“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” : the role of Machiavellians on TMS

(1)

“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”:

The role of Machiavellians on TMS

Master Thesis Strategy

Business Administration 2016 – 2017

Student: Mark Voet / Student № 11412097 Business Administration, Strategy track

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dhr. dr. P (Pepijn) van Neerijen

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank my mother and father. They have been there for me during my whole study. They always provide me with good advice, life lessons and mental support. Mom and dad, thank you for your unconditional support, especially during my Q fever period. I never would have made it here without you.

I would also like to thank my girlfriend Niki, for always listening to my ideas about how to solve a particular problem, my complaining about unexpected changes, and my

somewhat chaotic explanations. Our discussions definitely improved the quality of my Master Thesis.

I would also like to convey my sincere thanks to Bart, Harm, Francis, and Marlon. I am lucky to have such a good and supportive family like you. Sharing your ideas and experiences helped me a lot during my Master.

My special thanks go to my coach Pepijn. In spite of everything, you always tried to help me as soon as possible. Pepijn you definitely challenged me to make the best out of it, and while writing this acknowledgement I think you succeeded in this.

(4)

This thesis investigated if diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism negatively affect the level of TMS within a team and how this relationship was moderated by intragroup trust and team identification. A total of 293 respondents divided into 64 teams were used to test the conceptual framework. The main findings did not support the hypothesis that diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism negatively affect TMS. Two ex-post analyses have been conducted, which show that intragroup trust and team identification positively affect TMS. Furthermore, the second ex-post analysis shows a dampening effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on the relationship between

intragroup trust and TMS. Thus, the stronger the differences between team members’

Machiavellian characteristics within a team, the weaker the effect of intragroup trust on TMS.

Key words: Machiavellianism, Machiavellian characteristics, diversity faultlines strength, intragroup trust, team identification, opportunism, manipulation

1. Introduction

A transactive memory system (TMS) can be defined as the collective memory of a group which includes the transactive processes of knowledge between the team members (Wegner, Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985). Since the introduction of the TMS a lot of research has been conducted regarding the (positive) effect of TMS on the organizational performance (Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Gino, Argote, Miron-Spektor, & Todorova, 2010; Hollingshead, 1998a, 1998b; Lee, Bachrach, & Lewis, 2014; Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005; Li & Huang, 2013; Mell, Knippenberg, & Ginkel, 2014).

This thesis examines whether the level of TMS is impacted by Machiavellianism within a team. More specific, this thesis studies if there is any influence of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on the level of TMS and how this relationship is moderated by intragroup trust and team identification. These constructs are included in order to give a more comprehensive understanding about the effect of the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. The outcome of this study will result into a

(7)

better understanding of the dilemma of ‘good’ cooperative behaviour and ‘bad’ individualistic behaviour, which occur simultaneously within teams (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996).

A factor that positively influences TMS is trust (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Lewis, 2003; Rau, 2005). However, a good and stable trust level between individuals is not always guaranteed. Individuals may act opportunistically and may only be concerned with their own desires. To clarify, opportunism includes the distribution of incomplete information, deception, manipulation of relationships, and infringement of agreements (Lumineau & Quélin, 2012; Wathne & Heide, 2000). Opportunism is closely related to Machiavellianism, as they both include deception and manipulation (Sakalaki, Richardson, & Thépaut, 2007; Thépaut, 2002).

Machiavellianism is a personal characteristic to “distrust others, engage in amoral manipulation, seek control over others, and seek status for oneself” (Dahling et al., 2009, p. 219). Some studies argue that Machiavellianism reduces the social capital of a group (Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, & Smith, 2002), and is associated with unethical behaviour (Butler, 1999), where other scholars underline the negative relationship between

Machiavellianism and quality of job performance (O’Boyle Jr, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Even though these are relevant and interesting studies, there is still a lot to discover regarding the effect of the Machiavellians within a team and their effect on TMS. In particular, there is little insight about what influence the variation of team members’

Machiavellian characteristics has on TMS. Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduced the concept of diversity faultlines, as an answer to diversity within teams. Diversity faultlines include the characteristics of team members simultaneously, in order to determine the differences

between the team members’ characteristics. The dispersion among team members’ characteristics (split) can lead towards the separation of a team into smaller sub teams

(8)

(Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Molleman, 2005; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003; Van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, & Homan, 2011). In short, it is expected that team diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism will be negatively related to TMS.

As mentioned, the construct of intragroup trust is included in this thesis. Prior studies show the positive effect of intragroup trust on communication and knowledge sharing (Levin & Cross, 2004; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Politis, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that there is a negative moderating effect of intragroup trust on the relationship of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. Next, the role of team

identification will be investigated. Prior studies show the positive effect of team identification on citizenship behaviour towards other team members (Janssen & Huang, 2008). Other research results show the positive effect of team identification on group norms and group behaviour (Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000). Based on these insights it is expected that team identification will have a dampening effect on the relationship between the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS.

This thesis serves existing literature by providing specified insights regarding the influence of the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS, and how this relationship is affected by multiple constructs (e.g. intragroup trust, team identification). The results of this study are highly relevant for managers, since they can use these insights for managing teams and replacing or appointing team members. Furthermore, the results may be useful for managers by providing insights regarding the influence of opportunistic behaviour within teams.

For this thesis the “Business Strategy Game” was used to collect data. A total of 584 second year bachelor students (strategic management) participated in this simulation game. The students were divided into 117 teams and competed against each other within a

(9)

simulation of a footwear industry.

In the next chapter, the theoretical background of the constructs TMS,

Machiavellianism, diversity faultlines strength, intragroup trust, and team identification will be elaborated. Along with the clarification of these constructs the different hypotheses and conceptual model will be constituted. Subsequently, the research method will be discussed and followed by the findings of this thesis. The last chapter will elaborate the main

implications, theoretical contribution, managerial implications, limitations of this thesis, suggestions regarding future research, and the conclusion.

2. Theoretical overview and hypotheses

In this chapter the concepts of TMS, Machiavellianism, diversity faultlines strength, intragroup trust, and team identification will be clarified by using the comprehensive and extensive research regarding these topics. Next, the hypotheses will be given, followed by the conceptual model. The hypotheses and conceptual model are based on the different insights of existing literature.

2.1. TMS

This thesis is designed to investigate the effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS and how this relationship is moderated by intragroup trust and team identification. Literature shows the complex and dynamic content of TMS, which affects or is affected by multiple constructs. The underlying idea of TMS is that team members form a source of external knowledge expertise and they are dependent on complementary

knowledge of other team members. By sharing these knowledge a team or team members will learn and/or perform (Heavey & Simsek, 2014; Hollingshead, 2001; Lewis & Herndon, 2011; Weick & Roberts, 1993).

(10)

can be defined in terms of two components: (I) an organized store of knowledge that is contained entirely in the individual memory systems of the group members, and (2) a set of knowledge-relevant transactive processes that occur among group members” (Wegner et al., 1985, p. 256). The effect and strength of the TMS is dependent on the richness and diversity of the contributions of team members and/or managers (Heavey & Simsek, 2014). In addition, TMS contains the unique knowledge held by an individual team member, as well as the team consciousness about who knows what (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996). This is in line with the view that TMS can be described as the relationship between individuals to collectively encode, store, and retrieve knowledge from different areas of knowledge (Ellis, 2006; Hollingshead, 2001; Lewis, 2003; Ren & Argote, 2011; Wegner, 1987; Wegner et al., 1985).

Since the introduction of TMS, a lot of research has been conducted regarding the effect of TMS. Prior studies show that TMS is positive related to group performance, organizational creativity, satisfaction, and team reflexivity (Dayan & Basarir, 2009; Gino et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2014; Li & Huang, 2013; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Mell et al., 2014; Michinov, Olivier-Chiron, Rusch, & Chiron, 2008). Other research define factors which influence TMS, like communication and trust (He, Butler, & King, 2007; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Lewis, 2003, 2004).

To continue, there are three components -specialization, credibility and coordination- that are considered as the key factors of the construct TMS (Austin, 2003; Lewis, 2003, 2004; Liang et al., 1995; Michinov & Michinov, 2009; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Zhang, Hempel, Han, & Tjosvold, 2007). The specialization component includes the team members’ specialized knowledge. This specialized knowledge enables a team member to distinguish oneself from the rest of the group. It also includes the ability of a team member to recall who possesses what distinctive knowledge. Next, the credibility component can be defined as the

(11)

level of trustworthy in each other’s’ knowledge. To clarify, it includes the degree to what extent they have faith in other members’ expertise. Following, the coordination component includes the capability of a group to transfer knowledge to each other. This can be described as the competences of team members to cooperate with each other in a convenient and efficient way (Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005; Austin, 2003; Dai, Roundy, Chok, Ding, & Byun, 2016; Lewis, 2003; Liang et al., 1995; Michinov et al., 2008; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Ren & Argote, 2011; Zhang et al., 2007).

Furthermore, TMS is considered as a team level construct as it includes a collective information-processing mechanism of encode, store and retrieve information of different individuals within the team processes (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004; Hollingshead & Brandon, 2003; Lewis & Herndon, 2011; Ren & Argote, 2011; Theiner, 2013).

2.2. Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is initially conceptualized by Christie & Geis (1970).

Machiavellianism involves manipulating behaviour of an actor for personal gain and has often negative consequences for other parties (Belschak, Den Hartog, & Kalshoven, 2015; Christie & Geis, 1970; Wilson et al., 1996). Machiavellianism is a personal characteristic to “distrust others, engage in amoral manipulation, seek control over others, and seek status for oneself” (Dahling et al., 2009, p. 219). In addition, individuals can develop Machiavellian traits over time (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). It is important to understand that every person can behave manipulative to some degree, but some may be more inclined than others (Wilson et al., 1996).

Machiavellianism is linked to the ‘Dark Triad,’ what can be considered as personality traits, and is clustered together with psychopathy and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Some scholars argue that Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy need to be

(12)

Schmitt, 2009; Jonason & Webster, 2010). Conversely, other research argues that

Machiavellianism is an independent, separated construct (Dahling et al., 2009; Liu, 2008; Rauthmann, 2012; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). This thesis agrees on the latter view, and considers Machiavellianism as a separated construct. Because psychopathy and narcissism are defined as a personality disorder (Cooke, Forth, & Hare, 2012; Kohut, 2013), where Machiavellians actually choose whether or not to behave Machiavelliastic (Dahling et al., 2009).

There are four components that are considered as the key factors to measure the level of Machiavellianism: (1) distrust of others, (2) amoral manipulation (3) desire for control, and (4) desire for status (Dahling et al., 2009). In addition, Machiavellians have the intension to manipulate situations and they expect from others to behave in the same way (Dahling et al., 2009). Other scholars show the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety (Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). These insights support the view that distrust of other is a key dimension of Machiavellianism. Next, Machiavellianism also includes the willingness to manipulate (amorally) others by using flattering or deceitful behaviour (Birkás, Csathó, Gács, & Bereczkei, 2015; Hunter, Gerbing, & Boster, 1982; Jones & Paulhus, 2009; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). An important contribution to this view is that Machiavellians are indeed able to wilfully deceit and manipulate others, but they do not do this at a constant level of intensity. Machiavellians choose to act moral or immoral

selectively, based on self-interest (Dahling et al., 2009). This insight is supported by multiple studies, which show the shift of Machiavellians from cooperative to manipulative behaviour and vice versa, in order to benefit from their deliberately, sophisticated, and tactical behaviour (e.g., Bogart, Geis, Levy, & Zimbardo, 1970; Harrell & Hartnagel, 1976; Vleeming, 1979). Besides the tendency of distrusting other people and the intension of amoral

(13)

causality (Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Mudrack, 1989). Machiavellians see others as a potential threat and therefore wish to control others. Thus, Machiavellians desire to exercise control over situations and people in order to reduce the negative consequences of external causality as a result of others’ behaviour. The last component of Machiavellianism which is considered within this thesis is the desire of status. Machiavellians consider external goals like wealth, status and, power as more valuable than intrinsic goals, like self-actualization or self-love (Dahling et al., 2009; Jones & Paulhus, 2009).

Prior research results show a negative relationship between Machiavellianism and the social capital of a group (Gunnthorsdottir et al., 2002), quality of job performance and the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and counterproductive work behaviour like abusive supervision and excessive organizational politicization (O’Boyle Jr et al., 2012). Other studies stated that Machiavellianism is associated to the notion of external causality (Dahling et al., 2009; Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Mudrack, 1989), and unethical behaviour (Butler, 1999). These insights are particular interesting for this thesis, and will be used by establishing the hypotheses.

2.3. Diversity faultlines strength

Diversity is “the distributions of differences among the members of a unit with respect to a common attribute, X, such as tenure, ethnicity, conscientiousness” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1200). With respect to diversity within teams introduced Lau and Murnighan (1998) the theory of diversity faultlines. Diversity faultlines strength can be seen as a ‘split’ within a team, which result into the separation of the team into sub teams, due to the diversities between team members (Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Molleman, 2005; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003; Van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, & Homan, 2011). The diversity faultlines strength provide a different view towards diversity. Where some diversity studies are focused on a single characteristic at a particular time (e.g.

(14)

Blau, 1977), emphasize the diversity faultlines strength the differences of a characteristic between team members simultaneously (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Carton & Cummings, 2012; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Molleman, 2005; Rico, Molleman, Sánchez-Manzanares, & Van der Vegt, 2007; Thatcher & Patel, 2012; Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Thus, diversity faultlines strength include the characteristics of team members simultaneously, in order to determine the differences between the team members’ characteristics. The dispersion among team members’ characteristics (split) can lead towards the separation of the team into smaller sub teams (Thatcher et al., 2003).

An example of a group with a strong diversity faultline would be a team of six team members, which consist of a sub team of three Dutch engineers, and a sub team of three Irish account managers. In this case the faultline is strong as the team members of each sub team are homogeneous. An example of a weak faultline between sub teams, would be a team composed of six people from six different countries, with a different kind of profession (see: Molleman, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2003; Thatcher & Patel, 2011, for comparable examples). To continue, coalitions or group polarization tend to increase the intragroup conflicts (Hogg, Turner, & Davidson, 1990; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). This understanding is supported by the insight that heterogeneous groups are more likely to experience conflicts, compared to homogeneous groups (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Pelled, 1996). Other research examine that a strong diversity faultline results into conflicts between the sub teams (Bezrukova, Thatcher, & Jehn, 2007; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008; Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Conflicts itself could reduce the communication about ideas and opinions (Pearsall et al., 2008). In addition, Molleman (2005) found that demographic faultlines strength, which

included personal traits, decrease team cohesion, and increase intragroup conflicts (Molleman, 2005). This insight is highly relevant for this thesis, as Machiavellianism has been defined as

(15)

personality traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), and cohesion is strongly related to TMS (Lewis, 2004). To clarify, the strength of the diversity faultlines within the teams will be derived by Machiavellianism.

2.4. Diversity faultlines strength and TMS

The next step, after the clarification of the construct of TMS, diversity faultlines strength, and Machiavellianism, is to continue with the reasoning of the expected negative effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. However, I will fist explain the expected negative effect of Machiavellianism on TMS, before moving to the expected effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. Furthermore, it is important to understand that every person can behave manipulative and deceitful (Machiavelliastic behaviour) to some degree, but one may be more inclined than others (Wilson et al., 1996).

To begin with, some scholars argue that cheating behaviour reduces social capital (Coleman, 1993; Gunnthorsdottir et al., 2002). To clarify, social capital is the ability of people to cooperate for the common objective of the group or organization. Social capital can be defined as pro-social behaviour which includes interconnectedness among individual team members and it facilitate collective actions (Chen, Stanton, Gong, Fang, & Li, 2009;

Fukuyama, 1997; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993; Putnam, 1995; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Thus, the cheating behaviour of Machiavellian team members would reduce the level of social capital within a team, and a reduced level of social capital within a team will negatively affect the level of collective actions and interconnectedness among team members. To continue, a decreased level of collective actions and interconnectedness among team members will negatively affect the level of TMS, as a TMS includes the transactive processes that occur among team members (Heavey & Simsek, 2014; Lee et al., 2014; Wegner, 1987; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Therefore, it is expected that Mach negatively affects the degree of TMS

(16)

within a team.

Other studies stated that Machiavellianism is associated to the notion of external causality (Dahling et al., 2009; Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Mudrack, 1989). This presupposes that a team member with a high level of Machiavellianism sees his/her team members as a

potential threat and therefore desires power and control over others (Dahling et al., 2009). In order to gain power and control it is expected that a team member with a high level of

Machiavellianism would centralize the knowledge to him or herself. If this team member with a high level of Machiavellianism is able to centralize knowledge to him/her will this create a powerful position for this individual, due to the dependency of others on particular

information of this team member (Pandey, Singh, & Singh, 1987). This positions will give this Machiavellian team member the opportunity to maintain or obtain power over others by using manipulate behaviour, for example by distributing incomplete information (Jonason, Wee, Li, & Jackson, 2014; Kessler et al., 2010). In addition, this manipulative behaviour can be linked towards ‘Tertius Gaudens’ where a person is in a position which provides superior access to information and opportunities to control others. This behaviour is intended to gain private benefit (Baker & Obstfeld, 1999; Obstfeld, 2005; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). To continue, the tendency of Machiavellian team members to become the central person in the information transaction processes will therefore negatively affect the information sharing processes within a team. Based on these insights it is expected that Machiavellian team members will negatively influence the TMS, since the knowledge sharing processes between people within a team is highly important for the level of TMS (Hollingshead, 1998a;

Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Peltokorpi, 2008; Wegner, 1987; Wegner et al., 1985). Furthermore, the behaviour of Machiavellian team members to act immoral, deceitful, manipulate and/or to share incomplete or false information, is considered as unethical

(17)

negatively affect the level of information sharing (Butler, 1999). In addition, trust is a crucial factor for cooperative behaviour between team members (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Gill, Boies, Finegan, & McNally, 2005; Wells, 1995). If the level of information sharing will decline will this negatively influence TMS, since the information sharing processes between the team members is an essential component of TMS (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004; Lewis, 2004; Lewis et al., 2005).

Next, strong diversity faultlines, as a result of strong differences between team members’ Machiavellian characteristics, would result into the formation of two or more sub teams (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Molleman, 2005; Thatcher & Patel, 2011). With respect to the formulation of the hypotheses, it is important to understand that Machiavellian team members decides whether or not to act immoral, and deceitful towards others (Dahling et al., 2009). To continue, it is expected that strong diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism would negatively affect TMS. This expectation is based on the idea the sub teams feel

themselves highly connected with each other as a result of their Machiavellian characteristics (Rico et al., 2007; Thatcher et al., 2003). Due to the high level of connectedness it is expected that team member with a high level of Machiavellianism would decide not to deceive or manipulate their own subgroup team members, but rather focus their Machiavellian behaviour towards the other (low Machiavellian level) subgroup(s). This decision can be explained by the social identity and self-categorization theory (Mannix & Neale, 2005). These theories include the idea that an individual could have the feeling that he or she belongs to a group, because this particular group embodies their attitude, values, and believes (Abrams & Hogg, 1999; Hogg et al., 1990; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Thus, the separation into two or more sub teams is expected to result into the decision of team member with a high level of Machiavellianism to behave Machiavelliastic towards the other sub team(s). The Machiavellian behaviour of one or more team members of a sub team

(18)

towards the other sub team(s), would have a negative effect on the level of TMS, as argued above (e.g. reduced social capital, external causality, and decreased trust level).

Next, strong diversity faultlines are related to a decreased level of communication between sub teams (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011; Van

Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The decreased amount of communication between the sub team can be explained by the social categorization theory (Dreachslin, Hunt, & Sprainer, 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Mannix & Neale, 2005). To continue, it is expected that team member with a high level of Machiavellianism would not behave Machiavelliastic towards their own team members of their sub team, but rather focus their Machiavellian behaviour towards the other subgroup as a result of ‘us and them’ (Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). This argumentation is in line with the social categorization theory (Dreachslin et al., 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Mannix & Neale, 2005), and also based on the notion of external causality (Dahling et al., 2009; Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Mudrack, 1989).

Furthermore, strong diversity faultlines are related to conflicts between sub teams (Bezrukova, Thatcher, & Jehn, 2007; Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008; Thatcher & Patel, 2011).

Conflicts between sub teams reduces the amount of communication between these sub teams (Pearsall et al., 2008). Thus, strong diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism would reduce the amount of communication between team members (Austin, 2003; Lewis & Herndon, 2011), and therefore negatively affect TMS.

Conversely, within a team with no or small variation between the team members’ Machiavellian characteristics it is expected that team members have less conflicts and a more communication with each other, compared to the situation with strong diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Furthermore, amoral manipulation is an important component of Machiavellianism (Dahling et al., 2009), and can be defined as

(19)

deceitful or flattering behaviour (Shepperd & Socherman, 1997). Manipulative behaviour is aimed to influence other parties for the benefit of the manipulator and this behaviour is

usually planned (Davidhizar & Giger, 1990; Hill Jr, 1991). To continue, within this thesis it is assumed that it is a matter of time before the team members notice the Machiavelliastic behaviour of a team member. This expectation is based on the idea that team members would also communicate by an informal way, such as the small talks during coffee break or the conversations in the hallway. Due to this informal communication it is likely that the

manipulative behaviour of the Machiavellian team member, such as sharing false information, will be discovered by the team members (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). The risk of a Machiavellian team member of ‘getting caught’ by other team members is (logically) even higher when there is a small ‘split’ between the sub teams within a team. In addition, with a small ‘split’ within a team it is likely that there would be even more informal communication. Therefore, it is expected that weak diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism would reduce the Machiavelliastic behaviour of team member with a high level of Machiavellianism. Based on the proceeding the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 1: Team diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism will be

negatively related to TMS such that teams with a strong faultline will have a lower TMS than

teams with a weak faultline.

2.5. Intragroup Trust

Intergroup trust is associated with honesty and competence, and the general beliefs of all the team members (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Trust refers to the expectation the well-intended cooperative behaviour of others (Irwin, Mulder, & Simpson, 2014), and is associated with group solidarity (Molm, Collett, & Schaefer, 2007). Some scholars argue that (mutual) trust can be considered as one of the key factors of social capital (Molm et al., 2007; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993). Trust has been defined as "the willingness of a

(20)

party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). Trust is positively related to honest and open communication (Politis, 2003). Furthermore, trust has been positively associated with complex knowledge sharing between individuals (Chowdhury, 2005; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Levin & Cross, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995). In addition, when there is a trust level between team members they are more willing to provide useful information (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Li, Poppo, & Zhou, 2010; Malhotra & Murnighan, 2002; Muethel & Bond, 2013; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Zand, 1972). Other research underline that intragroup trust increases the willingness of individuals, for example team members, to accept others knowledge (Carley, 1991; Levin & Cross, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995; Srinivas, 2000). The latter links towards the credibility component of TMS (Austin, 2003; Lewis, 2003; Lewis et al., 2005). However, TMS and intragroup trust are conceptually different. Because TMS includes three components -specialization, credibility and coordination- and is related towards knowledge sharing (Wegner, 1987; Wegner et al., 1985), and intragroup trust is related

towards the believe of goodness and honesty of other team members’ intensions and behaviour (Mayer et al., 1995; Politis, 2003).

2.5.1. The expected interaction effect of intragroup trust

The next step, after the clarification of the construct of intragroup trust, is the theorization of the expected dampening effect of intragroup trust on the expected negative relationship of the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. Prior research states that intragroup trust is positively related to honest and open communication (Politis, 2003), complex knowledge sharing between individuals (Levin & Cross, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995), and the willingness to provide useful information to each other (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Li et al., 2010; Muethel & Bond, 2013; Zand, 1972).

(21)

Furthermore, the expected negative relationship of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS is based, inter alia, on the argumentation that the separation of a team into two sub teams would decrease the level of communication (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). However, if there is a high level of intragroup trust between these two sub teams, they are likely to have a high level of communication, which means that the sub teams are willing to share information with each other (Chowdhury, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004; Li et al., 2010; Malhotra & Murnighan, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995; Muethel & Bond, 2013; Politis, 2003). Considering this insight it is expected that a high level of intragroup trust would weaken the negative relationship between diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. Conversely, a low level of

intragroup trust is expected to enhance the negative relationship of diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS, because, as stated above, the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism would decrease the level of communication and the level of communication would decline even more as a result of the low level of intragroup trust.

The expected negative relationship of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS is partly based on the social categorization theory (“us versus them”) (Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). In line with this argumentation it is expected that a high level of intragroup trust would weaken the negative relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. So, even though there is a split within a team, based on the Machiavellian characteristics of the team members, it does not necessarily result in actually Machiavelliastic behaviour from one sub team to another. The team members with a high Machiavellian level actually choose whether or not to behave Machiavelliastic (Dahling et al., 2009). If there is a high level of intragroup trust, it actually means that the team members see each other as reliable and honest (Irwin et al., 2014; Mayer

(22)

et al., 1995). Thus, if the team members with a high level of Machiavellianism trust their team members, they do not consider them as a potential threat. In this situation it is expected that the team members with a high level of Machiavellianism decide not to behave

Machiavelliastic. Therefore, it is expected that a high level of intragroup trust would decrease the negative effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. Conversely, when there is a low level of intragroup trust it is expected that team members with a high level of Machiavellianism see the other team members as a potential threat (external causality) and therefore decide to act Machiavelliastic (Dahling et al., 2009; Fehr & Samsom, 2013; Mudrack, 1989). Therefore, it appears to be reasonable to expect that a low level of intragroup trust increases the negative influence of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. In short, intragroup trust may increase the

communication with each other, and contribute to the positive relationships between team members. Therefore, it is expected that a high level of intragroup trust within a team weaken the negative relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. Based on the proceeding the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 2: Intragroup trust will negatively moderate the relationship between

diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. In particular, the negative

effect of faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS will be weaker when

intragroup trust is high.

2.6. Team identification

Social identity is “that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). This can be seen as the identification of individuals to see themselves as a component of a larger whole like a particular group, team or organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick,

(23)

2006; Riketta, 2005; Rousseau, 1998). To continue, team identification contains the emotional factor of connectivity of an individual with his/her group, together with other individuals, who have the same feeling of connectivity with that group (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). This feeling of connectivity of team members is based on the corresponding values, goals, attitude and behaviour of other team members (Janssen & Huang, 2008; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Van Knippenberg, 2000). An important addition is that

individuals can form multiple identities, since they optionally belong to different teams, workgroups or even organizations (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004, 2005; Meyer et al., 2006). In order to avoid confusion, team identification differs from internalization. Team identification includes the emotion of connectedness with a team which can be explained by the feeling that the team values

represent the personal values. Conversely, internalization refers to the inclusion of the values of a team (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

There are three components -emotional, evaluative and cognitive- that are considered as the key factors of the construct social identification (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Meyer et al., 2006; Riketta, 2005; Tajfel, 1978; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005; Van Dick, 2001).To clarify, the cognitive component (self-categorisation) is the understanding of being part of the group. The evaluative component (self-esteem) can be seen as the value connotation allocated to the group to which an individual belongs to. The emotional component (affective commitment) includes the emotional involvement or attachment with the group. The emotional component can drive motivation and can steer individuals towards action (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Dick et al., 2004; Ellemers et al., 1999; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).

2.6.1. The expected interaction effect of team identification

(24)

theorization of the expected dampening effect of team identification on the expected negative relationship of the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS.

To begin with, prior studies showed that a high level of team identification motivates individuals to act according to the norms within a team in order to enhance their group identity (Haslam et al., 2000; Reicher, 1996; Stets & Burke, 2000; Terry & Hogg, 1996; Turner et al., 1987). Team norms can be seen as the general accepted rules how to behave within a team (Brown, 1988; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). These norms can influence team members’ behaviour in a way that is beneficial for the team (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; Miniard & Cohen, 1981; Terry & Hogg, 1996). As mentioned, team members of the subgroup (high Machiavellian level) chooses to act moral or immoral, based on self-interest (Dahling et al., 2009). The high level of team identification will result in norms regarding the common behaviour within the team (Knippenberg & Schie, 2000; Terry & Hogg, 1996). Within this situation it is expected that the Machiavelliastic behaviour of the team members of a sub team (high Machiavellian level) is less beneficial. This expectation is based on the established group norms combined with the high level of attention towards these norms. If team members pay attention to the compliance of these norms, it is more likely that Machiavelliastic

behaviour of a team member will be discovered by the other team members and thus will be less beneficial. If the Machiavelliastic behaviour of the members of the sub team (high Machiavellian level) is less beneficial, as a result of a high level of team identification, it is less likely that these team members with a high Machiavellian level choose to behave

Machiavelliastic. Therefore, it is expected that a high level of team identification would have an attenuating effect on the negative relationship between the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS.

Conversely, team members will be less motivated to behave according to the group norms if there is a low level of team identification (Reicher, 1996; Stets & Burke, 2000; Terry

(25)

& Hogg, 1996). This will trigger the members of the sub team (high Machiavellian level) to act immoral, because the group is less focused on the normal behaviour within a team. As a result, the Machiavelliastic behaviour of team members of the sub team (high Machiavellian level) is less likely to be discovered by the members of the other sub team(s). Therefore, it is expected that a low level of team identification would stimulate team members to behave Machiavelliastic, and thus strengthen the negative relationship between a between the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS.

Other studies show the positive influence of team identification on citizenship behaviour (Janssen & Huang, 2008; Riketta, 2005; Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). Citizenship behaviour can be described as “individual contributions in the workplace that go beyond role requirements and contractually rewarded job achievements” (Organ & Ryan, 1995, p. 775). Previous studies examined the link between citizenship behaviour and information sharing, altruism and helping each other (Connelly & Kevin Kelloway, 2003; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Motowidlo, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Thus, a high level of team identification leads towards a high level of citizenship behaviour. This results into motivated team members, who are willing to walk that extra mile. These team members are eager to improve group performance, willing to learn from others, encouraging cooperation and are deeply involved in their work activities (Graham, 1991; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Based on this insight it is likely that it is more difficult for team members with a high level of Machiavellianism to share incomplete information, deceive or manipulate other team members without ‘getting caught’. Therefore, it is expected that team identification would weaken the willingness of team members with a high level of

Machiavellianism to behave Machiavelliastic, and thus weaken the negative relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS.

(26)

Conversely, it is likely that team members with a high level of Machiavellianism within a team with a low level of team identification would choose to behave

Machiavelliastic. This expectation is based on the insight that a low level of team

identification would result in a weak norms within the team, and unclear common behaviour (Terry & Hogg, 1996). As a result it is less likely that the Machiavelliastic behaviour (e.g. sharing incomplete, false information sharing) of team members with a high level of Machiavellianism would be ‘discovered’ by the other team members (low Machiavellian level). Therefore, it is expected that a low level of team identification would strengthen the negative relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. Based on the proceeding the following hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis 3: Team identification will negatively moderate the relationship between diversity

faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. In particular, the negative effect of

faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS will be weaker when team

identification is high.

2.7. Conceptual model

(27)

3. Method

This chapter will clarify the research approach of this study. First, the research site will be explained, followed by the sample and data sources. Next, the measures will be described including the scales which are used for the measurement of the dependent,

independent and moderating variables. Finally, the confirmatory factor analysis and statistical methods will be discussed.

3.1. Research Site

Previous research regarding TMS have largely been conducted in laboratory settings. For example, laboratory research show the positive effect of TMS on creativity (Gino et al., 2010), group performance (Liang et al., 1995; Mell et al., 2014). Other laboratory research examined the influence of type of communication on TMS (He et al., 2007; Lewis, 2004), and the influence of trust on TMS (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007).

For this thesis the “Business Strategy Game” was used to collect data. A total of 584 second year bachelor students (strategic management) participated in this simulation game. The students were divided into 117 teams and competed against each other within a simulated footwear industry (Thompson & Stappenbeck, 1999; see Chen, Katila, McDonald, &

Eisenhardt, 2010; Mathieu, Kukenberger, D’Innocenzo, & Reilly, 2015; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009, for comparable research settings). During this nine week-period there were five

different moments of data collection. The first moment of data collection was during the first week of the simulation game, followed by the subsequent weeks (w2 – w5). Every teams was composed of five students. The students were predominant Dutch (68%). The average age was 18.5 years, with a minimum of 18 years and maximum of 27 years. The standard deviation of age of the students was .98 years. The survey was conducted in Dutch and English in order to avoid any form of miscommunication.

(28)

Every student was motivated by the reality of the game itself (Clark & Montgomery, 1996), and because of the fact that their course grade was partly dependent on their team performance. Furthermore, the set-up of the Business Strategy Game is beneficial regarding the purpose of this thesis. The longitudinal character of the Business Strategy Game will result in a better understanding of the effect of the diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS (Chen et al., 2010).

Although the data is considered as highly reliable, it still has some limitation. To begin with, all participants were students only. While this is acceptable, since prior research result show no difference in behaviour of student teams and executive teams (Chen et al., 2010; Clark & Montgomery, 1996), it can be seen as limitation. Furthermore, the average age of the participants (18.5 years) is particular low, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, 81 from the initial 584 respondents have been rejected, as they were not divided into a group. From the total of 116 groups were 20 groups removed as they did not contain four or more team members per team. This is a hard criteria within this thesis, as faultlines need to be measured with a team of at least four team members, which can be divided into two different sub teams (Molleman, 2005; Thatcher & Patel, 2012). From the 96 remaining teams were 32 teams removed, because at least one team member of these group did not fill in the Mach items. In conclusion, the final dataset includes 64 teams with in total 293 respondents.

3.2. The Business Strategy Game

The Business Strategy Game is a simulation of a global footwear industry. Every team start under the same conditions and compete against all other teams. The goal of every team is to understand the market changes and act accordingly. A team could choose their market (North-America, Latin America, Europe-Africa or Asia-Pacific) and select their sales channel (internet, private-label, wholesale). Furthermore, the teams could determine how much they

(29)

would invest into the different operating units such as human resources, marketing, business operations et cetera. After each round the result, which were determined on five equally weighted parameters (e.g. earnings per share, return on equity, stock price, credit rating and image rating; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009), would be handed over to the teams. Based on these result could the teams adjust their strategy in order to improve their results. The boundaries of the simulation are formed by the team members themselves. Since all teams started under the same conditions, and faces the same market changes. Thus, it can be concluded that the performance of a team are a direct result of their strategic decisions, and their ability to interpreted and subsequently act on the internal and external environment.

3.3. Measures

TMS. The dependent variable in within this thesis is TMS. The level of TMS will be measured by using the validated scale developed by Lewis (2003). This scale measures three components: specialization, credibility and coordination. In total fifteen items need to be answered by a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example items are: “I know which team members have expertise in specific areas”

(specialization), “I was confident relying on the information that other team members brought to the discussion” (credibility), and “Our team had very few misunderstanding about what to do” (coordination) (Lewis, 2003). The items are measured during wave three and used to determine the score of TMS. After the factor analyses have multiple items been removed. For the credibility dimension: “When other members gave information, I wanted to double-check it for myself (reversed)” has been removed, because the principal loading was not twice as big as the secondary loading. To continue, the item “I did not have much faith in other members' expertise (reversed)” has been removed after the reliability analysis. Because the Cronbach’s Alpha would increase with >.10 (Δ.464). For the coordination component: “Our team needed to backtrack and start over a lot (reversed)” has been removed, because the principal loading

(30)

was not twice as big as the secondary loading. Furthermore, the item “There was much confusion about how we would accomplish the task (reversed)” has been removed after the reliability analysis. Because the Cronbach’s Alpha would increase with >.10 (Δ.562). The Cronbach’s Alpha for each individual dimension where strong (α = .891, α = .849, α = .782). The TMS scale is reliable, because the Cronbach’s Alpha is ≥.70 (Field, 2009) after

converting these three dimension into TMS (α = .853). In addition, for the use of TMS it is important to understand that specialization is overrepresented, since the value is composed of five items, where both the values of credibility and coordination is composed of three items. In order to solve this problem are the three dimension composed separately, and TMS is sequentially composed of these three dimensions. In order to clarify, the composed TMS value represents in total thirteen items, five of specialization, three of credibility, and three of coordination, these three dimensions are equally weighted in order to avoid the

overrepresentation problem of the specialization dimension.

Machiavellianism. Within this thesis will the degree of Machiavellian characteristics of the team members be measured by using the scale developed by Dahling et al. (2009). In total five items need to be answered by a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items are: “I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed,” or “I am willing to sabotage the efforts of other people if they threaten my own goals” (Dahling et al., 2009). The items that are measured during wave one are used to determine the degree of Machiavellianism. The degree of Machiavellianism is only

measured during one single wave, because personality traits are considered as a very stable factors (Goldberg, 1990). The Machiavellian personality scale (Dahling et al., 2009) is considered as reliable with α = .757.

Intragroup trust. Within this thesis will the intragroup trust scale developed by Simons & Peterson (2000) be used to measure the degree of intragroup trust. In total four

(31)

items need to be answered by a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items are: “We expect the complete truth from each other,” or “We expect the complete truth from each other”. The intragroup trust scale (Simons & Peterson, 2000) is considered as highly reliable with α = .908.

Team identification. One of the moderating variables included in this thesis is team identification. Within this thesis will the level of team identification be measured by using the scale developed by Van der Vegt, De Vliert, and Oosterhof (2003). In total eight items need to be answered by a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree). Example items are: “I strongly identify with the other members of my team,” or “I feel emotionally attached to this team” (Van Der Vegt, Van De Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003). After the factor analyse the item “I dislike being a member of this work team (reversed)” has been removed, because it had a high loading (>|.50|) on more than one factor. Next, the factors “The successes of my team are my successes,” and “When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal compliment” were also removed, because the principal loading was not twice as big as the secondary loading. In addition, “I am very interested in what others think of my team” shows a small value on corrected item-total correlation (.366), but is considered as acceptable because the Cronbach’s Alpha will not increase with >.10 (Δ.007) (Field, 2009). This results in a total scale of five items which will are used to measure the level of team identification. After removing these items, the EFA shows that the team identification scale (Van Der Vegt et al., 2003) is reliable with α = .731.

Diversity faultlines strength. This thesis will work according the procedure

developed by Thatcher et al. (2003) in order to measure the diversity faultlines strength, Faug. To continue, “a faultline can split this group into two subgroups in a total of S = 2n-1_{-1 ways”} (Thatcher et al., 2003, p. 225). The teams within the Business Strategy Game are composed of four to five team members, and therefore a maximum of two sub teams is considered as

(32)

realistic (Molleman, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2003). The variation of the Machiavellian characteristics will be calculated by the total variation between the sub teams, and the total variation in the overall group’ Machiavellian characteristics (Bezrukova et al., 2007; Molleman, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2003). The faultlines strength (Faug) will be measured for every possible split by using the following mathematical equation (see: Molleman, 2005, for a comprehensive explanation of this equation):

The strength of the faultline can be seen as the maximum value of Faug over all possible splits (g = 1,2,…, S.), where the Faug value ranges from 0 “very weak faultline” to 1 “very strong faultline”. Thus, the separation of the team into sub teams will be the result of a high Faug value.

3.4. Control Variables

Since TMS is computed from three dimensions (i.e. specialization, credibility, and coordination) it is likely that several other variables may affect the level of TMS. In relation to the reliability of the measurement of TMS will this thesis include multiple control

variables. These control variables will be controlled on their effect on TMS. Team member closeness is the extent to which one feels connected with another during their contact in their working relationship (Moran, 2005). This can be linked to strong ties, which are positively related to knowledge sharing (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003).

(33)

Based on these insights it is relevant to control on the effect of team member closeness. Furthermore, the group atmosphere is influenced by the degree of ‘member liking’ of an individual, which means to which extent the team members likes the other team members (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). It is expected that the atmosphere within a team, as a result of

member linking, will influence the willingness to share information. Based on this expectation is ‘member linking’ included as a control variable. Furthermore, prior research shows that reflexivity “the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning” (Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007, p. 189) is positively related to shared mental models

(Gurtner, Tschan, Semmer, & Nägele, 2007) and therefore expected to have a positive effect on TMS. Based on this insight is reflexivity included as a control variable. To conclude, the model will be controlled by the variables of team member closeness, member liking, and reflexivity.

3.5. Measurement properties

Every scale will be measured on the reliability, which can be defined as the internal consistency of the scale. In order to define the reliability of a scale and the including items, it needs to meet multiple criteria: the Cronbach’s Alfa needs to have a value of ≥.70, the corrected item-total correlation needs to be >.30, and the Cronbach’s Alpha if an item is deleted needs to be Δ<.10 (Field, 2009; Gliem & Gliem, 2003).

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) will be used to measure the total amount of variance by converting the original variables into linear components. By doing this the similarities between the variables can be determined (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011; Field, 2009). Furthermore, there are a number of rules of thumb: the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) needs to have a value of > .60, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance needs to be < .05. In addition, the Varimax rotation method has been

(34)

used during the EFA (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011; Field, 2009). The below tables includes the reliability and EFA for each construct.

Table 1: EFA and Reliability Analysis (TMS)

Overview of the EFA TMS scale (Lewis, 2003). The Principle Component Factor analysis with Varimax rotation of scale items for specialization, credibility and coordination was used, and it has been converged in five iterations. The KMOs = .850, with a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance of p = < .001. In addition, the scale is considered as reliable (α = .853).

(35)

Table 2: EFA and Reliability Analysis (Machiavellian personality scale)

Overview of the EFA Machiavellian personality scale (Dahling et al., 2009). The solution could not be rotated, because only one factor was extracted. The KMOs = .783, with a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance of p = < .001. In addition, the scale is considered as reliable (α = .757).

Table 3: EFA and Reliability Analysis (Intragroup Trust)

Overview of the EFA of intragroup trust scale (Simons & Peterson, 2000). The solution could not be rotated, because only one factor was extracted. The KMOs = .837, with a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance of p < .001. In addition, the scale is considered as reliable (α = .908).

Factor Loadings Item

Machiavellian Personality Scale I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed. .785 I am willing to sabotage the efforts of other people if they

threaten my own goals. .731

I would cheat if there was a low change of getting caught. .716 I believe that lying is necessary to maintain a competitive

advantage over others. .706

The only good reason to talk to others is to get information that

I can use to my benefit. .613

Eigenvalues 2,538

% of Variance 50,763

α 0,757

Factor Loadings

Item Intragroup Trust Scale

We expect the complete truth from each other. .895

We are all certain that we can fully trust each other. .920

We expect from every team member absolute integrity. .883 We count on each other to fully live up to our word. .845

Eigenvalues 3,143

(36)

Table 4: EFA and Reliability Analysis (Team Identification)

Overview of the EFA of intragroup trust scale (Van Der Vegt et al., 2003). The solution could not be rotated, because only one factor was extracted. The KMOs = .770, with a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance of p < .001. In addition, the scale is considered as reliable (α = .731).

3.6. Aggregation

To aggregate the individual-level constructs to the team-level constructs the in-between variation and within-team agreement need to be tested (Bliese, 2000; Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007). This can be tested by the measuring the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To continue, ICC (1) explains how much of the variance of an individual can be explained by the team membership (Bartko, 1976; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979), and ICC (2) shows the reliability of the team means (McGraw & Wong, 1996; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Since TMS is measured as a team level construct (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004; Lewis, 2004; Lewis & Herndon, 2011; Lewis et al., 2005) it is not necessarily to measure the ICC values. The same argument can be applied for the faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism. To continue, the interclass correlation coefficient of intragroup trust and team identification has been

Factor Loadings Item

Team Identification Scale

I strongly identify with the other members of my work team. .862

I would like to continue working with my team. .814

I dislike being a member of this work team (reversed). Removed -

I feel emotionally attached to this work team. .825

I am very interested in what others think of my team. .366

When I talk about my team, I usually do that in terms of 'we' instead

of 'they'. .686

The successes of my team are my successes. Removed -

When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal

compliment. Removed -

Eigenvalues 2,691

(37)

calculated by using a two-way mixed model, with absolute agreement. For intragroup trust the values showed a significant ICC effect (p < .0001), where ICC (1) = .699, and ICC (2) = .903. For team identification the values showed also a significant effect (p < .0001), ICC (1) = .304, and ICC (2) = .636.

4. Results

The multicollinearity of the variables needs to be tested, before the hypotheses will be tested. Specifically, the variance inflation factor (VIF) as well as the tolerance statistics will be measured. In addition, if the largest VIF value is greater than 10 it may be problematic, and if the tolerance value is below .2 it indicates a potential problem (Bowerman & O’connell, 1990; Field, 2009; Hair et al., 1998; Menard, 1995). After analysing the values of tolerance and VIF it can be concluded that there is no multicollinearity between the variables.

For analysing the hypotheses the statistical programme PROCESS has been used (Hayes, 2013). PROCESS uses 1 standard deviation above and below the mean value of the independent variable and moderating variables, which results in the LLCI and ULCI values (Field, 2009). These values will be measured by using ‘model 2’ (see appendix), where the conditional effect of X on Y = b1 + b4M + b5W will be calculated. Where Y represents TMS, X represents diversity faultlines in terms of Machiavellianism, M represents the moderating variable of intragroup trust, and W represents the moderating variable of team identification. By running this model the bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval was used

(38)

Table 5: Descriptive statistics

4.1. Analysis of hypotheses

To begin, the analysis has been conducted by PROCESS ‘model 2’ (Hayes, 2013). The overall model is significant: F(8, 284) = 25,45, p < .001, R2 = .4038. This shows that 40,38% of TMS is explained by all variables together: faultlines strength, intragroup trust, team identification, the moderation effects intragroup trust*faultlines strength, team

identification*faultlines strength, and the control variables. Unfortunately, none of the three hypotheses can be proven by the data (see table 6 below)

Table 6:

Variable

Coeff (b)

Std.

Error t p LLCI ULCI

Constant 5,4111 0,616 8,7846 0,000 4,1987 6,6236 Independent Faultlines strength 0,3801 0,2102 1,8081 0,072 -0,0337 0,7938 Moderators Intragroup Trust 0,617 0,0634 9,725 0,000 0,4921 0,7419 Team Identification 0,0234 0,0793 0,2946 0,769 -0,1327 0,1794 Interaction Terms

Faultlines Strength*Intragroup Trust -1,9943 0,67 -2,9763 0,003 -3,3131 -0,6754 Faultlines Strength*Team Identification 0,4251 0,6744 0,6303 0,529 -0,9025 1,7526

(39)

Control Variables

Team Closeness 0,3617 0,1182 3,0605 0,002 0,1291 0,5944

Team Liking -0,221 0,077 -2,8693 0,004 -0,3726 -0,0694

Team Reflexivity -0,1877 0,0746 -2,5148 0,013 -0,3345 -0,0408

Table 7: Interaction plots

Interaction plot 1: The relatively flat lines indicate that differences between team members’ Machiavellian characteristics do not affect the level of TMS within a team. Next, the interaction plot show some influence of intragroup trust on TMS. This effect will be examined in the first ex-post analysis. In addition, strong diversity faultlines appears to have a dampening effect on the relationship between intragroup trust and TMS.

Interaction plot 2: The relatively flat lines indicate that there is no significant effect of diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS. Furthermore, there appears to be no significant (cross-over) interaction effect of team

identification.

The main research question of this thesis was: “team diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism will be negatively related to TMS such that teams with a strong faultline will have lower TMS than teams with a weak faultline”. Unexpectedly, there is no significant effect of diversity faultlines Machiavellianism on TMS (H1). To clarify, faultlines strength b = .3801 t(284) = 1.80, p = .072, not significant. Based on these values it can be argued that hypothesis 1 is not supported.

The second hypothesis: “intragroup trust will negatively moderate the relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. In particular, the negative effect of faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS will be weaker when intragroup trust is high” is not relevant in a sense that it is not useful to argue whether or

(40)

not intragroup trust increases or decreases the main effect, because the main effect is not significant. However, the interaction effect of intragroup trust on the relationship between faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS shows a significant effect: b = -1.761 t(284) = -2.905, p < .01, significant. This result is very interesting, and can be explained by a cross-over interaction of intragroup trust (DePrince & Freyd, 1999). Which provides meaningful information that there is some influence of intragroup trust on TMS. To continue, intragroup trust seems to have a significant direct effect on TMS b = .617 t(284) = 9,72, p < .001, significant. This effect will be examined in the ex-post analysis.

The third hypothesis “team identification will negatively moderate the relationship between diversity faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism and TMS. In particular, the negative effect of faultlines strength in terms of Machiavellianism on TMS will be weaker when team identification is high” is not supported. As opposed to intragroup trust, there is no significant (cross-over) interaction effect of team identification: b = .4251 t(284) = .63, p = .53, not significant. However, there appears to be a significant correlation between team identification and TMS (see table 5). Therefore it is decided to conduct a second ex-post analysis in order to examine the effect of intragroup trust on TMS.

To continue, the covariate effect of the control variables were controlled on their effect on TMS. All three control variables show a significant effect on the level of TMS. Team closeness: b = .3617 t(284) = 3.06, p < .001 – significant, for every 1 unit increase in team closeness will the degree of TMS increase with .36 in value. Team linking: b = -.221 t(284) = -2.89, p < .001 – significant, for every 1 unit increase in team linking will the degree of TMS decrease with -.22 in value. Team reflexivity: b = -.188 t(284) = -2.51, p < .001 – significant, for every 1 unit increase in team reflexivity will the degree of TMS decrease with -.19 in value.

“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” : the role of Machiavellians on TMS