An Exploration of the Activation Process of Group Faultlines Triggered by Organizational Change

(1)

An Exploration of the Activation Process of Group Faultlines

Triggered by Organizational Change

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business

(2)

ABSTRACT

In this master thesis the role that organizational change plays in the activation of group faultlines is explored. The researcher conducted a qualitative study in a semi-public organization consisting of four cases that were analysed and compared. The results indicate that change-related triggers occur mainly when group members have not worked together intensively in the past and the change invites members to actively participate in the process. Faultline attributes then come to the surface during events such as work groups and discussions about the change. This can lead to polarization of the group into subgroups. Furthermore, when a change is perceived as threat to one’s professional identity, subgroups can be formed by members to retain their current status within the group. It appears that transformational leadership can prevent activation of faultlines by guiding group members throughout the change process and providing them with a compelling vision about the change that inspires members across social identities.

Keywords: Organizational change, group faultlines, faultline activation, faultline triggers, transformational leadership

Word count: 19.335 (excluding appendices)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to changing economic, technological, and societal environments, organizations have started to make more use of teams in order to meet demands from the environment (Devine et al., 1999). However, where people work together in teams, there will be differences. Therefore, managing diversity has become one of the top points on the agenda in today’s business world. By taking a look at websites of big corporate organizations, it shows that many describe that diversity is valuable in some way. These firms acknowledge that people are unique and that teams that contain diversity have the potential to lead to the most innovative and creative solutions. The question is if it is always a good thing to have diversity within teams.

The interest in whether diversity is valuable or not has grown over the past two decades since work places have become increasingly diverse. As a result practitioners and researchers started to question if the phenomenon diversity enhances organizational performance or not (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Does diversity by race, gender, ethnicity, or anything else improve organizational performance? Finding reliable answers is difficult since people define diversity in different and sometimes even conflicting ways. The most common used definition of diversity is: “any attribute that another person may use to detect individual differences” (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998: 78). Because of the great amount of different explanations of diversity, a diverse workforce is considered to be an asset, threat, problem or even not relevant (Dass & Parker, 1999). Both positive and negative effects of demographic diversity have been theorized. The optimistic view considers diversity as an asset for innovation, since a variety of approaches and perspectives can be helpful for solving problems in a creative way. However, many researchers have found evidence that diversity may create social subgroups, which can result in negative performance outcomes (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

(5)

2

be compared to geological faults, like fractures in the Earth’s crust. Fractures that are not activated by external forces can exist without being observed at the surface; however, an earthquake can evolve when layers of crust suddenly get into movement. Similar to the faults in the Earth’s crust, faultlines can be inactive and unnoticed at the surface for years (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).

Though the analogy of Lau & Murnighan (1998) implies the existence of activation of faultlines, this topic has not been examined much yet in faultline research. Since the introduction of faultlines many researchers worked on operationalizing the faultline concept based on objective demographic characteristics, such as gender, nationality and race. Faultline activation has recently been defined as the process by which an objective demographic alignment, also called a dormant faultline, is actually perceived by the group members as the division of the group into several subgroups (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). As with the analogy of fractures in the Earth’s crust, dormant faultlines can also exist without creating subgroups in groups. If, however, a trigger event activates the faultline, a group can be split into subgroups. Jehn & Bezrukova discovered that one factor, namely team entitlement configuration, can trigger dormant faultlines into activated faultlines. However, it is likely that there are more factors that form triggers. Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) proposed that more research is necessary on how contextual factors influence the frequency and intensity of triggers.

Research on this particular theme could offer new insights to the field of practice. Up to 70 per cent of change initiatives fail while the need to implement major changes grows due to a business environment that is becoming more and more dynamic (Higgs & Rowland, 2000). If more knowledge is collected about how group faultlines are activated by changes, this could lead to more apprehension about managing group diversity during changes.

The theoretical gap that was analysed above shows there is a lack of research on contextual triggers that can activate group faultlines. In the light of this gap, this study aims to contribute to the academic knowledge about how triggers activate dormant faultlines into activated faultlines. In particular, this study will zoom in on organizational change as a potential trigger for faultline activation. Therefore, the following research question has been formulated:

(6)

3

(7)

4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This part starts with a review on the faultline research that has already been conducted. Further on, the constructs that were used in this study are introduced, followed by sub questions that were created to maintain a well-defined focus and prevent to become overwhelmed by the volume of data (Eisenhardt, 1989).

2.1 Faultline concept

Much of the research on team composition has focused on demographic diversity that is defined as “the distribution of differences among the members of a group with respect to a common demographic attribute” (Thatcher & Patel, 2011: 1119). Faultlines are a term used to make diversity explicit into hypothetical dividing lines that split a group into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on characteristics (Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Faultlines can be based on both demographic and non-demographic characteristics. Examples of demographic faultlines include age, gender, race; non-demographic refers to personal values, such as personality or education and are often called informational faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2009). Faultlines can vary in strength as well. The strength of faultlines depends on three compositional factors: (1) the number of individual attributes apparent to group members, (2) their alignment, and, as a consequence, (3) the number of potentially homogenous subgroups. When characteristics of group members are more aligned in the same way, groups become more homogenous and the faultlines become stronger. A ‘strong’ faultline is present when two distinct, non-overlapping subgroups exist based on some set of attributes. For example, when all men are over 50 years old and all women are below 30 years old, the sex and age faultlines align and form a single, stronger faultline (Lau & Murnighan, 1998: 325). These hypothetical lines may split into subgroups and can provide an informal structure for intragroup conflict (Lau & Murnighan, 2005).

2.2 Types of faultlines

(8)

5

group faultlines are activated, members of a group actually perceive subgroups based on some set of attributes. Research has shown that dormant faultlines do not automatically lead to subgroups being formed; nevertheless it might happen due to trigger events, such as a group’s entitlement configuration (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Activated group faultlines have significant influence on group outcomes and therefore it is an interesting theme for researchers. Groups with activated faultlines show to have lower levels of satisfaction, form more coalitions, have more group conflicts and eventually lower the overall performance of the group (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).

Lawrence & Zyphur (2011) extended the faultline theory by introducing organizational faultlines that refer to organizational rather than small group faultlines. Organizational faultlines are alignments of attributes in a large group whose boundaries are defined by known persons, such as those with whom they work or talk, about whom they hear or whom they merely observe. There are two important differences between group and organizational faultlines. First, group members probably know each other and as consequently are more likely to notice demographic characteristics. As the group becomes larger, it becomes more difficult to know every group member and differences becomes less obvious. Therefore, awareness of diversity depends on a sample of group members that the individual knows well. This implies that there are organizational reference groups. Second, group faultlines and organizational faultlines differ in the boundaries that are set. Small groups are usually defined by managerial authority, for example who works with whom in which department, while in large groups or organizations the groups may not be prescribed.

2.3 Activation of faultlines

(9)

6

salient which are seen as ‘triggers’, a term used for the activation of a faultline (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). The process of triggers in the activation process is visualized in Figure I (see below).

The underlying effects of diversity can be better understood by looking at three theories: self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987); social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), and the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). The theories about self-categorization and social identity state that the activation of faultlines is based on social categories that individuals create. Self-categorization is a mechanism that individuals use to classify themselves into a group (for example male, mechanic). Social identity is a result from self-categorization as an individual identifies itself with the category. These paradigms both tend to consider diversity from a pessimistic view; individuals will be more attracted to similar others and will feel more cohesion in homogenous groups (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Self-categorization and self-identity are strongly related and may result in an activation of an individuals’ feeling to be in or out a group. The formation of in-groups and out-groups can be explained by the similarity-attraction paradigm. People seem to connect with others that are similar. Past research has shown that individuals consider similarity based on demographic characteristics, especially race and gender (Thatcher & Patel, 2011).

There has been relatively little research conducted to examine what type of events, behaviours or circumstances lead to an activation of faultlines and forming of subgroups. Jehn & Bezrukova (2010) proposed there are certain situations in which differences between group members become salient, such as a group’s entitlement configuration. For example, when two members in a MBA learning team have high levels of entitlement, the group can suffer from polarisation. When two individuals in two opposing subgroups battle for entitlements, such as power and control, it is likely that demographic faultlines are activated.

Dormant faultline Activated faultline

Trigger

(10)

7

Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) identified five trigger events that can activate the perception of sub groups: (1) differential treatment, (2) different values, (3) assimilation, (4) insult or humiliating action, and (5) simple contact. They further suggest that within a context of an organizational setting, there are many sources of faultlines, including nationality, religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation. Furthermore, this study has shown that events in society as well as historic tensions between social groups do influence group dynamics. Tensions from society can cause faultlines to activate, which in turn can result in escalating conflicts within groups. This is in line with research done by Polzer et al. (2006) whom stated that the context in which a group operates highlights the faultline. Especially within geographically dispersed teams, faultlines are likely to be easier activated.

Zellmer-Bruhn et al. (2008) conducted empirical research towards a more complete understanding of how diversity influences team outcomes. They proposed that perceptions are the base of what team members notice about each other. The results show that perceived similarity, the degree to which members view themselves as having few differences, is linked to two important team outcomes: subgroup formation and team effectiveness. When group members perceive their work style as similar, they are likely to feel more like an individual in a group rather than member of a subgroup. In addition, the results reveal that work style similarity has a positive effect on team performance. Both results can be explained from the similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971).

2.4 Change as faultline trigger

(11)

8

This master thesis will examine how organizational change can trigger the activation of dormant faultlines. In order to not become overwhelmed by the information from qualitative data and to maintain a well-defined focus, an operationalization of organizational change has to be made. Oreg et al. (2011) categorised change in pre-change antecedents and change antecedents. Pre-change antecedents include individual characteristics of a change recipient (employee that ‘undergoes’ the change) and the internal context of the group or organization. Change antecedents consist of the change process, the content of the change and the perceived benefits and harm of the change. This study will focus on the antecedents of a change in order to examine how organizational change may activate faultlines. Consequently, the pre-change antecedents will not be part of the scope of this research. The three change antecedents that are used as constructs in this study – change process, change content and perceived benefits and harm – are discussed below.

2.4.1 Change process

The change process incorporates ‘how’ the change was implemented. Participation is one of the most prevalent variables of the change process that has been addressed in the literature about change recipients’ reactions to change (Oreg et al., 2011). Participation studies focus on how employees are considered to be part of planning and implementing the change. By inviting employees to participate, a feeling of importance and contribution to the change is created. Employees who feel they participate do not only show to have higher levels of readiness and acceptance to the change but also experienced higher levels of interpersonal trust with colleagues (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Apparently, participating in a change enhances trust between group members. However, in faultline research it has been reported that when group members experience anxiety between each other, in other words low levels of trust, simple contact can lead to polarization (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). Therefore, it might be relevant for this study to examine the role of participation by group members in a change.

(12)

9

Furthermore, managerial support during change has shown to have impact on the attitude of the recipient towards the change (Oreg et al., 2011). In a study conducted by Logan & Ganster (2007) support of the manager was associated with higher levels of readiness to change and lower perceived negative effects. It might be worthwhile to examine what role the manager, and the management style, plays in the activation process of faultlines.

Sub question 1: How does the change process influence the activation of faultlines?

2.4.2 Change content

Change content refers to the ‘what’ of the change initiative, such as a change in the job design or office layout. Besides the way a change is managed, it might be relevant for this study to look at what actually changes for the employees and in what way this influences group faultlines. In a study conducted by Gover & Duxbury (2012) the content of a change was considered a trigger that activated several faultlines within work groups. A change from location and corresponding changes to the work processes and reporting structures triggered a simple contact event faultline. Problems between social identity groups occurred that were not foreseen by management before the implementation of the change. For example, employees from one social identity group were satisfied with new work processes while another group perceived it as a restraining factor in their work. This caused conflicts between the groups. Therefore, the outcome of a change, in other words ‘what’ actually changes for work groups, has the potential to be a trigger for the activation of faultlines.

Some other studies operationalized the content of a change as the degree or perceived meaningfulness of change. For example, perceptions of change as on-going can be associated with negative emotions, such as anger, mistrust, and frustration (Kiefer, 2005). The degree to which employees think a change is meaningful might be linked to the activation process of faultlines. It might be that subgroups can be created based on individual differences in the opinion about the degree and meaningfulness of the change.

Sub question 2: How does the content of a change influence the activation of faultlines?

2.4.3 Perceived benefit and harm

(13)

10

perceived as personally beneficial or harmful (Oreg et al., 2011). Relating this variable to faultlines, it might be that employees perceive differences stronger when the benefits or harm of a change differ strongly among group members. For example, it has been reported that the perception of job insecurity and distributive justice are important factors for the individual well-being (Naswell et al., 2005). It might be that these factors are also important for faultlines.

Sub question 3: How might the perceptions of the individual benefits and harm of a change function as a faultline base?

2.4.4 Conceptual model

This study aims to explore how organizational change triggers the activation process of dormant faultlines. In the conceptual model (figure 2), organizational change is conceptualized as trigger (change process and change content) and as possible faultline base (perceived benefits/harm of a change). By doing this, a gap in the literature will be addressed and the results in this study can hopefully give (new) explanations of the activation process of faultlines and the role of organizational change. This study will not focus on the way activated faultlines lead to group outcomes since prior researchers have already shown what the effects of activated faultlines are on group outcomes (e.g. Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Dormant faultline (presence of faultlines) - Perceived benefits/harm Activated faultline

(members perceive division group into subgroups)

Possible change triggers:

- Change process (‘how’) - Change content (‘what’)

Group outcomes: - Conflicts - Reduced performance

(14)

11

3. METHODOLOGY

This study attempts to address the literature gap that was found in the introduction and literature review. According to Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) there has been very little research conducted about the types of events in the workplace that lead to activation of faultlines. Van Aken et al. (2012) state this is an excellent starting point for theory development since the field of literature deals with many unresolved issues. Theory-building research typically answers questions that address “how” and “why” in unexplored research areas – in this study the question is “how” organizational change can trigger the activation process of dormant faultlines. Theory development is based on the first part of the empirical cycle and is closely linked with the case study approach described by Eisenhardt (1989). This approach was used as guideline for the design of this study and consists of the following steps (Van Aken et al., 2012):

1. A business phenomenon is not explained (extensively) in academic literature (applied in chapter 1 & 2);

2. The phenomenon is observed in one or more case studies (applied in chapter 3 & 4); 3. Explanations of the phenomenon are developed while findings are compared with

existing theories in literature (applied in chapter 5).

This study makes use of both qualitative and quantitative instruments. This choice has been made for triangulation purposes since combining two instruments increases the credibility of results (Rothbauer, 2008). The interviews were aimed at generating theoretical insights that are not disclosed yet in the current literature. The questionnaires were designed in order to check whether findings from qualitative data are correct and to gather information about potential faultline bases and demographic data of group members.

3.1 Sample

(15)

12

changes differ in process and content, but were all initiated in the scope of one change initiative: the ‘LEAN project’, a new methodology that was introduced organization-wide in 2011. LEAN is a way of working that is focused on reducing wastes and improving work processes. The cases were selected by using a ‘most different’ selection strategy in order to increase the generalizability of results (Seawright, 2008). Therefore, the members in the cases have different work activities and different contextual characteristics. By including multiple cases the reliability of this research increases as the researcher was able to gather multiple views on the business phenomenon, in this thesis described as faultlines in a change context (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The study population that was examined is utility organization ABC, a semi-public firm located in the Netherlands that produces and delivers water for the society. ABC takes care of the entire process of water delivery – from producing raw water up to delivering clean drink water at people’s houses. Due to the extensive work process, ABC has a diverse work force of 250 employees that contains a wide array of functions, such as project engineers, customer workers and mechanics. In January 2013 ABC announced the official start of the LEAN project. The goal of the change initiative was to increase levels of efficiency and eliminate waste in work processes. Since this study was conducted only one and a half year after the start of the implementation, participants would not have to go back a long time in history to think about the process and remember the events that took place during the change.

(16)

13 3.2 Procedure

Access to the four cases was gained in February 2014 through the LEAN facilitator of ABC. First, the researcher had an intake conversation with the LEAN facilitator to discuss the aim and feasibility of this study at ABC. The researcher was granted access to four departments and was free to speak with every active group member, interview them, attend work meetings, build relationships with members and observe their behaviour. This gave the study the opportunity to create a rich data set (Myers, 2009). The LEAN facilitator announced the study and its purpose on the intranet of ABC and in an e-mail to all supervisors.

The sample consisted of four groups with 30 participants of which the individual characteristics are shown in the tables in the results section. The team in case 1 initiates new projects, such as the installation of water supply at a new industry park. The team in case 2 is responsible for handling administration and contact with customers and consists of employees with full-time contracts and students who work part time. Respondents of this group were equally selected from the full-time and part-time group. In case 3 a team was examined that handles technical issues from customers, such as questions about the water system in a house. In case 4 a team participated that is concerned with reparations and installations and mainly consists of mechanics that work outside the office.

Participants were selected based on their availability for conducting an interview. The researcher did not instruct the participants on forehand in order to ensure the explorative nature of the study. Participants only received a message that communicated the purpose of this study – that is, to examine team cooperation within the context of the LEAN implementation. Confidentiality was promised in the e-mail and additionally at the moment the interviews were scheduled with the participants.

(17)

14

microphone in Dutch, the native language of both the researcher and the participants. The interviews took place between May, 1st and May, 26th, 2014.

3.3 Measures

Data was collected by using semi-structured interviews which are a highly efficient way to gather rich, empirical data, especially when the phenomenon of interest is highly episodic (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to increase internal validity and reliability, triangulation was applied (Van Aken et al., 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Besides conducting semi-structured interviews, questionnaires were designed in order to gather additional information about faultline bases and demographic and personality dimensions. The main purposes of using triangulation are to confirm findings with quantitative data and to prevent vivid, but false impressions in the qualitative data (Eisenhardt, 1989).

This study made use of one additional investigator. This person assisted in conducting all 30 interviews and gave feedback on the analyses of the data. Using multiple investigators has two key advantages. First, this method enhances the creative potential of the study since team members often have different perspectives and insights that can add to the richness of the data. Second, when multiple investigators agree on observations and interpretations it enhances the confidence in the findings. Convergent perceptions add to the empirical grounding of findings (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.3.1 Interviews

The main data gathering instrument that was used in this study are in-depth interviews which are a common used instrument in qualitative research (Rowley, 2012). The interview protocol contains four main questions with each a couple of sub-questions in order to ensure the participant understands the question and to give the researcher room to go into depth on certain issues. This also enables participants to express their opinion extensively which limits the potential of answer bias. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix II. The definitions of the constructs of this study were used to develop questions in order to ensure construct validity (Van Aken et al., 2012).

(18)

15

the content of the change, the researcher asked what exactly has changed in the cooperation between group members.

In order to identify faultline triggers the critical incident approach was used (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). The participants were asked the following main question: “I would like you to think about a time or an event during the change in which you became strongly aware of the difference between members. Can you describe that moment?” When the participant could not think of a particular event, the researcher asked: “Could you tell something about diversity in your team?” and: “When did you notice that you were different than others during the change?”.

Faultline bases were assessed by asking questions that were related to perceived

faultline bases, which are defined as “the division of group members into subgroups based on the alignment of certain attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Examples of questions that were asked are: “Of what differences you became aware?”, and; “what do people in another subgroup have in common?”.

Furthermore, questions were asked to typify the group interaction in order to assess any potential contextual factors that might have influenced group faultline activation. Finally, questions were asked about shared leadership in order to assess how decisions are made within the team.

3.3.2 Questionnaire

In order to examine the extent to which faultlines exist in the cases and whether group members perceived activated faultlines, a questionnaire was employed (Appendix III). Participants might not be aware of all potential faultlines in their team, which why a questionnaire was used. Moreover, surveys are less influenced by the researcher than qualitative interviews. By combining multiple sources of evidence, called triangulation, the researcher tried to remedy the shortcomings of the main instrument, which enhances the reliability of the results (Van Aken et al., 2012).

The questionnaire contains questions generated from multiple sets of constructs; however, only the constructs below were used in the results section.

Resistance to change has been measured by 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale that

(19)

16

Perceived faultlines have been measured by 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale that

assess: “the extent to whether actually perceive the division of the group into separate subgroups based on demographic alignment (an activated faultline)” (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Additionally, an open question has been added to find out on which base subgroups are perceived in a group: “What do the members of a subgroup have in common?”.

The data will be presented in tables that aim to give a clear overview of the faultline bases that were found. The questionnaires were filled in by the participants at the end of the interview under supervision of the researcher. Additionally, the participants answered questions about demographic attributes (such as age, work experience, number of years in team). These data can provide information about group faultlines based on demographic characteristics.

3.4 Data analysis

In this study an analytic technique was used to interpret the data. Rowley (2012) states that there is no recipe for success, but the best practice is to listen to the recordings and transcribe what is said by the participants. All 30 interviews were transcribed word by word, after which the data was analysed according the following steps of Rowley (2012: 268): (1) organizing the data set; (2) getting acquainted with the data; and (3) classifying, coding, and interpreting the data. First (1), the transcripts of the interviews were put into separate World files and where necessary restructured. Second (2), the researcher read through all transcripts and looked for key themes, such as experiences, actions, interventions of managers. Third (3), all transcripts were coded in Atlas.ti. This is a software program that allowed the researcher to systematically code all data, which increases the reliability and validity of the results (Van Aken et al., 2012). A list of 7 deductive codes was created, based on the constructs of the conceptual model presented in the previous chapter (the provisional codebook is presented in Appendix I a). During the analysis of the data the coding scheme was expanded with multiple codes per variable (see Appendix I b). A second investigator, the same person who was involved in the interviews with the participants, evaluated the coding process. The second investigator looked whether the statements that were coded matched the definitions of the codes. By doing this, the reliability of the results in this study was enhanced since the interpretations of the researcher were critically reviewed by a second researcher (Eisenhardt, 1989).

(20)

17

ordinarily follow how a researcher got from 3600 pages of field notes to the final conclusions, sprinkled with vivid quotes though they may be.” However, several key features of analysis can be used. First, a within-case analysis was employed in order to deal with the large amount of data. The researcher aimed to become intimately familiar with each case and tried to describe in detail what happened according to the participants. Afterwards, a cross-case analysis was conducted in order to search for similar patterns across the four cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). By using both within-case analyses and a cross-case analysis the internal validity of this study is increased and the potential for researcher bias was limited since multiple perspectives on a phenomenon are compared (Van Aken et al., 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

(21)

18

4. RESULTS

The results of the case studies are presented in this section. Four within-case analyses and one cross-case analysis have been conducted. The results section describes which faultline bases and faultline triggers were reported, especially with respect to the change at ABC.

4.1 Case 1: MNE

ABC contains two maintenance locations of around 30 employees that are mainly concerned with the maintenance, repairs and construction of water pipes. One location resides in the North side of the city centre; the other department has its office 40 kilometres outside the city and has a strong footprint in the province. In 1998 a merger was created between two local water organizations and one organization - ABC - was founded. As a result of the merger eight small maintenance departments were reorganized into two locations: North and East. Since 1998 the activities for maintenance of water pipes have been differentiated into these two geographical regions. ABC aims to merge the two locations into one central location, a change that is expected to be completed in 2016. The change is in line with, and partly a result of, the LEAN methodology that was adopted. By creating one location ABC expects to create more efficiency in the maintenance work processes. The change was announced in 2013 and a couple of events were organized to let members participate in the change process. In these events, employees of both locations were invited to discuss the change together. Employees were assigned in small groups to talk about, for example, the best location of the new office and new work practices.

In order to give a representative view of the situation, three members from the location in the North and three members from East were interviewed. In addition, the general manager was interviewed due to his ability to overview the situation.

4.1.2 Faultline bases

Several faultline triggers that are linked to the change were detected in case 1. The change appears to especially make social identity salient, in particular the differences in culture between the two locations in the North and East.

Individual benefits and harm was reported by six out of seven members as a faultline

(22)

19

wanted to locate the new department according to the travel distances. He wanted to work close to his home. To speak for myself, I don’t really care.” (P 18) The manager underlines this finding. “It is an issue sometimes. Everyone works in a department and tends to think in their own interests. We are trying to learn them seeing the process of the department as a whole. […] In the beginning this can be very difficult” (P 17). It is not totally clear whether this faultline base actually led to subgroups within the organization. Members did indicate that during change-related activities, subgroups were formed based on the same individual benefits, yet it was not reported that this led to subgroups outside these events.

Historic and cultural differences are reported as a perceived faultline base by six out

of seven members. In 1998 two companies merged into one organization and most members still perceive a distance between both groups. One member perceived the division of the two subgroups already before the change: “Barbecues and birthday parties are always celebrated apart from each other. Why is that? It just is.”(P 19) The terms “we” and “them” are actually used by all members, which indicates there is a perceived faultline between members from North (categorised as subgroup 1 in Table 1), and East (categorised as subgroup 2 in Table 1). “The subgroups are formed on basis of the history in the company. This is an ‘old’ company; people work here 30-35 years on average.” (P 18) Another member also experiences differences between members from the two former companies. “I did not work here before the merger, but here in North you see colleagues that have worked at X and Z. Sometimes they have different opinions; however, it does not get out of hand and they can laugh about it.” (P 20) One member from North, who has also been active in the East, indicates that the culture is just different over there. “We do not feel a bond with East. The atmosphere over there is a bit narrow-minded. Here we are a more open-minded and optimistic. I don’t have any problems with individuals, but I do know that no one from North wants to move to East.” (P 19)

(23)

20

so we can look up sketches from water pipes. I am sure that when this application is introduced the old employees will start complaining that the screen is too small for them and express other problems. I experience this difference in more situations.” (P 23)

4.1.2 Faultline triggers

In case 1 several faultline triggers that are related to the change were detected.

According to four out of seven members the content of the change formed a trigger for the activation of perceived individual benefits faultlines. All employees were invited by the manager to sit together in a restaurant and discuss which location would be the best for the new office. The managers indicated that their advice was not blindly followed, but taken into consideration. One group member stated that this meeting made individual differences visible. “I noted differences when employees had to write down their ideas of a location of the new department. I have to drive 50 kilometres myself to my current office. The other colleagues started to complain about their travel time and did not want to drive half an hour to their work. For other people the travel distance became shorter and colleagues were complaining about their distance. […] I was in a group with four other colleagues and one discussion leader. I thought it would be impossible to give my input in the discussion. We were handed over a map of Groningen and had to find a strategic position for the new department. Four colleagues instantly agreed upon one location that was near to their old location. It was not possible to discuss this location and I just let the situation for what it was.” (P 23) Another member experienced the same feeling during the event. “One colleague wanted to locate the new department according to the travel distances. He just wanted to work close to his home. To speak for myself, I don’t really care.” (P 18) It appears that subgroups were formed during the event. “They started to throw oil on the fire. In the beginning the situation was normal, but then it became more noisy thanks to them. They started to help each other out.” It appears that subgroups were formed during change-related events; however, members did not indicate that these subgroups were also visible outside these events.

(24)

21

noticed that rumours during the change about both subgroups highlighted the differences between both locations even more. “The differences became clear shortly after the moment the change was announced. Colleagues started to tell stories and you then notice that there are differences between both locations” (P 19).

Other faultline triggers that were reported are: participation (4) and non-change related triggers (3). Members stated that by participating in the change, such as in work groups and discussions during meetings, it became clear how colleagues thought of the change. However, a coherent picture of subgroups based on this could not be made. Non-change related triggers were mainly focused on the differences between the two locations.

Table 1: Results from questionnaire case 1

Respondents: P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23

Function*: Manager MW MW MW MW MW MW

Age:** 45 50 54 33 27 59 30

Tenure in org. **: 4 18 29 5 3 33 10

Education level: HBO MBO MBO MBO MBO MBO MBO

Change resistance***: 3.3 4.3 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 2.0

Perceived subgroups***: 4.25 2 5 4.25 5 4.75 6

Subgroups based on: none none Same goal work

together

none none none

Subgroup: none 1 1 1 2 2 2

* MW = maintenance worker ** in years

*** Tested on a four-item Likert scale (1-7)

4.1.3 Conclusion Case 1

(25)

22

culture in East is more pessimistic than theirs. Another event that influenced the activation process was a meeting in a restaurant where employees of both locations were assigned to discuss the location of the new office. Members from North noticed that their colleagues from East were more pessimistic about the change. Work group discussions about the location led to a perceived faultline of individual benefits. Members noted that some colleagues were only thinking about their own travel times and did not think about the benefits for others or the organization as a whole. However, this is not a difference between the two subgroups per se. One member from East stated that he experiences this feeling across both locations. Finally, it became clear that old colleagues showed more resistant against the change, which is underlined by the resistance scores in Table 1.

4.2 Case 2: TCK

In case 2 a team is examined that handles questions and complaints about water related issues. The team consists of six administrative employees, three water pipe inspectors and three technical specialists. This team was one of the first groups in the organization that adopted LEAN. The manager had gained experience with this methodology in a previous job and volunteered to apply it. The change in this case had significant effect on the cooperation between employees. Before the change, employees worked very task-oriented and did not take into account the tasks of fellow group members. Due to the change the group members were asked to sit together and compare work methods and try to make work processes more efficient. This resulted in altered job designs and work practices.

In this case all participants experience three subgroups within the group, which are identical to the three functions: administration, inspectors, and specialists. The faultline bases that were reported are discussed below.

Function was mentioned by all members as an explanation for the perceived faultlines

(26)

23

the inspectors consider their function to be of a higher status than that of the specialists. The three specialists think they have enough experience to do the work of the inspectors. “Some of us want to get rid of this difference and divide the work equally. However, some of the inspectors do not want that. The funny thing is that they ask me questions about their work sometimes.” (P26)

Abilities in combination with knowledge were mentioned by four out of seven

members as a perceived faultline base. Knowledge was reported three times as faultline base, abilities also three times. When their statements are analysed, it becomes clear that one common characteristic was perceived as main difference: technical expertise. The four members find it frustrating that their colleagues of administration do not have the expertise to deal with technical questions from customers. The inspectors and specialists have followed technical studies and their work is mainly technically oriented. Calls or complaints from customers are first handled by administrative employees, and in order to take the right steps they need some form of technical expertise. “They (administration) do not know what a maintenance worker needs. They can pick up a phone when a customer thinks his water pipe is broken, but they can’t reason what is needed to help the workers.” (P25). Two members stated they have tried to educate a couple of colleagues, but that two members could not be trained. “One woman always came to me with a notebook and I seriously did my best for her. But I stopped doing that, because she doesn’t learn it. There is another woman who also doesn’t understand a thing of it. She doesn’t read well. Well, then I lose patience.” (P26). This led to the four members ignoring the two members of the administration department. “When one of my customers has a question, I always send them to two colleagues of whom I know they have the knowledge to solve the problem. When these colleagues are not working, I sometimes delay a question from a customer and finish it when they are back in the office” (P26).

(27)

24

The change in work practices and job design formed an important trigger for the formation of subgroups between inspectors and specialists. Before the implementation of the change, employees were used to do their job in their own way and due to the change they suddenly have to work together. “That gave some tension in the beginning. My employees did not like everyone. Many people were used to work on their own and the manager would say which direction to go. With the introduction of LEAN all work was put together and I said: discuss with each other what to do with it. […] Then you hear one person saying: ‘That is not the right way! I have been doing this for years now! Later on, good conversations followed, but initially one member got angry during a meeting and walked away because of their differences in work practices.” (P29). The change forced group members to discuss their work practices and seek for ways to improve the way how work is done. For some members this meant that their job autonomy was attached and the function faultline base was activated. “As a result of LEAN a specialist would take over some work from an inspector. One inspector reacted really aggressive and said: ‘You can’t give this work to a specialist; I have been studying for years to do this work. This is my job!’” (P29). Another member underlines this and stated: “In particular there is one colleague who is very strict and states that all the big projects are his. Sometimes this gives conflicts. I have stopped discussing with him, but I know one colleague thinks it is nonsense, especially because he did the same study. So he can do the same work, but this person wants to keep his title” (P26).

Moreover, the division between inspectors and specialists became visible when a LEAN work group was created. It appears that the work group was a way for inspectors to bond together since no specialists are included. “When we cooperate in our work group we have an ‘us-feeling’. There are three inspectors and two administrative persons in this group. We think the same and we already worked together a lot before the change” (P28). The inspectors stated to have a more positive attitude towards the change than others.

(28)

25

may not be introduced as such, and we are told that we spare time for nicer work, but in the end there is time left if you do this right. I can be re-placed throughout the whole organization, but they can only work in administration. We make more use of computer technology now and it results in doing the administrative work on our own. That is an issue that has become visible due to this change.” (P30). Though members stated that they noticed differences in the perception of individual harm of the change, a coherent picture of subgroups based on these differences could not be made.

Respondents P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 P30

Function: Inspector Specialist Specialist Specialist Inspector Manager Inspector

Age*: 61 40 53 N/A*** 51 48 60

Tenure in org.*: 41 5 13 N/A 25 9 33

Education level: MBO MBO MBO N/A HBO HBO MBO

Change resistance **: 2.3 4.0 4.7 N/A 2.3 1.3 2.3

Perceived faultlines **: 5 2.5 3.75 N/A 6.25 4.75 6.5

Subgroups based on: Work activities No sub groups No sub groups N/A Same interests Work activities Insp – spec. Subgroup: 1 2 2 2 1 none 1 * In years

** Tested on a four-item Likert scale (1-7)

*** Not Available; the questionnaire was not filled in due to illness of the participant

(29)

26

very protective about his work and the specialists who think they have enough experience to do the same tasks. The potential loss of status may be the reason that inspectors bonded together in a work group. In Table 2 it is shown that the inspectors also perceive stronger subgroups than specialists. Moreover, this might imply they want to keep the division between both functions intact.

The redesign of jobs and work practices made differences in perceived harm of the change visible. Since the goal of LEAN is to eliminate wastes in work processes, most members acknowledge this could eventually lead to downsizing. It is reported that especially administrative employees perceive the change as harm. Though they talk to each other more about the change, it is not clear that they formed a subgroup based on this perception.

4.3 Case 3: CA

In case 3 a team is examined that handles customer calls and administration, such as payments, water use registration, and new addresses. In the past, a division was made between part-time employees whom handle telephone calls and full-time employees whom administer client mutations. When the LEAN methodology was adopted, the two managers (one team leader and one senior manager) of the team explored for ways to work more efficiently. This resulted in the implementation of a new work structure. The division between the work of part-time employees and the full-time employees was replaced by a structure in which all employees could be placed on all types of work. This was done by the managers to enhance integration and cooperation between group members. In this way the change forced group members to work together more intensively than in the past.

(30)

27

Age differences were reported by all members as a faultline base. A distinction

between the front-office and the back-office existed for many years. As a result, the youngest person in the back-office is 40 years old and most of them work over 20 years together. “The department consists of two different groups, which is a natural thing because people have different functions, age and also a different life. Some people live on student rooms while others already have children; some are even grandpa or grandma. These are big differences” (P8). Members do not think the differences in age, lifestyle and experience can be easily overcome. “I do not think these two groups will become one group. […] It will only change when the old employees will leave. Most of them are already 60 years old, so that problem will eventually solve itself.” (P6). One member says the differences in age resulted in a complete different culture between the groups. “At the front-office there are many students working and they are much younger than we are. That brings a big difference in culture. The organization tries to overcome this, but that is not working.” (P1).

The geographical differences were named as a faultline base within the subgroup of full-time employees. Members at the back-office perceive three subgroups. “There is District East, District Central and Bills Collection. In the beginning, Bills Collection was on a different location. That could have been a factor. District East and District Central has become closer, but people from Bills Collection will not notice if you have purple or brown hair.” (P8). Especially the subgroup ‘Bills Collection’ does not integrate much with other colleagues; one member describes it as a ‘psychological Berlin wall’.

Abilities and education was named as a faultline base between the back-office and the

(31)

28

Throughout the case three trigger events related to the change were mentioned that activated the faultlines mentioned above.

Job redesign was mentioned by six out of eight members as trigger for the activation

of faultlines between the full-time and the part-time employees. First, because the change led to a less strict division between front- and back-office work, part-time employees were taking over work from full-time employees. Some full-time employees perceived this change as a threat. “Some colleagues of mine showed resistance when work was taken from them. I think the team as a whole is responsible for the work done. If some part of that is taken away from you, well, so be it, I’d say. […] I noticed this especially when it escalated. I heard that during one meeting there was a big escalation, at which one colleague walked out with anger.”(P2) The full-time employees had the feeling some others were taking over their ground. “I am a part-time worker from a temporary agency, but I do for 80% the same work as a full-time employee. That gave some tension when jobs were redesigned.” (P6) One member sensed a feeling of uncertainty about their abilities at some full-time employees. Suddenly it became clear that the part-time employees from the front-office were quick in learning new things, while they were not. “I see some insecurity at people. They are insecure about whether they control their job while they work the longest in the organization. They tend to do work with closed borders and become specialized in it.” (P5)

(32)

29

The leadership style was mentioned throughout the case as a trigger for the activation of a faultline between the full-time employees and management. At the moment this study started, the employee satisfaction survey showed that the full-time employees were unhappy about their managers. All four full-time members stated that the way their managers guided the change created more distance between them. A common critique point is the low level of autonomy they have within the change process. Their managers do ask their employees for advice, but in the perception of the employees advices were not followed. “Once, I was an ‘advisor of the month’ and I participated in a work group. You get an assignment and you have to come up with some propositions. My first three propositions were rejected and therefore I didn’t do a fourth one.” (P8). Another member also underlines that decisions about the change are implemented top-down. “I have zero influence on organizational decisions, only on task-related decisions.” (P2). During the change dissatisfaction about management grew and this led to more emotional distance between employees and management. “There is a psychological wall between us and the managers. You have to feel safe at your work and that is just not the case at the moment.” (P2). This is underlined by another member who stated that the subgroup created between employee and manager was not a result of the change, yet it did became a lot more visible because of it. It appears that the way the change was managed activated a faultline between the full-time members and the managers. The full-time members indicated that a higher quality of communication and a more encouraging attitude towards them within the change process would improve the situation. The two managers revealed not to have considered the different personalities in the group and did not make a plan to deal with resistance. “I haven’t consciously thought about how to steer the cooperation between employees. We have been trying to implement the change and give it shape with the whole group. I did not think of combining different personalities or the effect of that. Having said that, I don’t think I aimed to be a change manager within this change.” (P3).

(33)

30

Respondents: P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Function: FT Adm.* FT Adm.* Manage r PT/FT Adm.* Manage r PT Adm.* FT Adm.* PT Adm.*

Age 58 N/A** 51 37 48 29 N/A** 31

Tenure in org. ** * 38 N/A 11 11 14 6 N/A 3

Education level: MBO HBO HBO HAVO HBO HBO N/A WO

Change resistance ****: 6.0 3.5 1.3 4.0 2.7 1.7 4.3 1.0

Perceived faultlines****: 3 3.5 6 5.5 5 6 6 4.75

Subgroup based on: work activities none age; FT/PT; age; tenure none history in org. history in org. age Subgroup: 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2

* FT = fulltime; PT = part time

** This data is not available due to rejection of the participants to disclose this information *** In years

**** Tested on a four-item Likert scale (1-7)

(34)

31 4.4 Case 4: ND

Case 4 represents a team that is responsible for the construction of new water pipes. This team receives requests from the municipality, constructors, and other firms to design plans for the construction of water installations. In 2012 the team started as first group with the implementation of the LEAN methodology. After conversations between the LEAN facilitator and the manager of the team, ABC decided to use this team as a pilot group. The pilot was considered successful and after one year of experimentation ABC implemented the LEAN methodology throughout the whole organization. The group is organized into four teams, of which each has a different geographical area to work in. Each team consists of three to four members and they are responsible for complete projects from begin to the end. The implementation of LEAN forced them to compare work processes and look whether efficiency could be enhanced.

During the analysis of the transcripts in case 4 the researcher did not discover clear subgroups within this group. All members perceived differences, yet did not share a coherent picture of who belongs to which subgroup. Two members did indicate that subgroups were present based on geographical work areas, which can be explained by the way their work is structured. In this section the faultline bases that were identified will be discussed, followed by a section with faultline triggers. A conclusion will round off the results from this case.

Age has been reported by six out of eight members as a faultline attribute. The two

(35)

32

suddenly have to change. I can understand that. There are two parties to blame then: the employee is not flexible enough to change, and management that has been tolerating everything in the past years.” (P15).

Differences in individual benefits have been noticed by four out of eight members as a faultline attribute. These members stated that some colleagues adopt the change because it suits their work practices. “Some colleagues use the change to make their own work easier, but that is not how it should be. That results in little islands. Some people reason that if their work process is efficient, they are the best in LEAN. But the consequence is that other departments can suffer under that. Not everyone thinks about that. I notice that especially with employees, the managers communicate easier about this.” (P15). There are also members who do not want to adopt the change, because they consider it extra work which does not result in benefits for them. “There are some people who see it as extra work without benefits. I think that counts for 40% of the team.” (P10). However, the members did not report that any subgroups were formed on this faultline base. Four members stated there are differences in the perception of the individual harm. Some members are worried by the change since it can enhance efficiency, which in turn may result in the need of fewer employees. “We don’t talk about it anymore, but last year when 23 people left the organization and only 10 came back, it became clear that my instinct was right about this.”(P15). Yet, again members did not notice that subgroups were formed on this base.

Personality differences were noticed by six out of eight members as a faultline

attribute. “There are people who always have something to say, and there are others who are silent.”(P9). One member links this to age. “You have the older group which is a bit more laid-back and does not communicate a lot about the work. There is a younger group who has a critical view on work. And there is a young group that makes jokes many times.” (P15). Personality differences were noted by the members, but none of them stated that this type of diversity has led to the formation of subgroups. That might have to do with ambition, says one member. “People don’t screw each other over. I think that the employees at this department are not very ambitious and that might be of influence on the forming of subgroups. People are not very goal-oriented here and don’t push each other away for a goal.” (P11).

(36)

33

As stated previously, the majority of the members did not notice subgroups in their team. Therefore, there were no trigger events that led to subgroups. However, there were some triggers mentioned throughout the case in which members became aware of differences.

Participation was mentioned by five out of eight members as a trigger of the change

process. The change forced people to sit together and discuss work processes. The moments that the team sat together and started discussing made visible what people’s attitude was towards the change. “When we discuss our LEAN action points, you already notice the differences in a positive or negative attitude.” (P12). Two other members stated that a lack of participation did make differences visible. “The people that are not committed to the change, were often absent during LEAN meetings. Most of the times sit together with the same group. I see it as natural selection; you get to see which persons don’t care. They often cancel with the excuse of another meeting, and that is just easy for them to say.” (P10).

The lack of management interventions were noticed by three members as a trigger during the change. All three members stated that the manager tolerated the inactive, indifferent attitude of colleagues towards the change and did not check if agreements about the change were fulfilled. This resulted in dissatisfaction about the way the change was managed. “[…] I am disappointed about that. The organization has chosen for a direction and some people just get away with it.”(P10). According to another member the manager always aims to find consensus with all members which had resulted in bureaucratic discussions. “My manager wants to agree with 98% of the people, while I think 70% is also enough to make a decision. […] For example, we discussed the way project maps were organized. That took over a year, while it could have been done in two or three weeks. […] We almost agreed on something, but then there was one person who had a new proposition and the whole discussion started over again.” (P15). These three members experienced frustrations due to the differences in attitude towards the change.

Job redesign in combination with changing work practices were mentioned by three

(37)

34

want to give up. “You come close to a person. People want to organize the work in their own way and with this change you come close to this.” (P16).

Respondents: P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 Function: Project leader Controll er Archite ct Project leader Control ler Control ler Control ler Manage r Age: 53 59 34 58 60 49 37 55 Tenure in org.*: 24 5,5 3 7,5 41 5,5 7 10

Education level: HBO HBO WO HBO School MBO MBO WO

Change resistance**: 2.3 4.0 3.7 3.0 5.3 3.3 2.5 1.7

Perceived faultlines**:

2 4.5 5.75 4.75 4.25 4 5.25 4.75

Subgroup based on: none none none Geo graphic

al area

none none age Geo

graphica l area

Subgroup: none 1 none none 1 none none none

* In years

** Tested on a four-item Likert scale (1-7)

An Exploration of the Activation Process of Group Faultlines Triggered by Organizational Change