and investigating

30

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

whether this measure is distinct from other similar group process constructs (e.g., coalitions and conflict) to warrant differentiating among them. Following Brown et al. (2005), we demonstrate the trait validity of our constructs through convergent (operationalizations converge with one another) and discriminant (they diverge from measures of unrelated constructs) validity. In addition, we show how perceptual constructs such as activated faultlines can be most effectively measured via survey methodology whereas behavioral constructs such as coalitions and conflict are best measured based on behavior coding techniques. Groups were formed in each study using the collected data on participants’ demographics and entitlement (see more detail in Study 2). Participants and design Participants were 253 undergraduate business students working in 65 four-person groups from a private university enrolled in a 12-week course on team functioning. Ten classes participated in this study and sessions of 4–6 groups were run at different times to facilitate the observations (no significant differences for any of the group process and outcome variables were found among either the different classes or experimental sessions). The mean age of the participants was 23 years (range = 17–60 years). The majority of the participants (65%) were white; 5% were Asian; 12% were African Americans; and 18% were Hispanic. Forty-two percent of the participants were male. During the first class session, all participants indicated their own race, and based on this information, we were able to create 33 dormant faultline groups and 32 no dormant faultline groups. Participants were placed into dormant vs. no dormant faultline groups based on race (see more detail on experimental procedure and task above) given that race is one of the most visible and socially relevant demographic categories (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Sawyer et al., 2006). We used this assignment to link faultlines to a specific demographic characteristic (race) based on the original definition of Lau and Murnighan that faultlines can divide a group based on one salient attribute (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328; Pearsall et al., 2008); other attributes were held constant (e.g., gender, age). All dormant faultline groups included two distinct subgroups of Caucasians (2–3 members) and non-Caucasians following the logic of Lau and Murnighan (2005) that Caucasians are the dominant racial group in North America. Non-Caucasian subgroups always included a similar race subgroup of Asians, African Americans, or Hispanics (categories determined by the U.S. Census Bureau (2002)). There were no significant differences across the non-Caucasian subgroups on the variables of interest in this construct validity study. Following Sawyer et al. (2006), we included questions to verify that participants accurately perceived the racial composition of the group. As a second cross-check of the effectiveness of the dormant faultline assignment, we asked two independent observers to verify the racial composition of the group. Both observers indicated participants’ race (e.g., who is White and who is Asian) and verified which member(s), if any, were of the same race correctly. Measures Activated faultlines We assessed activated group faultlines using four survey items (e.g., ‘‘My team split into subgroups during this exercise based on race.”, ‘‘My team broke into two groups during this exercise based on race.” ‘‘My team cracked into smaller cliques based on race during this exercise.” and ‘‘My team divided into subsets of people based on race during this exercise.”) and we also asked participants open-ended questions such as ‘‘If your group split into two groups,

on what characteristic did your team split into subgroups (e.g., race, gender, major, etc.).” These questionnaire items reflect the cognitive aspect of activated faultlines (group members perceive a division of the group into separate subgroups based on demographic alignment). Coalition formation We operationalized coalitions as members’ behaviors that involve joint action to achieve a goal (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). We assessed coalition behavior with three forms of measurement: contextual ratings, content-analysis of verbatim, and behavioral observations, all anchored on a response scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). We relied on Cobb’s (1991) content analytic approach to measure coalition formation and Lawler and Youngs’ (1975) measure of perceived utility of alliance in developing our measurement approaches. The contextual ratings of the videotape reflected two independent raters’ assessments (Cohen’s j = .69) regarding the following: ‘‘To what extent have coalitions formed in this team?” Content-analysis of coalition formation (rating = 5, a lot) was also reliable (Cohen’s k = .81). For our behavioral observation measure, we had two independent raters (different raters from the content-analysis coders) score the member behaviors (Cohen’s j = .70) by indicating who worked with whom and answering the question: ‘‘Did coalitions form?” Intragroup conflict We assessed conflict with three forms of measurement: contextual ratings (Cohen’s j = 1.0), content-analysis of verbatim (Cohen’s j = .78), and behavioral observations (Cohen’s j = .94), all anchored on a response scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). We relied on Jehn’s (1995) and Jehn and Mannix (2001) items to develop our measurement of conflict. We collected evidence regarding the validity of our group-level constructs based on the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1]s) analysis. We first conducted one-way analysis of variance and found between-groups variance for all of these variables significant at either the .01 or the .001 level, reflecting dependence between the scores of group members and indicating that the group was the appropriate level of analysis. We obtained the following values of ICC[1]s: activated faultlines, .41; conflict, .94; and coalitions, .94, and therefore created our group-level variables (Bliese, 2000). Results Scale development We followed a number of guidelines in writing items for the activated faultlines scale. First, using Hinkin’s (1995) deductive item-generation strategy, we obtained both published articles and works in progress studying group faultlines (e.g., Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Lau & Murnighan, 1998) and thoroughly examined them for clear examples and construct definitions from which reflective items could be developed. We then developed four items and circulated them among colleagues for comments. To provide an initial assessment of the factor structure and reliability, we pre-tested these items on a subsample of 32 students (8 groups). In light of the modest sample size, we subjected items to exploratory factor analysis using principal-factors extraction with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Only one factor was extracted that accounted for 63% of the total variance and Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .81. We deleted one item (‘‘My team cracked into smaller cliques during this exercise.”) that did not load strongly on the factor and showed low item-total correlation. We further subjected the multiple measures of activated faultlines, coalitions, and conflict to exploratory factor analysis (Fabrigar et al., 1999). A principal-factors analysis with oblique

31

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42 Table 2 Factor loadings for group process measures. Measure

Factor 1 conflict (behaviors)

Factor 2 activated faultlines (perceptions)

Factor 3 coalitions (behaviors)

Contextual ratings of conflict (CR) content-analysis of verbatim conflict (CA) Behavioral observations of conflict (BO) ‘‘My team split into subgroups during this exercise.” (EQ)* ‘‘My team divided into subsets of people during this exercise.” (EQ)* ‘‘My team broke into two groups during this exercise.” (EQ)* Behavioral observations of coalitions (BO) Contextual ratings of coalition (CR) Content-analysis of verbatim coalitions (CA) Eigenvalues

.919 .752 .896 .091 .048 .132 .008 .101 .216 6.480

.074 .198 .091 .907 .835 .940 .106 .034 .093 2.55

.045 .150 .044 .046 .127 .015 .798 .918 .745 1.497

Ng = 65 (Nind = 253). Note: Boldface and underline is used to indicate significant loading. EQ, experimental questionnaire; CA, content-analysis of verbatim; CR, contextual ratings; BO, behavioral observations. Based on race (in Study 2) and race and gender (in Study 3).

*

rotation (direct oblimin) resulted in a 3-factor solution (eigenvalues > 1) that explained 70.2% of the total variance (see Table 2). The first component included the content-analysis of verbatim, the contextual ratings, and behavioral observations that measured conflict. The second component included the activated faultline three Likert-items from the experimental questionnaire (Cronbach’s a = .82). Finally, the third component included the content-analysis of verbatim, the contextual ratings, and behavioral observations that measured coalition formation within groups (Cronbach’s a = .80). It is particularly noteworthy that the activated faultline items produced a unique factor that was distinct from all other measures (e.g., intragroup conflict, coalition formation), hence providing initial evidence of discriminant validity. The reliability analyses further indicated that there was consistency across methods of measurement and that triangulation of multiple methods was appropriate and robust. On the basis of these results, we averaged the items for each construct and created respective scales for activated faultlines (items based on experimental questionnaire), coalition formation (content-analysis of verbatim, contextual ratings, and observation-based measure), and conflict (content-analysis of verbatim, contextual ratings, and behavioral observations of conflict). Evidence of construct validity To provide evidence of convergent validity (convergent validity refers to the extent to which alternative measures of the same construct share variance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959)), we followed past research that compared correlations across multiple measures of the same construct (e.g., Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Harrison & Shaffer, 1994). Two other measures of activated faultlines included contextual ratings and content-analysis of verbatim that reflected coders’ assessments of splits in the group based on demographics, specifically race in this study, thus providing evidence for convergent validity for the perceptual measure (e.g., Harrison & Shaffer, 1994). The contextual ratings reflected two independent raters’ assessments (Cohen’s j = .60) regarding the following: ‘‘To what extent does this team split into subgroups based on race?” An example of activated faultlines identified from the content-analysis of verbatim is ‘‘I think we should split because we’re not going to go anywhere, so we should split and do it. We’ll do it in subgroups. Me and you [person’s name; same race1] and you guys [another subgroup based on race] bump heads, I can’t work with you.” The Cohen’s j was .74. The positive relations between our perceptual measure of activated faultlines and the contextual ratings measure (r = .35, p = .00) as well as with the content-analyzed measure

1 Note that coders were aware of the gender and race of participants and therefore could identify if the splits were demographic based.

(r = .25, p = .00) of activated faultlines provided initial evidence of convergent validity. To provide evidence of discriminant validity, we further used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA allows direct investigation of the degree to which specific measures jointly load on their hypothesized constructs (i.e., convergent validity) and the degree to which purportedly different constructs can be distinguished from one another (i.e., discriminant validity; Long, 1983). The measurement model proposed a 3-factor structure corresponding to hypothesized distinctions between activated faultlines, coalitions, and conflict. We report the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The GFI and CFI values greater than .95 indicate an excellent fit to the data, whereas RMSEA values around .05 indicate a good fit for the model (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). The results indicate that the 3-factor model fits the data well; v2 = 243.47, df = 87, p < .05; GFI = .97, CFI = .98, and RMSEA = .04 were all at or above recommended standards (e.g., Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). By comparison, a model positing that a single factor underlies the study variables did not fit well (GFI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .29; Dv2 = 352.4, Ddf = 3, p < .01), indicating that the 3factor model provided a superior fit. These tests demonstrate that the measures of activated faultlines, conflict, and coalition items do not tap a single underlying construct. Discussion The strength of the present study included the use of multiple methods and an examination of the trait validity of the activated faultline scale. The convergent validity of the activated faultline measure was indicated by the finding that all items significantly loaded on one factor. Also we find a pattern of positive associations between the three measures of activated faultlines (experimental questionnaire, content-analysis of verbatim, and contextual ratings) adding further support in favor of the convergent validity of our measure. We thus add to the literature by applying a multitrait–multimethod approach to operationalizing our constructs. Recent research has stressed the importance of providing a more stringent test of psychometric properties of constructs using either multiple data sources or multiple methods (e.g., survey, observation) (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). In terms of discriminant validity, alternative measurement models showed a poor fit to the data compared to the hypothesized 3-factor model (activated faultlines, coalitions, and conflict) which was significantly supported. Activated faultlines also exhibited differential patterns of relationships with coalitions and conflict, hence providing additional evidence in favor of discriminant validity. Concerns of common method bias are also alleviated in the next studies as

32

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

dormant faultlines are the alignment of demographic characteristics (assigned to condition), activated faultlines are perceptions and thus measured with perceptual measurement methods (i.e., questionnaires), and coalition formation and conflict are conceptualized as behaviors and thus, are measured with behavioral indicators and not questionnaires. Study 2 Having described the development and validation of our new measure of activated faultlines, in Study 2 we cross-validate the measure of activated faultlines (and other process variables). As noted at the outset, the process of faultline activation remains largely untested, thus our second goal in this study is to provide a first test of our theoretical model and hypotheses regarding faultline activation and the effects of activated faultlines on conflict, coalition, and group outcomes.

entitleds (in opposite race subgroups), (3) no dormant faultlines and no entitleds, (4) no dormant faultlines and two entitleds. We also checked whether participants of a certain race felt more entitled than others in general and there were no significant race effect (F(3, 156) = .05, n.s., g2 = .00). All data were further analyzed at the group level. Measures Process measures Based on the results of Study 1, we used three survey items to assess activated faultlines (see Study 1 for more detail on process measures). We further measured coalition formation using content-analysis of verbatim (Cohen’s j = .78), contextual ratings (Cohen’s j = .60), and behavioral observations (Cohen’s j = .71). We also assessed conflict using content-analysis of verbatim (Cohen’s j = .75), contextual ratings (Cohen’s j = .90), and behavioral observations (Cohen’s j = .91). All raters were blind to condition and hypotheses.

Participants and design Participants were 160 undergraduate business students (40 four-person groups) from a private university enrolled in a 12week course on team functioning. Seven classes participated in this study and sessions of 4–6 groups were run at different times to facilitate the observations (no significant differences for any of the group process and outcome variables were found among either students’ different classes or experimental sessions). The mean age of the participants was 22 years (range = 17–60 years). The majority of the participants (60%) were white; 8% were Asian; 12% were African Americans; and 20% were Hispanic. Forty-eight percent of the participants were female. We used a 2  2 between-subjects quasi-experimental design crossing dormant faultlines (groups with dormant faultlines vs. groups with no dormant faultlines) and group entitlement configuration (2 entitleds vs. groups without such members). Regarding our faultline manipulation, participants were placed into dormant vs. no dormant faultline groups based on race (see more detail on experimental procedure and task above) given that race is one of the most visible and socially relevant demographic categories (Dovidio et al., 2002; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Sawyer et al., 2006). We used this manipulation to provide a clear and simple test of the faultline activation hypotheses based on the original definition of Lau and Murnighan that faultlines can divide a group based on one salient attribute (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328; Pearsall et al., 2008), especially considering all other attributes are held constant (e.g., gender, age). Given the makeup of racial demographics available in the class, we were able to create 21 dormant faultline groups and 19 no dormant faultline groups. All dormant faultline groups included two distinct subgroups of Caucasians (2 members) and non-Caucasians following the logic of Lau and Murnighan (2005) that Caucasians are the dominant racial group in North America. The group entitlement configuration was manipulated by placing two members with high entitlement scores (range = 4–5) into groups or having groups with no entitled members (range = 1– 2.5). This was based on the entitlement scores collected one month before the study which resulted in a bimodal distribution (M = 2.17, SD = 1.29; an intermode at 3; Kessing, 2006; Meehl, 1992) with the first mode consisting of participants with low levels of entitlement (range = 1–2.5) and the second mode consisting of participants with high levels of entitlement (range 4–5). In the dormant faultline condition, one entitled was in each side of the dormant faultline (i.e., 1 entitled Caucasian, 1 entitled non-Caucasian). The 2  2 of faultlines and entitled configuration thus created four cells: (1) dormant faultline no entitleds, (2) dormant faultline 2

Team identification We assessed team identification with three forms of measurement: content-analysis of verbatim (Cohen’s j = .64), contextual ratings (Cohen’s j = .63), and post-experimental questionnaire. We used six survey items based on Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and William’s (1986) scale such as ‘‘It was important to me that others thought highly of my team during this exercise” and ‘‘When someone criticized my team, it felt like a personal insult.” Group outcomes We used a number of different methods to measure team outcomes. First, we used the objective measure of motor task performance that was based on the height of the tower constructed by a group. Second, to measure perceived performance we utilized the contextual rating (Cohen’s j = .82), content-analysis of verbatim transcripts (Cohen’s j = .72), and three items from the experimental questionnaire that measured perceived group performance (‘‘My team performed very effectively on this exercise,” ‘‘I think my workgroup, as a whole, performed very well during this exercise,” ‘‘My team was very effective at getting things done quickly during this exercise.”). Third, we used three items from the experimental questionnaire to measure satisfaction (‘‘I was very satisfied working in this team during this exercise,” ‘‘I would like to work with this team again,” ‘‘I was happy working in this group during this exercise.” We created respective scales by taking the mean across measures (each measure was rated on a 5-point Likert scale) for activated faultlines (Cronbach’s a = .91), coalition formation (Cronbach’s a = .80), conflict (Cronbach’s a = .82), identification (Cronbach’s a = .81), and group outcomes (perceived performance; Cronbach’s a = .94, satisfaction: Cronbach’s a = .91) for use in the present study. We averaged individual-level scales across groups to produce group scores of the factors and aggregated them to the four-person group level, following the procedures described in Study 1. The values of ICC[1]s were as follow: activated faultlines, .61; team identification, .63; conflict, .87; satisfaction, .45; group performance, .67; and coalitions, .40. On the basis of these results, we concluded that aggregation was justified and created our group-level variables. Manipulation checks Following Sawyer et al. (2006), we included questions to verify that participants accurately perceived the racial composition of the group. All participants indicated their own race and indicated

33

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

which member(s), if any, were of the same (or another) race correctly. As a second cross-check of the effectiveness of the faultline manipulation, we asked two independent observers to verify the racial composition of the group. Both observers indicated participants’ race (e.g., who is White and who is Asian) and verified which member(s), if any, were of the same race correctly. As a final crosscheck, we followed Lau and Murnighan’s (2005) procedure by using the faultline index of Thatcher et al. (2003). The average faultline strengths of groups with no dormant and dormant faultlines were 0 and .98, respectively, the difference between them was statistically significant, F(1, 36) = 179.51, p < .01, g2 = .86, indicating that dormant vs. no dormant faultline manipulation was successful. This manipulation check was not influenced by group entitlement configuration, F(1, 36) = .07, n.s., g2 = .01, nor by the interaction between faultlines and entitlement, F(1, 36) = .20, n.s., g2 = .01. Regarding the group entitlement configuration manipulation check, we adapted the equity sensitivity items based on Sauley and Bedeian (2000) (e.g., ‘‘I feel I deserve a lot because of who I am,” Cronbach’s a = .76). Overall, participants in the two entitled member condition reported higher levels of entitlement (M = 3.10, SD = 1.59) than in the no entitled condition (M = 1.63, SD = .49, F(1, 156) = 46.46, p = .00, g2 = .25). This manipulation check was not influenced by faultline condition, F(1, 156) = .23, n.s., g2 = .00, nor by the interaction between faultlines and entitlement, F(1, 156) = .01, n.s., g2 = .00. To further check the effectiveness of the manipulation, we have followed Goncalo and Staw’s (2006) procedure and asked two coders blind to the hypotheses to read the verbatim of group discussions from transcribed audiotapes and code group entitlement configuration. The coders were given the definition of entitlement and asked to place each group member into a high or low category based on his/her sense of entitlement (Cohen’s j = .60). Groups in the two entitled member condition were more likely to be coded (Cohen’s j = .80) as having two entitleds on each side of a faultlines and groups in no entitled condition were more likely to be coded as having no entitleds on each side of a faultlines, v2(1, N = 40) = 6.67, p < .05, effect size index Cramer’s V = .41, hence satisfying the profile of group entitlement configuration manipulated. We further conducted a 2 (groups with dormant faultlines vs. groups with no dormant faultlines)  2 group entitlement configuration (2 entitleds vs. groups without such members) logistic regression on the coders’ scores (see Hart and Van Vugt (2006) for a similar analysis). The entitlement effect was significant, v2(1, N = 40) = 3.71, p < .05, the Nagelkerke R2 effect size = .21 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). There was no faultline

effect v2(1, N = 40) = .22, n.s., the Nagelkerke R2 effect size = .00 nor an interaction, v2(1, N = 40) = .02, n.s., the Nagelkerke R2 effect size = .11. Taken together, these results suggest that our manipulation was successful. Results and discussion Cross-validation We again used CFA to examine the construct validity of our process variables. The measurement model proposed a 3-factor structure corresponding to our proposed distinctions between activated faultlines, coalition formation, and conflict. The results indicate that the model fits the data well; v2 = 234.19, df = 87, p < .05; GFI = .97, CFI = .98, and RMSEA = .07 were all at or above recommended standards (e.g., Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Hypotheses tests Correlations among the variables in this study are shown in Table 3. Dormant faultlines and activated faultlines are not significantly correlated suggesting the expected distinction between the two constructs and providing additional evidence for the discriminant validity. Coalitions were significantly and negatively correlated with objective and perceived group performance, and satisfaction. Conflict was significantly and negatively intercorrelated with all group outcomes. Faultline activation Hypothesis 1 predicted that groups with dormant faultlines and with a group entitlement configuration of two entitleds would be more likely to have activated faultlines than groups without this team entitlement configuration. A 2 (dormant vs. no dormant faultline)  2 (2 entitled configuration vs. no entitled) ANOVA factorial design yielded no significant main effects but a significant interaction between dormant faultlines and group entitlement configuration on activated faultlines, F(1, 36) = 9.05, p = .01, g2 = .20 (see Table 4 for means and standard deviations pertaining to this interaction). Simple effects analysis showed that in accordance with Hypothesis 1, groups with dormant faultlines and a group personality configuration with two entitleds had more activated faultlines than without such members, F(1, 36) = 5.50, p = .02, g2 = .13. Groups with no dormant faultlines were not influenced by group entitlement configuration, F(1, 36) = 3.70, n.s., g2 = .09 (see Fig. 2).

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables in hypothesis testing. Correlations 1. Dormant faultlines 2. Activated faultlines 3. Coalitions 4. Conflict 5. Perceived performance 6. Objective performance 7. Satisfaction 8. Team identification

Mean (N = 40) Study 2

SD (N = 40) Study 2

Mean (N = 32) Study 3

SD (N = 32) Study 3

1

2

3

5

6

.69

.26

.61

.31

2.42

1.14

2.20

1.07

1.43 1.54 3.69

.50 .64 .87

1.49 1.46 3.92

.59 .66 .89

.37* .12 .26

.53** .28* .28*

.37** .45**

.36

.54

.30

.51

.29

.23

.26

.02

.35*

.25

3.97 4.34

.66 .47

4.14 4.26

.62 .59

.30 .14

.29* .10

.40** .34

.51** .33

.65** .42*

Study 2 correlations are reported in the lower triangle. Study 3 correlations are reported in the upper triangle. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

.10

4

.31

7

8

.01

.07

.06

.01

.07

.21

.49**

.36*

.38*

.20

.45**

.05

.36*

.39* .50**

.24 .10 .44*

.48** .70** .74**

.21 .29 .18

.23

.16

*

.07 .00

.18 .71**

34

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

Table 4 Effects of faultlines and group entitlement configuration on faultline activation (Studies 2 and 3). Study 2

Groups with dormant faultlines

Measure

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Activated faultlines

3.23a

1.09

2.18b

1.02

1.71b

.50

2.61ab

1.35

Study 3

Groups with dormant faultlines on 2 characteristics

Measure

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Activated faultlines

3.69a

.80

1.56b

.43

2.15c

.67

1.89bc

1.24

2 entitleds

Groups with no dormant faultlines No 2 entitleds

2 entitleds

2 entitleds

No 2 entitleds

Groups with no dormant faultlines

No 2 entitleds

2 entitleds

No 2 entitleds

activated faultlines

Note: Means within a row with a different subscript differ at p < .05.

homogenous

faultlines based on race

dormant faultlines Fig. 2. Shape of interactive effects on active faultlines (Study 2).

Testing the micro-mediating chain: activated faultlines–coalitions/ conflict–outcomes Regression of activated faultlines on coalitions (Hypothesis 2) showed that groups with activated faultlines have more coalition formation than groups without faultlines (b = .55, p < .01) (see Table 5). Second, we regressed the dependent measures (objective

performance, satisfaction, and group performance) on activated faultlines, and found significant effects (b = .22, p < .05; b = .32, p < .05; b = .33, p < .05, respectively). Consistent with our theorizing, groups with activated faultlines had lower levels of objective group performance, perceived group performance, and satisfaction. At the third step of the mediation, with activated faultlines simultaneously entered in the equation, coalitions influenced perceived group performance (b = .39, p < .05). Supporting the mediation role of coalitions, after including coalitions in the equations, the direct effect of activated faultlines on perceived group performance no longer remained significant, p > .1 (Baron & Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Utilization of Sobel’s (1982) procedure for testing the significance of the indirect mediation relationship provided evidence of a reliable change in b for perceived group performance, z(39) = 1.97, p < .05. Thus, these analyses show that coalitions fully mediated the effect of activated faultlines on perceived group performance. There was no mediation established for the activated faultlines–coalitions–objective performance or satisfaction links. Hypothesis 3 (H3) predicted that conflict will mediate the relationship between activated group faultlines and group outcomes (objective group performance, perceived group performance, and satisfaction). First, regression of activated faultlines on conflict showed that groups with activated faultlines have higher levels of conflict than groups without faultlines (b = .32, p < .05). Second, as previously stated, there were significant effects of activated faultlines on the dependent measures. At the third step of the mediation, with activated faultlines simultaneously entered in the equation, conflict influenced objective group performance (b = .37, p < .05) and satisfaction (b = .44, p < .01). Supporting the mediation role of conflict, after including conflict in the equations, the direct effect of activated faultlines on objective group

Table 5 Regression analyses testing the micro-mediating chain of activated faultlines–processes–outcomes (Study 2). 1: 1: DV = p DV = coalitions conflict IV Activated faultlines Mediator Coalitions Conflict Change in R2 F change R2 Adjusted R2 F a b c d

.55d

.32c

– .29 15.3d .29 .26 7.67c

p < .1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001, N = 40.

– .10 4.19b .12 .08 2.63a

2: DV = objective performance

2: 2: DV = perceived DV = satisfaction performance

.22a

– – .05 1.89a .11 .07 2.35a

.32b

.33b

.10 4.25b .13 .08 2.64a

– – .10 4.56b .15 .11 3.33b

– –

3: 3: 3: DV = objective DV = satisfaction DV = perceived performance performance .29a

.10

.18

.32a

.13 .06 1.17 .12 .05 1.71

.15

.37b .17 3.81b .23 .17 3.58b

.17 3.84b .20 .13 2.92b

.12

.25

.39b .44c .27 6.75c .29 .23 4.91c

.21 5.1b .26 .20 4.17c

.25 .16 3.64b .21 .14 3.16b

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

performance and satisfaction no longer remained significant, p > .1. Utilization of Sobel’s (1982) procedure for testing the significance of the indirect mediation relationship provided evidence of a reliable change in b for conflict with objective group performance, z(39) = 1.66 at p < .1 and satisfaction, z(39) = 1.81, p < .05. Thus, these analyses show partial support for our Hypothesis 3: conflict mediated the effect of activated faultlines on objective group performance (at p < .1) and fully mediated the effect of faultlines on satisfaction. Moderating role of team identification As a test of Hypothesis 4, whether team identification alleviates the negative effects of activated processes, a series of moderated regression analyses with coalition formation and conflict as the dependent measures and activated faultlines, team identification, and the activated faultlines by team identification cross-product revealed significant interactions for coalition formation (b = .46, p = .01, R2 changed for the interaction .16, F(1, 35) = 9.35, p = .01, and for the overall equation, R2 = .54, F(4, 35) = 7.91, p = .00) and conflict (b = .58, p = .00, R2 changed for the interaction .25, F(1, 35) = 14.00, p = .00, and for the overall equation, R2 = .51, F(4, 35) = 7.02, p = .00). As recommended by Aiken and West (1991: pp. 12–13), we performed a simple slope analysis for each regression line to test whether its slope was significantly different from zero. We then plotted the relationship between activated faultlines and process variables at values of a group identity one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean (see Fig. 3 for a typical shape of the interaction). As predicted, the relationship between activated faultlines and process variables was positive and significant when team identification was low (coalitions: simple slope b = .48, t = 4.68, p < .01; conflict: simple slope b = .67, t = 4.59, p < .01), yet the effect of activated faultlines on process variables was attenuated when team identification was strong (coalitions: simple slope b = .08, n.s.; conflict: simple slope b = .03, n.s.), suggesting that the positive relationship between activated faultlines and process variables weakens as the moderator, team identification, increases. Discussion Overall, the results from the present study provide a muchneeded second step in demonstrating the construct validity of the activated faultline measure. We demonstrate that carefully examining the construct validity of the measure of faultlines re-

3

low team identification

2.5

high team identification

conflict

2 1.5 1 0.5 0

weak faultlines

strong faultlines

activated faultlines Fig. 3. Shape of interactive effects on process variables (Study 2). The shapes of other interaction effects are similar.

35

sults in better understanding of the relationships with other process variables such as coalitions and conflict and a sounder interpretation of subsequent findings. In addition, we find support for our hypotheses of faultline activation and its effect on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Team identification weakened the negative effect of coalitions and conflict on group outcomes. A main limitation of this study is that dormant faultlines were formed on one characteristic, race; thus, we conduct Study 3 and create dormant faultlines based on two characteristics, race and gender. Study 3 The findings of Study 2 have important implications concerning the explanatory role of group faultlines in group processes and outcomes. Consistent with the faultline activation hypothesis, the results are qualified by a significant interaction between group entitlement composition and dormant faultlines, indicating that groups with one entitled member in each side of the dormant faultline tend to activate faultlines which in turn is associated with coalition formation and group conflict. Although these results are certainly instructive, our operationalization of faultlines was based on one characteristic, race. We conducted Study 3 to examine whether the observed effects hold when dormant faultline groups align on more than one characteristic. In this study, group faultlines were created based on two characteristics – race and gender (see Lau and Murnighan (2005) for a similar approach). Aside from cross-validation of the measure of activated faultlines (and other process variables), our main purpose here is to provide a second test of our full model of faultline activation and the effects via conflict and coalitions on outcomes. Participants and design Participants were 128 undergraduate business students (32 four-person groups) from a private university enrolled in a 12week course on team functioning. Six classes participated in this study and sessions of 4–6 groups were run at different times to facilitate the observations (no significant differences for any of the group process and outcome variables were found among either students’ different classes or experimental sessions). The mean age of the participants was 23 years (range = 17–48 years). The majority of the participants (76%) were white; 3% were Asian; 9% were African Americans; and 12% were Hispanic. Sixty-two percent of the participants were female. The participants participated for course credit and were told that they were participating in a group process and team performance study. After the questionnaires were completed, participants were carefully debriefed about the goal and the purpose of the exercise, winners were awarded, and all participants were thanked. We used a 2  2 between-subjects quasi-experimental design crossing dormant faultlines (groups with dormant faultlines based on two characteristics (race and gender) vs. homogeneous groups with no dormant faultlines) and group entitlement configuration (two entitleds vs. groups without such members). Given the makeup of racial and gender demographics available in class, we were able to create sixteen dormant faultline groups based on two characteristics and sixteen no dormant faultline groups. All dormant faultline groups included two distinct subgroups of Caucasians (two members) who were all either male or female and non-Caucasians who were also all either male or female. Non-Caucasian subgroups always included a similar race subgroup of Asians, African Americans, or Hispanics (categories determined by the U.S. Census Bureau (2002)). Analyses indicated that age was distributed similarly across all groups (F(1, 30) = 1.62, n.s., g2 = .05) and the

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

specific racial makeup of non-Caucasian subgroups did not significantly influence our dependent variables (objective performance, F(3, 28) = .58, n.s., g2 = .06; satisfaction, F(3, 28) = 1.17, n.s., g2 = .11; performance, F(3, 28) = .88, n.s., g2 = .09). The group entitlement configuration was manipulated using a similar approach as in Study 2, by placing two members with high entitlement scores into groups on each side of a faultline or having groups with no entitled members. This was based on the entitlement scores collected one month before the study which resulted in a bimodal distribution (M = 2.17, SD = 1.28; an intermode at 3.25; Kessing, 2006; Meehl, 1992) with the first mode consisting of participants with low levels of entitlement (range = 1–3) and the second mode consisting of participants with high levels of entitlement (range 4–5.25). In the dormant faultline condition, one entitled was in each side of the dormant faultline. We checked whether participants of a certain race or gender felt more entitled than others in general and there were no significant race or gender effects (F(3, 124) = .53, n.s., g2 = .02; F(1, 126) = .21, n.s., g2 = .00, respectively). We assessed all our constructs using similar measurement approaches as in Study 2 (Cohen’s js were significant at p < .05 ranging from .60 to .90 and indicating good reliability). We created scales by taking the mean across measures for activated faultlines regarding race and gender (Cronbach’s a = .91), coalition formation (Cronbach’s a = .84), intragroup conflict (Cronbach’s a = .84), team identification (Cronbach’s a = .71), and group outcomes (perceived performance; Cronbach’s a = .90, satisfaction: Cronbach’s a = .84) for use in the present study. We further averaged individual-level scales across groups to produce group scores of the factors and aggregated them to the four-person group level (see Rousseau, 1985). The aggregation to the group level was supported by analyses of ICC[1]s: one-way analysis of variance indicated significance at either the .01 or the .001 level between-groups variance for all of the variables with the values of ICC[1]s ranging from .51 to .90. Manipulation checks We conducted manipulation checks in a similar fashion to Study 2. All statistics indicated that the dormant faultline manipulation was successful. This manipulation check was not influenced by group entitlement configuration, F(1, 28) = .29, n.s., g2 = .01, nor by the interaction between faultlines and entitlement, F(1, 28) = .92, n.s., g2 = .03. Similarly, all our checks of the effectiveness of the team entitlement configuration suggested that our manipulation was successful. This manipulation check was not influenced by faultline condition, F(1, 124) = .05, n.s., g2 = .00, nor by the interaction between faultlines and entitlement, F(1, 124) = .32, n.s., g2 = .00. Results and discussion Cross-validation We used CFA to examine the construct validity of our process and outcome variables, the results were similar to those obtained in Study 2. Correlations among the variables in this study are shown in Table 3.

nificant main effect for the faultlines condition, F(1, 28) = 4.44, p < .05, g2 = .14, indicating that groups in the dormant faultline condition were more likely to have activated faultlines (M = 2.36, SD = 1.20) than groups in the no dormant faultline condition (M = 2.04, SD = .93) and a significant main effect for the group entitlement composition, F(1, 28) = 17.36, p < .01, g2 = .38. Groups in the two entitleds member condition were more likely to have activated faultlines (M = 2.76, SD = 1.04) than groups in the no entitleds condition (M = 1.70, SD = .84). In support of H1, the interaction between faultlines and entitlement composition was significant, F(1, 28) = 10.68, p < .01, g2 = .28 (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations pertaining to this interaction). Simple effects analysis showed that in accord with Hypothesis 1, groups with dormant faultlines on 2 characteristics and a group personality configuration with two entitleds across subgroups had more activated faultlines than when they did not have such configuration, F(1, 28) = 26.97, p < .01, g2 = .49. Groups with no dormant faultlines were not influenced by a group entitlement configuration, F(1, 28) = .41, n.s., g2 = .02 (see Fig. 4).

Testing the micro-mediating chain: activated faultlines–coalitions/ conflict–outcomes To investigate this mediation chain, we followed the same procedure as in Study 2. As shown in Table 6, the mediation envisioned in Hypothesis 2 was not supported; instead coalitions exerted their own direct negative effect on satisfaction and performance. Hypothesis 3 (H3) predicted that conflict will mediate the relationship between activated group faultlines and group outcomes (objective group performance, member satisfaction, and perceived group performance). Supporting the mediation role of conflict, after including conflict in the equation, the direct effect of activated faultlines on satisfaction no longer remained significant. A further test, following Sobel’s (1982) procedures, suggested that the mediated effect was significant at p < .05 for the activated faultlines–conflict–satisfaction (and perceived performance) links. Thus, these analyses show partial support for our hypothesis 3: conflict fully mediated the effect of faultlines on satisfaction and perceived performance.

activated faultlines

36

Hypotheses tests Faultline activation Hypothesis 1 predicted that groups with dormant faultlines on both gender and race and with a group personality configuration of two entitleds would be more likely to have activated faultlines than groups without this team entitlement configuration. A 2 (dormant on 2 characteristics vs. no dormant faultline)  2 (2 entitled configuration vs. no entitled) ANOVA factorial design yielded a sig-

homogenous faultlines based on race & gender dormant faultlines Fig. 4. Shape of interactive effects on activated faultlines (Study 3).

37

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42 Table 6 Regression analyses testing the micro-mediating chain of activated faultlines–processes–outcomes (Study3). 1: DV = coalitions IV Activated faultlines Mediator Coalitions Conflict Change in R2 F change R2 Adjusted R2 F a b c d

1: DV = conflict

.50c

.37b

.24 9.19c .24 .19 4.60c

– .13 4.50b .14 .08 2.33a

–

2: DV = objective performance

2: DV = satisfaction

2: DV = perceived performance

.47c

.20

.40b

– –

– –

– –

.04 1.25 .04 .02 .64

.22 8.43d .24 .19 4.67b

.16 5.73b .20 .14 3.61b

3: DV = objective performance .11

.28

.19 .07 1.03 .07 .01 .70

.21 .08 1.19 .08 .02 .80

3: DV = satisfaction

3: DV = perceived performance

.31a

.25

.27

.33a

.60d

.25a

.30 6.22c .32 .25 4.47b

.53 16.7d .55 .51 11.6d

.21 3.86b .25 .17 3.08b

.26

.39b .29 6.11c .33 .26 4.65c

p < .1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001, N = 32.

Moderating role of team identification As a test of Hypothesis 4, whether team identification alleviates the negative effects of activated processes, a series of moderated regression analyses with coalitions and conflict as the dependent measures and activated faultlines, identification, and the activated faultlines by identification cross-product revealed significant interactions for coalitions (b = .42, p < .01, R2 change for the interaction .15, F(1, 27) = 6.58, p < .01, and for the overall equation, R2 = .46, F(4, 27) = 5.10, p < .01) and conflict (b = .56, p < .01, R2 change for the interaction .26, F(1, 27) = 12.45, p < .01, and for the overall equation, R2 = .50, F(4, 27) = 5.93, p < .01). As predicted (see Fig. 5), the relationship between activated faultlines and process variables was positive and significant when team identification was weak (coalitions: simple slope b = .53, t = 4.19, p < .01; conflict: simple slope b = .62, t = 4.35, p < .01), yet the effect of activated faultlines on process variables was attenuated when team identification was strong (coalitions: simple slope b = .07, n.s.; conflict: simple slope b = .08, n.s.), suggesting that the positive relationship between activated faultlines and process variables weakens as the moderator, team identification, increases.

General discussion We conducted this set of studies to investigate faultline activation and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation,

3

low team identification

2.5

high team identification

Dormant and activated faultlines In our first study, we focused on developing the perceptual measure of activated faultlines and assessing the construct validity (convergent and discriminant) of the group process constructs in our model (i.e., activated faultlines, coalition formation, and conflict). As many have stressed the importance of providing a more stringent test of psychometric properties of constructs using either multiple data sources or multiple methods (e.g., survey, observation) (e.g., Jackson et al., 2006), a strength of this first study was the application of a multitrait–multimethod approach to operationalizing our constructs. Our findings showed that the measure of activated faultlines is psychometrically sound; it demonstrated high convergent and discriminant validity and reliability. Our tests also revealed that the activated faultline, conflict, and coalition items did not tap a single underlying construct; alternative measurement models showed a poor fit to the data relative to the hypothesized 3-factor model (activated faultlines, coalitions, and conflict). The construction of our measures to match the perceptual or behavioral aspect of the construct (e.g., activated faultlines were assessed only with perceptual measures such as survey items; coalition and conflict behaviors were assessed only with behavioral measures) also allows us to avoid common method bias, as well as to map our operationalizations directly to our conceptualizations of the model constructs. Faultline activation

2

conflict

conflict, and group outcomes. Faultline activation is the process by which an objective demographic alignment (a potential, or dormant faultline) is actually perceived by group members as the division of the group into separate subgroups based on demographic alignment (an activated faultline).

1.5 1 0.5 0

weak faultlines

strong faultlines

activated faultlines Fig. 5. Shape of interactive effects on process variables (Study 3). The shapes of other interaction effects are similar.

Our results across studies support the hypothesized interaction between dormant faultlines and group entitlement configuration on activated faultlines. Contrary to the assumption made by most past research on faultlines, a dormant faultline based on objective demographic composition does not necessarily lead to an activated group faultline in which members perceive demographically aligned subgroups. In our studies, groups with dormant faultlines and a group personality configuration of two entitleds in each potential demographic subgroup were more likely to have activated faultlines than groups without this profile of personalities. This suggests that faultline researchers examine factors that trigger faultline activation rather than assuming that objective demographic alignment of members automatically creates perceptions

38

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

of subgroups based on demographics. The findings regarding group entitlement configuration are consistent with current work on the effects of entitlement (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2005; Van Dijk & De Cremer, 2006), self-perceived superiority, and narcissism (Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002) and extends work on personality characteristics to the group level. We provide evidence that groups with certain personality configurations can promote faultline activation that in turn causes conflict and coalition formation. This finding challenges some assumptions made by cross-cutting category theory. If one were to examine the personality variable at the individual level of conceptualization within the group, it could be considered a cross-cutting category (one entitled on each side of the faultline). Deschamps and Doise’s (1978) classic crossed-categorization hypothesis states that both category differentiation and intergroup bias should be reduced in crossed conditions. Cross-cutting characteristics should also, based on the theory (Deschamps & Doise, 1978; Doise, 1978; Vanbeselaere, 1991), accentuate similarities within categorizations. This can decrease the animosity across the groups and reduce bias, prejudice, discrimination (e.g., Brewer, 2000; Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer, 1993) as well as creating a more cohesive feeling among members as they have characteristics in common across the ingroup–outgroup divide (see Crisp and Hewstone (1999) for a review). However, we propose and find the opposite; that is, this specific personality characteristic that crosses subgroups (i.e., entitlement) will cause the subgroups to behaviorally divide (e.g., coalitions, conflict) rather than bringing them closer together. We based our hypothesis on theories of political aggression (Chirot, 1997; Dekker et al., 2003; Duckitt, 1989) and equity sensitivity (Huseman et al., 1987; King et al., 1993; Miles et al., 1994) that discuss the behavior of entitled individuals in collective situations. Group members with this personality trait will not feel similarity attraction and cohesion (the effects suggested by cross-cutting category theory; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007a; Phillips et al., 2004), but are more likely to feel competitive regarding power bases (Dekker et al., 2003; King et al., 1993; Stouten et al., 2005; Van Dijk & De Cremer, 2006) and split the group into factions based on followers of their demographic alignment, thus activating dormant faultlines. Future research, however, should also examine other personality characteristics (i.e., need for power, narcissism) that promote competition and power struggles over resources (material and human). Interestingly, our findings are also inconsistent with literature that suggests that people with similar characteristics (e.g., personality characteristics, status) will act as boundary spanners across groups with differences (e.g., Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Callister & Wall, 2001). In our case, it is exactly the opposite – the specific characteristic (entitlement) and its configuration in the group causes it to divide the subgroups rather than to bind them together. Our findings have important implications for cross-cutting category theory and the boundary spanning research, showing that the behavioral assumptions they make do not hold for all individual characteristics that could align. It is not just any characteristic that can cross-cut (or any person who can span boundaries) and make the group less likely to split; in fact, some cross-cutting characteristics can act as faultline activators, as we show in this set of studies. Effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes In addition, we extend past theories of group composition and processes by examining the process by which faultlines cause competitive coalitions and conflict, and thus group outcomes. Demographic differences in groups, and we propose the alignment of

these demographic characteristics, has its effect on behaviors and attitudes through perceptions (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; ZellmerBruhn et al., 2008). Our studies therefore contribute to the literature on group processes by proposing and testing a stage model of faultline activation and coalition formation and conflict. First, dormant faultlines are based on the objective demographics of group members, yet do not necessarily cause the group members to perceive subgroups along demographic lines. However, dormant faultlines are a precondition for the existence of activated faultlines. Second, activated faultlines exist when the members actually perceive that subgroups exist based on demographic characteristics and we find that these are encouraged by certain group personality configurations (i.e., entitlement). Third, the perception of alignment of group members along demographic lines is likely to generate coalitional activity and conflict which decreases group performance and general member satisfaction. In the second stage of our model (Studies 2 and 3), we examine the effect of activated faultlines (perceptions) on coalitions and conflict (measured by behaviors) and how they effect group outcomes. Results of the mediation analysis provide information as to how activated faultlines influence group member perceptions, attitudes, and performance. Our results indicate that while coalition formation and conflict mediate the relationship between activated faultlines and group outcomes such as perceived and objective performance, and members’ general level of satisfaction, the pattern of mediation is different for each construct. We found evidence that coalition formation mediated the relationship between activated faultlines and decreased member perceived performance (significant in Study 2, but did not reach significance in Study 3). Once faultlines were activated, groups were more likely to engage in coalition formation than groups with no activated faultlines. Consistent with findings of research on interindividual–intergroup discontinuity (Insko & Schopler, 1987; Wildschut, Insko, & Gaertner, 2002), this provides further support that shared self-interest within a subgroup can lead to competition with another group, or subgroup in our case. In addition, we found strong and consistent evidence (full mediation in both Studies 2 and 3) that conflict mediated the relationship between activated faultlines and decreased satisfaction. More importantly, our results showed a partial mediation for conflict with decreased objective group performance (Study 2), indicating that conflict may have effects beyond attitudes as it influences the actual performance outcome of the group. The pattern of results for conflict was consistent across both hypothesis testing studies in mediating the negative relationship between activated faultlines and perceived group performance (full mediation in Study 2 and partial mediation in Study 3). Team identification We also found strong evidence of the hypothesized effect of the interaction between team identification and activated faultlines on group processes. That is, faultline groups with a superordinate identity related to the workgroup experienced less conflict and coalition formation. If there is a strong workgroup identity among group members, activated faultlines are less likely to incite conflict and coalition formation. If there is a weak group identity among group members, activated faultlines lead to coalitions and conflict. We extend the work by Kane et al. (2005) on superordinate team identity and learning that suggests that a superordinate identity facilitates knowledge transfer by reducing the negative view of outgroup members and by making ingroup members receptive to the information shared by such others. We find that a superordinate team identity (team identification) lessens the likelihood that activated faultlines create conflict and coalition formation in groups (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993), thus

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

acting as a positive force in workgroups. Therefore, even in groups with activated faultlines, the team identification can assist the group in maintaining constructive group processes or avoiding process losses due to activated faultlines via the united group feeling toward a common goal that such an identity can create (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). Limitations There are a number of limitations to this study that should be considered and could point to directions for future research. First, our design includes relatively small-scale laboratory experiments, which challenges external validity, as does the short-term nature of our studies (Kelly & McGrath, 1988), and thus future research should examine this model in an organizational setting over time. However, this allowed us to put together groups for study with specific demographic profiles, which is often not possible in organizations. In addition, our findings regarding team identification were not based on experimental manipulations, and thus these finding should be verified in future studies. In Study 2, we examined faultlines based on one demographic characteristic (race); therefore, our manipulation of dormant faultlines was the most conservative case described by Lau and Murnighan (1998). In Study 3, we replicated our findings with the dormant faultline groups based on two characteristics (race and gender). It may be that dormant faultlines based on an alignment of an even greater number of demographic characteristics may provide a more clear dividing line for activation to occur. While the range of faultline strength measured in these studies is consistent with the scores of studies that use multiple characteristics to measure objective faultlines (e.g., Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Sawyer et al., 2006), this may be due to the characteristics selected (race, gender), given that race and gender are two of the most visible and socially relevant demographic categories (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974; Dovidio et al., 2002). Another related limitation is the potential confound of status differences as they are inherent in many social categories such as race or gender (Bunderson, 2003; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). It is reasonable to expect that different racial groups may introduce an additional source of systematic variance. For example, social dominance theory (cf. Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggests that group members share a schema that cognitively constructs other outgroup members in a hierarchy by agreeing what groups are to be kept at a greater distance than others (Hagendoorn, 1995; Mullick & Hraba, 2001). Research further suggests that group members construct social representations based on relative distances of demographic attributes (e.g., Hraba, 1989; Hraba, Radloff, & Gray-Ray, 1999). This argument suggests that our non-Caucasians subgroups may differ across the groups in the dormant faultline condition. While non-Caucasian subgroups always included a similar race subgroup of Asians, African Americans, or Hispanics (categories determined by the U.S. Census Bureau (2002)), and did not significantly influence our dependent variables, given the rich theory of differences in race (cf. Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001), also see a special issue in American Psychologist, Anderson and Nickerson (2005)), this could limit our findings. Future research We investigated one possible factor than can activate dormant faultlines to become activated faultlines, but it is likely there are other triggers that should be investigated. Future work might focus on different attributes that members can align on (e.g., other personality characteristics; Molleman, 2005). For example, research on psychological contracts (e.g., Raja et al., 2004), surface- and deep-level diversity (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002), and leadership

39

(e.g., Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003) indicates different effects of personality characteristics in organizational settings. In addition, future research should investigate when demographic characteristics are aligned with entitlement (e.g., all whites are entitled, all blacks are not). It is possible, that as time passes, members of faultline subgroups initially formed based on demographic characteristics may also discover similarities or differences along deeper level attributes such as personality (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002; Molleman, 2005). Another interesting direction for future research is to examine positive rather than negative activators. In our study we investigated the group entitlement configuration as a negative activator; that is, as a negative force, pulling subgroups apart in a competitive, noncooperative way inducing conflict and competitive coalition formation. However, there may also be positive activators; that is, factors that make diversity or subgroups salient (i.e., openness norms, positive diversity beliefs; e.g., Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007b) but in a way that encourages communication and cooperation across subgroups. This way, members have social support based on demographic similarity, but feel comfortable interacting with those of the other subgroup to reach superior outcomes for their common-goal group. Positive activation mechanisms may emphasize the advantages of demographic-based subgroups (e.g., support within the subgroup to voice opinions, differing opinions based on differences across subgroups) and these forces will promote constructive processes in groups. In conclusion, in this research we distinguish between dormant vs. activated faultlines, theorizing that the objective demographic characteristics that members may align on, while present, are not automatically noticed by group members and thus do not necessarily become activated such that group members perceive this alignment. In fact, we propose that certain characteristics of the group members and the profile of these personality characteristics within the group activate dormant faultlines into activated faultlines, or the actual perception of member that these subgroups exist based on demographic characteristics. Once activated, faultlines can lead to negative group behaviors (conflict and coalition formation) that hinder member satisfaction and group performance. However, the news is not all bad. Team identification can reduce the negative effect of activated faultlines by providing members with a shared common identity regarding the workgroup that facilitates work focus and completion.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Amason, A. C., & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effects of past performance on top management team conflict in strategic decision making. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 340–359. Anderson, N., & Nickerson, K. J. (2005). Genes, race, and psychology in the genome era: An introduction. American Psychologist, 60(1), 5–8. Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 31–48). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process and performance in selfmanaged groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.

40

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33. Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 199–205. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259–273. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-interdependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 47–68). American Psychological Association. Brewer, M. B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291–303. Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 165–183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ’’we’’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 124–127. Callister, R. R., & Wall, J. A. (2001). Conflict across organizational boundaries: Managed care organizations versus health care providers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 754–763. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1300–1309. Chirot, D. (1997). Some propositions, lessons, and predictions about tyranny. Modern tyrants: The power and prevalence of evil in our age. New York, NY: Free Press. Cobb, A. T. (1991). Toward the study of organizational coalitions: Participant concerns and activities in a simulated organizational setting. Human Relations, 44(10), 1057–1079. Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of one interact with the justice of many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 633–646. Colquitt, J. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2006). Justice in teams: The context sensitivity of justice rules across individual and team contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 868–899. Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi experimentation (2nd ed.. In Marvin D. Dunnette & Leaetta M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 1, pp. 491–576). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 26 (pp. 231–263). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Inc.. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 307–333. Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Perceptions as reality: The influence of actual and perceived demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Business Psychology, 22(1), 79–89. De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553–563. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations for successful performance on sexlinked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80–85. Dekker, H., Malova, D., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2003). Nationalism and its explanations. Political Psychology, 24, 345–376.

Deschamps, J. C., & Doise, W. (1978). Crossed category membership in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 141–158). London, UK: Academic Press. Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Psychology, 8(2), 88–102. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. Duckitt, J. (1989). Authoritarism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10, 63–84. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49. Eisenhardt, K., & Bourgeois, L. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in highvelocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737–770. Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 115–161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.). European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Wiley. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. M., & Banker, B. S. (1999). Across cultural divides: The value of a superordinate identity. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 173–212). New York: Russell Sage. Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003). Experiencing diversity, conflict, and emotions in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 413–440. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109. Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. Grienberger, I. V., Rutte, C. G., & van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1997). Influence of social comparisons of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 913–919. Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 199–228). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 246–261. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. A. (1994). Comparative examinations of self-reports and perceived absenteeism norms: Wading through Lake Wobegon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 240–251. Hart, C. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). From faultlines to group fission: Understanding membership changes in small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 392–404. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121. Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, Inc.. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007a). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42 diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 79–94. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007b). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. Hraba, J. (1989). The ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands: Social distance and social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 57–69. Hraba, J., Radloff, T., & Gray-Ray, P. (1999). A comparison of Black and White social distance. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 536–539. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modeling, 6, 1–55. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory – The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234. Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1987). Categorization, competition, and collectivity. In C. Hendrick (Ed.). Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 213–251). New York: Sage. Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1998). Differential distruct of groups and individuals. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 75–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Drigotas, S. M., Graetz, K. A., Kennedy, J., Cox, C., et al. (1993). The role of communication in interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 108–138. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individualgroup discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68–79. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884–899. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict–outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763. Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.. Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71. Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). On time and method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kessing, L. V. (2006). Diagnostic subtypes of bipolar disorder in older versus younger adults. Bipolar Disorders, 8, 56–64. Kickul, J., Gundry, L., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 205–218. King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133–142. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(4), 301–317. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader–team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 29(3), 334–368. Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G. D. (2002). The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 756–767. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Komorita, S. S., & Kravitz, D. A. (1983). Coalition formation: A social psychological approach. In Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 1979–2003). New York, NY: Springer. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response– order effects in survey measurement. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 201–219. LaBianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55–67.

41

Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between mentors and protégés. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 252–265. Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The dynamic effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659. Lawler, E. J., & Youngs, G. A. (1975). Coalition formation: An integrative model. Sociometry, 38, 1–17. Lee, Y., & Ottati, V. (1993). Determinants of in-group and out-group perceptions of heterogeneity: An investigation of Sino-American stereotypes. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 24, 298–316. Li, J. T., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813. Lipponen, J., Helkama, K., & Juslin, M. (2003). Subgroup identification, superordinate identification and intergroup bias between the subgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 239–250. Long, J. S. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. Mannix, E. A. (1993). Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on coalition formation in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 1–22. Mannix, E. A., & Jehn, K. A. (2004). Let’s norm and storm, but not right now: Integrating models of group development and performance. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & S. Blount (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 11–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M. (1993). Cross-cutting category membership with role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 125–146. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60(1), 117–174. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15(4), 581–588. Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2003). King and Miles’ equity sensitivity instrument: A crosscultural validation. Psychological Reports, 92, 23–26. Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 173–193. Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Jehn, K. A. (2004). Person–job fit applied to teamwork – A multilevel approach. Small Group Research, 35(5), 515–539. Moore, D. (1991). Entitlement and justice evaluations: Who should get more, and why. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 208–223. Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Wingert, M. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Mullick, R., & Hraba, J. (2001). Ethnic attitudes in Pakistan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 165–179. Murnighan, J. K., & Brass, D. J. (1991). Intraorganizational coalitions. In M. H. Bazerman, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations: The handbook of negotiation research (pp. 283–306). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24, 28–45. Northcraft, G. B., Polzer, J. T., Neale, M. A., & Kramer, R. M. (1995). Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 69–96). American Psychological Association. Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In Turner et al. (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2008). Friends and enemies within: The role of subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4689-08. Pearce, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (1983). Attribution theory and strategic decision making: An application to coalition formation. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 119–128. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 225–234. Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 143–160. Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497–510. Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467–482.

42

K.A. Jehn, K. Bezrukova / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Polzer, J. T. (2004). How subgroup interests and reputations moderate the effect of organizational identification and cooperation. Journal of Management, 30(1), 71–96. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679–692. Polzer, J. T., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Interest alignment and coalitions in multiparty negotiation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 42–54. Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1537–1562. Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350–367. Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1975). A demonstration of the Byrne’s similarity hypothesis in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36, 535–544. Rink, F. (2005). Diversity and small group decision making: Towards a social identity framework for studying the effects of task-related differences in dyads and groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 19, 131–173. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complex. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 6(2), 88–106. Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 206–221. Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37. Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Saal, F. E., Downey, R. G., & Lahey, M. A. (1980). Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 413–428. Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885–910. Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yeagley, E. L. (2006). Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 1–15. Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., Smith, V. A., & Dahl, K. A. (1993). Individual–group discontinuity: Further evidence for mediation by fear and greed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 419–431. Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Sidanius, S., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Silverman, J. G., & Williamson, G. M. (1997). Social ecology and entitlements involved in battering by heterosexual college males: Contributions of family and peers. Violence & Victims, 12, 147–164. Singleton, R. A., Jr., Straits, B. C., & Miller, M. (1993). Approaches to social research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat–rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. Stellmacher, J., & Petzel, Th. (2005). Authoritarianism as a group phenomenon. International society of political psychology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. p. 245–74. Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). I’m doing the best I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in resource dilemmas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 205–211.

Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An investigation of relational personality effects on peer and supervisor ratings and the impact of familiarity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 637–657. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Austin Worchel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson. Ten Have, P. (1986). Methodological issues in conversational analysis. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 27, 23–51. Thatcher, S., & Jehn, K. A. (1998). A model of group diversity profiles and categorization processes in bicultural organizational teams. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & D. Gruenfeld (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 1–20). London, UK: JAI Press. Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241. Thatcher, S. M. B., & Zhu, X. (2006). Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1076–1088. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor–subordinate similarity: Types, effects and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 28–234. Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.). The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 518–538). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. U.S. Census Bureau (2002). United States population and demographic report. . van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2001). The psychology of own versus others’ treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324–1333. Van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Self-benefiting in the allocation of scarce resources: Leader–follower effects and the moderating effect of social value orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1352–1361. Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 585–598. Vanbeselaere, N. (1991). The different effects of simple and crossed categorizations. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 247–278). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 819–834. Webber, S., & Donahue, L. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162. Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group processes. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 189–239). Elsevier Ltd.. Weiss, H. (2003). A cross-national comparison of nationalism in Austria, the Czech and Slovac Republics, Hungary, and Poland. Political Psychology, 24, 377–401. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555–569. Wildschut, T., Insko, C. A., & Gaertner, L. (2002). Intragroup social influence and intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 975–992. Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Wiprut, D., & Zobrack, M. D. (2000). Fault reactivation and fluid flow along a previously dormant fault. Geology, 28, 595–598. Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., & Salvador, R. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41–59.