Activated faultlines; Refining our understanding with regard to when,
where, and how diversity dynamics unfold and their effect on group
learning in the workplace
By:
G.A.G. van Spil
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Change Management October 2013
Heikamp 15 8091 RA Wezep
(06)57589206 vanspil.gidion@gmail.com
s1879995
T A B L E O F C O N T E N TS
INTRODUCTION 5
Objective of the study 8
LITERATURE REVIEW 10
Group faultlines 10
Dormant versus activated faultlines 11
Faultline activation 12
Consequences of activated/perceived faultlines 16
Information elaboration 17
Group Learning 18
Conceptual model 20
METHODOLOGY 21
Background Case Study 21
Sample and Case Access 22
Data collection 23
Measures 28
Data analysis 30
RESULTS 32
Prologue 32
Phase 1: Training phase (17 April – 3 May) 33
Phase 2: Go Live phase (6 May – 22 May) 40
Phase 3: Integration phase (21 May – 28 June) 45
Epilogue 51
DISCUSSION 53
Faultline concept 53
Faultline bases 54
Faultline activation 54
The relationship between activated/perceived faultlines and intergroup bias 56
Task and process learning 60
Proposed research model 61
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH 63
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT 64
LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH 65
CONCLUSION 66
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 67
REFERENCES 68
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 75
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 82 APPENDIX C: PROVISIONAL LIST DEDUCED CODES 84 APPENDIX D: FINAL CODEBOOK – DEDUCED/INDUCED CODES 88
Activated faultlines; Refining our understanding with regard to when,
where, and how diversity dynamics unfold and their effect on group
learning in the workplace
G.A.G. van Spil
IN T R O DU C T I O N
The use of groups has become a fundamental building block of organizational structure and strategy as organizations restructure themselves to compete more effectively and efficiently, while simultaneously maximizing flexibility and responsiveness to customer Work group diversity, the degree to which there are differences between team members, may affect group processes and performance, however, to date diversity research has yielded mixed and inconsistent results. This research combined the insights from faultline theory and the contingency perspective in a longitudinal qualitative case study research that allowed for the refinement of our understanding with regard to how and through which processes diversity within the team affects group learning and the role played by characteristics of the context. Results from this research emphasize that if diverse teams are unable to overcome the negative effects of their differences then this may prevent the elaboration of task-relevant information due to the communication hindrances which in turn influences the extent to which group learning occurs.
F urthermore, this study stresses the need for future research to consider perceived diversity as having a more immediate causal significance than objective diversity in shaping group dynamics and performance outcomes, because the variables an individual finds important may vary over time and across situations. The insights from this single field study have been integrated with previous research in the development of a refined research model that can serve as the basis for future investigation.
Keywords: Diversity, F aultlines, Faultline activation, Intergroup bias, G roup learning, Situational characteristics
demands (Jehn et al., 1999; Robbins & Judge, 2012). Working in groups stimulates flexibility, quality consciousness, and innovation because they give space for creativity and problem-solving competences of team members and are seen as more capable of increasing an organization’s adaptability to dynamic environments than individuals working alone (Van Woerkom & Van Engen, 2009), because a group brings together individuals with different knowledge, expertise, and functions to discuss issues, produce outcomes, and make decisions (London & Sessa, 2007). A group can be defined as a social system of at least two members who recognize themselves as a group, are recognized by others as a group, have a shared responsibility for a team product or service, and operate in an organization (Alderfer, 1987;
Hackman, 1987). Because groups have become central to organizational forms, theory that explicitly considers the team processes is needed to account for functioning and effectiveness in small groups and teams (Crawford & Lepine, 2013).
As organizations rely more on teams it becomes critical for firms to understand the factors that could influence performance in groups (Vora & Markóczy, 2012). Theory and research attempt to gain a better understanding of how members of newly formed teams learn to work together and how existing teams adapt to improve outcomes through knowledge and shared understanding (Edmondson et al., 2007; Goodman & Dabbish, 2011; Sessa & London, 2008;). Group learning is a process of reflection and interaction in which team members actively acquire, process, share, evaluate, and combine knowledge and information in order to improve team performance (Jehn & Rupert, 2007; Vora & Markóczy, 2012). Despite that groups have been posited as having the potential for performing better than individuals such benefits may not always occur because performance benefits should be expected only to the extent that workgroup members successfully manage the interaction between group members (Jehn et al., 1999).
Due to an increasingly globalized labor market and significant demographic changes increased attention has been given to the role of diversity between group members (Bell et al., 2011; Meyer & Schermuly, 2012). ‘Diversity refers to the degree to which there are similarities and differences between members of a team or group (Van Knippenberg et al., 2011: 64).’ The dynamics of diversity are particularly salient at the group level, where individuals are in a position to engage in interactions more regularly than at the organizational level (Pelled, 1996), which necessitates a better understanding of how individual differences affect the functioning of work groups (Harrison et al., 1998). As organizations become more diverse, they must face the challenges that might arise from diversity between group members (Schneider & Northcraft, 1999).
The processes underlying the effects of diversity and how to manage these poses challenges to research in organizational behavior (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
Research has attempted to explain how group diversity influences group processes and performance (Bezrukova et al., 2012) and has conceptualized diversity both as a source of information, knowledge, and expertise that may benefit the team, and as a factor inviting subgroupings within the team (Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). The optimistic perspective of diversity holds that a team that is more diverse on terms of variables related to the task may be more successful than a homogeneous team because the former can draw on a greater pool of knowledge and different perspectives and approaches (Bell et al., 2011; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). However, despite these potential positive effects for team diversity, the pessimistic perspective regards that diversity invites subgroupings within the team that may disrupt team process and performance due to decreased cooperation, coordination, communication and cohesion among team members (Bell et al., 2011; Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). Research to date has, however, yielded mixed and inconsistent results (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998), which poses a challenge for theory development as well as for diversity management in organizations (Homan et al., 2008).
Two approaches have been proposed to disentangle these contradicting findings, i.e.
the exploration of new ways to understand and measure diversity, and a careful consideration of the moderators at work in the organizational context (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Rico et al., 2007). The first approach to find more consistent effects of diversity in teams is to consider the possibility that the effects of a dimension of diversity may be contingent on diversity on other dimensions (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Rico et al., 2007). Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) attribute the inconsistent findings of diversity research studies to the fact that, traditionally, studies focused on main effects, testing relationships between isolated dimensions of diversity and outcomes, not taking in account the possibility that the effects of a dimension of diversity may be contingent on diversity on other dimensions. To find more consistent effects of diversity in teams, more emphasis should be given to the structure of diversity: the simultaneous consideration of several dimensions of diversity (Molleman, 2005). The development of faultline theory (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), which measures similarities and differences on multiple dimensions in conjunction rather than focusing on a single dimension of diversity, provides a complementary and more sophisticated conceptual approach that has added value in terms of explaining diversity effects (Thatcher et al., 2003;
Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). “Faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998: 328)”
Acknowledging that multiple diversity attributes exist simultaneously and that there may be alignment across multiple attributes is important, because diversity on any given dimension
may have different effects depending on whether differences on one dimension converge with differences on other dimensions (Van Knippenberg et al., 2011). The focus on the alignment of multiple attributes is considered to be a better predictor of processes and performance (Bezrukova et al., 2012; Rico et al., 2012) and may help diversity research to untangle some of the contradictory findings related to diversity and group outcomes (Thatcher et al., 2003)
The second approach is to take a contingency perspective, which argues that the effects of diversity depend on the task and context characteristics (Rico et al., 2007).
Although diversity may always be present within an organization, it may be more or less apparent depending on the situational characteristics (Homan et al., 2008), i.e. diversity may be subjectively meaningful in one context but not in another (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
The context provides the setting for what is noticed and relevant for team members (Mannix
& Neale, 2005) and hence diversity should be considered as differences at a certain moment in a certain place, influenced by conditions under which they persist or perish (Van Ewijk, 2011). An event or specific situation can be a trigger that may make salient certain attributes whether or not they are relevant to the task (Meyer et al., 2011; Thatcher & Patel, 2012), causing several authors to suggest the need to examine contextual variables and construct theories that develop the role of context, as there may be multiple aspects of situations that interact with diversity (Bezrukova et al., 2012; Olsen & Martins, 2012; Shore et al., 2009).
The salience of diversity may not only depend on diversity-related variables per se, but also on aspects of a situation (Homan et al., 2008) and, therefore, in addition to asking why diversity manifests in specific outcomes, the situational settings should be examined to explain when, where, and how diversity dynamics unfold in the workplace (Joshi & Roh, 2009).
O bjective of the study
Combining the insights from faultline theory and the contingency perspective will add to our understanding of the impact of differences within the team (Rico et al., 2007) and can also help to elucidate the underlying processes that may be responsible for the effects of diversity on team performance (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). To understand what makes diversity salient and the influence this has on group learning research methodologies that can obtain detailed descriptions of events that have occurred in the workplace over time are required, however, to date no systematic longitudinal research has been conducted that emphasized these processes (Thatcher & Patel, 2012). To fill this research gap a longitudinal qualitative theory refinement research was conducted using a case study method that allowed for richness of understanding (Cooper & Schindler, 2008) and is appropriate for providing freshness of perspectives (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Case studies in which teams faced a need for learning could help shape subsequent theory development and empirical research to reflect the realities of current team-based work (Edmondson et al., 2007), and, therefore, a single case study research was conducted at KPN, the leading telecommunication and ICT service provider in the Netherlands, which at the time of the research KPN internalized a previously outsourced activity. Planned alterations in organizational components could be considered as a learning trigger and can be regarded as an antecedent that evokes group-level learning, because planned organizational change affects a group’s work due to the planned alternations of organizational components such as mission and vision, strategy, goals, structure, processes or systems, technology, and people (Cawsey et al., 2012; Jones, 2010). ‘Learning triggers are those pressures, demands, challenges and opportunities that affect the group’s work in some way such that the group cannot continue to work in the same way and be successful (Sessa & London, 2008: 555/556).’
The success of a planned organizational change is dependent on the interactive behaviors related to group learning, as team members need to engage in learning behavior to understand their task, environment, their customers and to coordinate members’ actions effectively (Van Woerkom & Van Engen, 2009). This may be especially likely team’s face a novel task and team members do not know each other, as was the case in longitudinal research; the insourcing by KPN of a previously outsourced activity led to the formation of team XYZ, which was a new team, with a new role, with new employees who arrived as independ actors at the PQR department. It is critical in today’s increasingly global and diverse work environment to understand the influence of diversity on the interactive behavior between team members and group learning (Vora & Markóczy, 2012), because learning behavior should only be expected when workgroup members successfully manage the interaction between group members (Jehn et al., 1999).
By emphasizing the situational characteristics of the team as elements of explanation and understanding (Langley et al., 2013) this longitudinal research focused attention on how and why differences between group-members became salient, how the processes caused by diversity affected group learning, and how the context can provide the setting for which attributes become salient and relevant for team members (Thatcher & Patel, 2012), which results in the following research question guiding this research:
“How and through which processes do faultlines within a team affect group learning, and how is this moderated by contextual characteristics?’
L I T E R A T UR E R E V I E W
The processes underlying the effects of diversity and how to manage these processes provides challenges to research in organizational behavior (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Although researchers are able to explain the effects of diversity as they occur, they are less able to predict when positive and negative effects will occur (Homan et al., 2008), due to plausible but contradictory predictions with regard the effects of diversity (Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998). In the ensuing sections, this literature review will combine the insights from faultline theory and the contingency perspective and examine perceived similarity as an intervening process between diversity and team processes and outcomes. Furthermore, the theory section will posit that the processes by which perceived similarity forms and changes may vary depending on the contextual variables that provide the setting for what is noticed and relevant for team members. The combination of these two approaches may help diversity research to untangle some of the contradictory findings related to diversity and group outcomes (Thatcher et al., 2003) that pose a problem for theory development as well as for diversity management in organizations (Homan et al., 2008).
G roup faultlines
Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduced the concept of group faultlines to forward research on group composition. “Group faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998: 328).”
Faultline research argues that when team members share one or more diversity attributes with other work group members this can result in hidden dividing lines within the organization along which groups are likely to subdivide (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009; Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Shore et al. 2009; Thatcher et al., 2003). The central driver of faultlines is the underlying composition of individual diversity characteristics (Thatcher & Patel, 2012) due to the correlated dimensions of diversity that provide the basis for differentiation between subgroups (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Taking multiple diversity characteristics in consideration is important due to the notion made that studies that assess only one aspect of diversity fail to capture the full spectrum of diversity found in organizations, because social processes and their outcomes are influenced by the complex confluence of diversity dimensions, not isolated dimensions of diversity (Jackson et al., 2003). Not only is it important to consider various diversity characteristics of a group, but also the alignment of those attributes among the members and the number of potentially homogeneous subgroups need to be taken into consideration (Thatcher et al., 2003).
An infinite number of characteristics can refer to differences between group members (Rico et al., 2007; Van Ewijk, 2011). Although Lau and Murnighan (1998; 2005) suggested that faultlines can form around many attributes, including demography, skills, personality, and values, past research has mainly distinguished between faultlines based around social category demographic attributes or information-based attributes (Gover & Duxbury, 2012;
Rico et al., 2007; Thatcher & Patel, 2012). Bezrukova et al. (2009) define social category faultlines as hypothetical dividing lines that have the potential to split a group into subgroups based on members’ alignment on social category demographic characteristics, such as race/ethnic background, nationality, gender, and age, which may not be directly relevant for a task, but do shape people’s perceptions and behaviors. Information based faultlines, on the other hand, potentially split a group into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on informational characteristics, which are underlying attributes that are directly job related, such as work experience, education, functional knowledge and abilities, that are important for the task at hand (Bezrukova et al., 2009). In addition, faultlines based on other more subtitle characteristics, such as personal values or personality, may also form a hypothetical dividing line that may split the group into subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Because this research wants to understand the extent to which diversity characteristics are noticed and influence team processes and outcomes, this research endorses with the assumption that all dimensions of diversity in principle yield a basis for team members to align themselves on the basis of those attributes that are assumed not to be shared by all team members (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Thatcher and Patel, 2012; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
Dormant versus activated faultlines
Depending on the similarity and salience of diversity characteristics, several potential bases on which distinctions between groups can be made may exist (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), however, if differences on a particular characteristic are unnoticed by members then this unlikely to influence team behavior (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2008). According to Lau and Murnighan (1998), groups may have many potential faultlines, which may activate or increase the potential for particular subgroupings to form. Faultlines in groups can be unnoticed and, therefore, it is important to distinguish between dormant faultlines and activated faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Dormant faultlines are potential faultlines based on some set of attributes (Thatcher & Patel, 2012) and do not necessarily cause group members to perceive subgroups, however, they are a precondition for the existence of activated faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Activated faultlines are a subjective experience of diversity that a team member gives to a particular social identity (Garcia-Prieto et al., 2003) and exist when members actually perceive subgroups based on the set of attributes (Thatcher & Patel, 2012). Rather then determining into which categories team
members objectively fall it may be more important to consider to which categories they feel they belong (Garcia-Prieto et al., 2003), because a precondition for the salience of social categories is the extent to which observed similarities and differences between people or their actions are perceived (Meyer et al., 2011). Subjective or perceived diversity, therefore, is considered to be an important causal variable that has a more immediate causal significance in shaping group dynamics and performance outcomes than ‘objective’ diversity (Bodenhausen, 2010), because actual diversity only has an indirect effect with perceptions as a mediating construct (Harrison et al., 2002). Inclusion of perceptual measures as markers of the salience of actual amounts of diversity can assist in determining which elements of diversity are relevant to participants (Harrison et al., 2002), because if group members fail to notice or do not attach any salience to objective differences than the difference will not affect behavior (Li & Hambrick, 2005; Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2008).
F aultline activation
Despite that Lau and Murnighan’s (1998) initial conceptualization of faultlines inferred that ‘groups may have many potential faultlines, each of which may activate or increase the potential for particular subgroupings (p328),’ the majority of faultline research to date has operationalized faultlines based on objective demographic characteristics (Jehn &
Bezrukova, 2010). Faultlines are activated when an objective alignment (a potential faultline) is actually perceived as the division of the group into separate subgroups (an activated faultline) (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). For research on faultlines it is important to take into consideration the activation of dormant faultlines into activated faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Three theories, i.e. the self-categorization (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987), social identification (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner, 1982), and the similarity-attraction theory (Byrne, 1971), help to explain how differences are used to create subgroups and help to understand the activation process within individuals (Thatcher et al., 2003).
Self-categorization and social identity theories suggest an activation process within individuals based on the salience of social categories (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Similarity on attributes ranging from attitudes and values to demographic variables increases interpersonal liking and attraction to others who are believed to be similar to oneself (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), which explains why individuals are likely to align with similar individuals in subgroup formation (Thatcher & Patel, 2012). Subgroups can, however, only exist when individuals identify with certain groupings and self-categorize themselves as belonging to particular categories (Thatcher et al., 2003). Self-categorization is a mechanism which individuals use when they classify themselves and others into familiar categories, i.e.
they self-categorize, by using various attributes of others to determine to what groups they belong; their social identity (Sawyer et al., 2006; Taşdemir, 2011; Thatcher et al., 2003). This
may activate categorization in which individuals identify themselves as insiders or outsiders of a group based on any salient characteristic in order to simplify the social world (Sawyer et al., 2006; Carton & Cummings, 2012). Although all dimensions of diversity in principle both provide a basis for differentiation and provide the means for determining similarity, classification, and identification, not all potential faultlines situations are necessarily activated (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Thatcher and Patel, 2012; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), i.e. while diversity characteristics of the group members have the potential for activated faultlines, team members may never actually feel or behave as separate groups (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).
The likelihood that a group divides in subgroups as a result of activated faultlines is based on saliency of the social categorization at a particular moment, in a particular context (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Context has been defined as “the situational setting in which workplace phenomena occur (Joshi & Roh, 2009: 601)” and provides the setting for what is noticed and relevant for team members (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Faultlines may become active because a faultline trigger, ‘an event or situation that makes a previously dormant faultline an active faultline (Thatcher & Patel, 2012: 982),’ i.e.
objective faultlines that exists within the organization can become activated when external forces or events make group membership distinctions salient (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009).
Team processes, the work itself or cues from the team’s context in which the group is interacting may shape the effects of diversity (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Jackson et al., 2003; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Milliken & Martins, 1996), causing that the alignment of attributes within one group may never have an observable impact, whereas an identical alignment in another group may severely influence team processes due to presence of triggers in the group’s task context (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).The group’s task context, therefore, is a critical variable (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Milliken & Martins, 1996), which has the potential to make certain attributes salient whether or not they are relevant to the task (Meyer et al., 2011; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Diversity should thus be considered as differences at a certain moment in a certain place influenced by conditions under which they persist or perish (Van Ewijk, 2011).
In the following sections the dynamics of perceived group faultlines are further explored in terms of a faultline trigger in the form of a change, group maturity and development, and the influence of time.
Change as a faultline trigger Faultlines may not become salient until external forces appear that can accentuate the differences between team members (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
This research adopts the situation of a planned change as a potential external force in the context that may cause members to be aware that they share these core characteristics with some members but not others (Jackson et al., 2003; Carton & Cummings, 2012). Antecedents of change can be classified under three major categories, i.e. change context, change process, and change content together with their interconnections (Boukenooghe, 2010; Pettigrew et al., 2001). Change content identifies the ‘what’ of the change initiative, i.e. it focuses on the substance of organizational change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Self et al., 2007). Unlike the content issues, which involved the specifics of the change itself, process issues refer to the actions taken during the introduction and implementation of the proposed change (Walker et al., 2007). The change process refers to ‘the actions, reactions, and interactions from the various interested parties as they seek to move the firm from its present to its future state (Pettigrew, 1987: 657)’ and refers to the ‘how’ factor of change, which addresses actions undertaken during the enactment of intended change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Self et al., 2007). Change context factors are ‘the circumstances, or the existing external and internal conditions that have been shown to influence organizational effectiveness (Self et al., 2007:
214).’ The external context includes the economic, social, political, and sector environment in which a firm is located, whereas the internal context includes history, structure, cultures, power, and politics in enabling and constraining change (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Content, process and contextual factors are often analyzed independently (Self et al., 2007), however, considering these three antecedents of change simultaneously provides a holistic appreciation (Pettigrew et al., 2001; Self et al., 2007) of the external forces that can potentially be characteristics of the context that bring into active use (make salient) the category that best fits that situation (Hogg & Terry, 2000).
These antecedents of change are conceptualized as the trigger for faultline activation, because the factors within these antecedent categories potentially cause a potential faultline to become activated. A planned change is a situation that interrupts normal patterns of organization and calls for participation to enact new patterns (Balogun & Johnson, 2005;
Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008) and can, for example, include a change in work schedule (change content) that may activate faultlines based on the home situation, require principal support (change process) for some team members with a high need for feedback may lead to group to fragment based on needs, or job characteristics (change context) may cause people to perceive differences based on education. Change can thus be considered as a factor exogenous to organizational groups (Gover & Duxbury, 2012; Lau & Murnighan, 1998) that can make diversity salient and can result in the activation of faultlines (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009).
Group maturity and development The processes a group goes through when it matures from a simple collection of individuals towards an integrated system are explained by group development research. Group development is defined as “the changes over time in group behavior as a newly formed group moves through its life (Garfield & Dennis, 2012: 44).”
Many models of group development have been proposed, but the most predominantly referred to is the four-stage group development model developed by Tuckman (1965) that characterizes groups as proceeding through the stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. The first stage of group development, forming, is characterized by uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, leadership, and determining what is acceptable behavior in the group (Heinen & Jacobson, 1976; Robbins & Judge, 2012). In storming, intra-group conflict and hostility arise as a team members challenge each other’s opinions and struggles for leadership (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Miller, 2003). This stage is followed by conflict resolution and group cohesion as norms are created in the norming stage (Wanous et al., 1984; Lau & Murnighan, 1998), allowing a group to move into a period of openness and exchanges of task information (Miller, 2003). The group has become matured when it reached the performing stage; roles are clarified, group members attempt problem solving, and group members’ work as a team toward some mutually agreeable goal (Robbins & Judge, 2012;
Wanous et al., 1984). The model of Tuckman (1965) portrays group development as a series of stages through which groups gradually and explicitly develop from an immature group individuals that are often not committed to the group, work on their own, and learn on their own, to a fully integrated and mature group that works, learns, and makes decisions as a single unit (Sessa & London, 2008) and is ready to perform (Gersick, 1988).
For teams that face a novel task the early life of the team is especially important (Dose & Klimoski, 1999), because during this period there is often some competition and conflict aroused between team members, which may cause proliferation of subgroups (Heinen
& Jacobson, 1976). Groups may however differ in whether and how they will experience storming and norming before they perform (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Gersick (1988) found that some groups do not experience the storming or norming stages, whereas others go through these stages in a nonlinear or iterative manner. The presence of faultlines within a team is potential predictor of the nature of team processes at various stages of group development and subgroup formation patterns (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
The dynamics of faultlines over time Subgroups may form at any time in a group’s history (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). As a new team is formed with individuals who do not know each other, team members have little information form which to draw conclusions about each other (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2008) and members of new groups are, therefore, likely to use salient demographic characteristics to form initial impressions of group members
to ease discomfort stemming from resultant uncertainty (Allport, 1954; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). People quickly classify themselves on the basis of interpersonal characteristics, but the impact of demographic diversity fades over time (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). Extended tenure may lead group members to find out that initial stereotype-based impressions about fellow group members were wrong, however at the same time extended tenure may also bring to surface more hidden differences (Harrison et al., 1998; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
Consequently, Harrison et al. (2002) argue that demographic diversity becomes less important and more subtitle characteristics, such as personal values or personality, become more important in determining team social integration over time. As team members learn more about each other faultlines that are not present initially may develop as group members realize differences resulting from deep-level diversity attributes (Thatcher & Patel, 2012). Extended team tenure may thus be associated with less negative as well as more negative effects of diversity, which underscores that time and tenure is factor that may moderate the effects of diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) An important implication, therefore, is that an individual’s identity in the organization is not fixed, but instead it can vary over time and across situations (Pelled, 1996) and that the social identity may endure for longer periods of time or may change in a matter of moments (Van Knippenberg, 2000).
Consequences of activated/perceived faultlines
The activation of dormant faultlines into activated faultlines provides the foundation for future interactions among group members (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Subgroup formation in itself is not necessarily disruptive to diverse groups (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), however, if subgroups form explicitly then this provides the basis for the attitudinal, and behavioral effects of intergroup bias (Van Knippenberg, 2000), which can have negative effects on internal communications and general group functioning due to stereotyping, in- group favoritism, and out-group hostility (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Lau & Murnighan, 1998;
Lau & Murnighan, 2005). The distinction between social categorization and interpersonal bias has, however, been ignored in research where the assumption is made that bias is the inevitable consequence of categorization (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This research considers subgroup formation as a potential trigger for intergroup bias, i.e. the tendency for individuals to evaluate members of their own subgroup (their in-group) more positively than members of other subgroups (out-group members) (Pelled, 1996; Cunningham, 2006).
Individuals sharing a social identity assume that it is easier to communicate with each other, that group members are more predictable, more trustworthy, and more likely to reciprocate favors, whereas, these individuals are likely to eschew with others they categorize as different, whether those differences are functional (knowledge, skills, abilities), or not, which may result in conflicts of interest, and a decline in trust, communication, and helping
behaviors (Schneider & Northcraft, 1999). These interpersonal dynamics at the level of the team due to identity-based subgroups can be detrimental for the team (Carton & Cummings, 2012) and may have negative effects on group process and outcomes including less frequent communication (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), interpersonal tensions and conflict (Chatman et al., 1998), low identification with and commitment to the group, low interpersonal liking (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) a higher likelihood of turnover (intentions) from the group (Jackson et al., 1991), and lower group performance (Harrison et al., 2002).
These internal group dynamics are a key component of the process by which group composition influences group outcomes (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010), because intergroup bias may render individuals less open to communication from dissimilar others (Van Knippenberg
& Schippers, 2007). Failures of organizing, changing and learning have to be sought in these processes of interaction (Boonstra, 2004) and unless diverse teams are able to overcome the disruptive effects of their differences or avoid the tendencies to drive out distinctiveness and move towards similarity, they will be unable to engage in effective process of reflection and interaction (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Intergroup bias can prevent subgroup members from sharing task-relevant information across subgroups and it will be less likely that group members will take task-related comments of members of the other subgroup seriously (Jehn
& Rupert, 2007).
Information elaboration
Because intergroup bias engendered by diversity may render individuals less open to communication from dissimilar others (Van Knippenberg, 2000), intergroup bias may disrupt group information processing and thus stand in the way of realizing the potential benefits of diversity (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The information/decision making perspective emphasizes the positive effects of work group diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) and explores how information and decision- making can be affected by group composition due to the expectation that distributional differences can serve as indicators of available knowledge and differing perspectives (Bell et al., 2011; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The starting point for this perspective is the notion that diverse groups are likely to possess a broader range of task-relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, and members with different opinions and perspectives than homogeneous groups of individuals do (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
Exposure to these diverging and potentially surprising perspectives may lead to more creative and innovative ideas and solutions, learning, and enhanced performance through interaction and the constructive elaboration of information (Mannix & Neale, 2005), which lie at the core of the positive effects of diversity emphasized in the information/decision making perspective (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Zellmer-Bruhn 2008).
Elaboration of the task-related information is an important part of teamwork (Wei &
Wu, 2013) and can be defined as ‘the exchange of information and perspectives, individual- level processing of the information and perspectives, feeding back the results of this individual level processing into the group, and discussion and integration of their implications (Homan et al., 2007: 1189).’ Teams can gather and process information through asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions (Timmermans et al., 2011). Success depends not only on its ability to do the task but also on the group’s ability to manage its own interactions effectively, including communicating, cooperating, and coordinating its collective efforts (Jehn et al., 1999), because collaboration and knowledge sharing among group members increases work teams effectiveness (Ghosh et al., 2012). The effectiveness of communications may, therefore, depend on whether or not intergroup bias occurs (Jehn & Rupert, 2007) due to the notion made that intergroup bias can decrease the efforts to share critical information between subgroups, limiting the information exchanges (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2012). If the explicit formation of subgroups is limited, it is more likely that team members process information more effectively (Wei & Wu, 2013), however, when faultlines are salient and lead to intergroup bias, communications from in-group members are more likely to be attended to and elaborated, and thus more likely to influence the thoughts and actions of the individual, than are communications from out-group members (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). When members of a subgroup cohere and share opinions more often within the subgroup this may decrease a teams capacity for sharing divers knowledge and learning between members of different subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Rico et al., 2012) and although it is possible that discussions mirror one another in different subgroups, the group may not benefit as much as it could when listening, responding to, and gaining insights from all its members at once (Vora & Markóczy, 2012). Information elaboration on relevant issues is expected to improve learning behavior (Chen & Zhao, 2012) and is important for collective learning (Vora & Markóczy, 2012)). Knowledge sharing interactions could lead to group learning (Goodman & Dabbish, 2011), however, segregated communication and information sharing can reduce learning within a group (Lau & Murnighan, 2005).
G roup Learning
Groups have the potential to perform better than individuals if they effectively engage in group learning, because if team members interact with one another, knowledge and skills gathered by one team member can be transferred to team members by giving feedback, explanation, or advice (Van Woerkom & Van Engen, 2009). Group learning can be defined as a process of reflection and interaction in which team members actively acquire, process, share, evaluate, and combine knowledge and information in order to improve team
performance (Jehn & Rupert, 2007; Vora & Markóczy, 2012) and is a dynamic process in which learning accrues among interdependent group members throughout its life cycle about their team, task, resources, and context (Edmondson et al., 2007; Sessa & London, 2008;
Vora & Markóczy, 2012). The extent to which emergent collective knowledge allows the group to perform better depends on the quality of the information elaboration processes between team members (Curşeu & Pluut, 2013). Reported forms in which performance benefits may result from group learning are efficiency and innovativeness (Wong, 2004), success in implementing a new routine (Edmondson, Bohmer & Pisano, 2001) or technology (Edmonson, 2003), satisfaction of customer needs (Edmondson, 1999), or goal achievement and effectiveness (Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006). When one person in a group learns something that is not shared with other members of the group this constitutes individual learning, rather than group learning (Wilson et al., 2007), however, if group members work together, they should experience process gains, i.e. they should become increasingly effective and produce more than would be possible if individual group members worked alone and aggregated their production (Sessa & London, 2008).
In response to the broad and undefined scope of subjects that team learning can be about, Jehn and Rupert (2007) have recently introduced a typology of team learning, which further refined the understanding of team learning. Jehn & Rupert (2007) argued that different aspects of the group processes are associated with different types of learning and proposed a framework for distinguishing three types of learning within a group, i.e. (1) task learning, (2) process learning, and (3) social learning. Task learning can be defined as ‘the process of improving the team’s understanding of the context of the task, by sharing and reflecting upon knowledge, ideas, and insights through interactions with each other, in order to improve team performance (Jehn & Rupert, 2007: 126).’ The activities through which members learn about how to do their work refer to process learning and refer to ‘the pattern of interaction through which team members create work routines and develop procedures about how to organize their work, such as delegating issues and role definitions (Jehn & Rupert, 2007: 127).’ Social learning refers to ‘the process through which team members get to know each other better as individuals and learn to interpret each other’s behavior in the context of personal life and personality (Jehn & Rupert, 2007: 128).’ Rupert and Jehn (2009) argued that distinguishing between these three types of learning is important, because the dynamics of these learning behaviors may be different depending on the topics that they are about. For example, if there are no clear agreements within a team with regard to who is going to do what and how, then the team may suffer from ineffective processes (low process learning) even despite that the team can have a high level of information exchanges and generate many ideas about the task (high task learning) (Rupert & Jehn, 2009). Social learning may affect group outcomes differently, i.e. Rupert and Jehn (2009) consider that when team members get to know each
other’s personalities well (high social learning), this can improve coordination and interactions between group members, however, at the same time task learning and process learning may suffer, because team members start to exchange more information about social matters than about work. This typology of task, process, and social learning helps to deepen the understanding of team learning behavior within groups (Jehn & Rupert, 2007).
Conceptual model
Team composition can be an important predictor of task, process and social learning, because diversity faultlines may influence these different types of learning (Rupert & Jehn, 2009). Faultlines can be dormant and unnoticed, having a negligible effect on group processes, however, when they are activated and induce the attitudinal and behavioral effects of intergroup bias within the team, faultlines can have negative effects on internal communication and learning (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Lau &
Murnighan, 2005). If diverse teams are unable to overcome the negative effects of their differences, this may prevent the elaboration of task-relevant information due to the communication hindrances (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Thatcher &
Patel, 2012), which in turn influences the extent to which group learning occurs due to the quality information elaboration processes between team members (Curşeu & Pluut, 2013).
The conceptual model guiding this research (Figure 1) considers effective group processes in the form of elaboration of relevant information and perspectives as a precursor to group learning, and unless mitigated by some other moderating processes, diversity may have a negative impact on both group process and learning when in engenders intergroup bias.
F I G UR E 1:
Conceptual model
Intergroup Bias
Group Learning
Perceived/Activated Faultlines Objective/Dormant
Faultlines
Task Learning
Process Learning
Social Learning Change Process
Change Context
Change Content
Elaboration of (change) task- relevant information
& perspectives Faultline Trigger
M E T H O D O L O G Y
The greater use of qualitative studies may aid in the development of diversity research in order to gain new insights and perspectives that incorporate the influence of the context (Shore et al., 2009). ‘Qualitative research includes an array of interpretative techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world (Cooper & Schindler, 2008: 162).’ Understanding what activates faultlines requires research methodologies that can obtain detailed descriptions of events that have occurred in the workplace over time, therefore, a longitudinal qualitative theory development research was conducted using a case study method which emphasized on understanding the context of the subject allowing for richness of understanding (Cooper & Schindler, 2008) and is appropriate to provide freshness of perspectives (Eisenhardt, 1989). This approach allowed the researcher to focus on studying the diversity in a natural setting and permits an in-depth analysis of the dynamics of diversity processes and the outcomes (Yin, 2009) and has the purpose to capture the depth and breath of participants’ experiences, and to capture change of their perceptions and actions (Saldaña, 2003). Applying qualitative research for theory refinement is useful for investigating how and why elements relate to each other (Rowlands, 2005).
Background Case Study
KPN is the leading telecommunications and ICT service provider in The Netherlands, offering wire line and wireless telephony, Internet and TV to consumers, and end-to-end telecommunications and ICT services to business customers. In 2011 KPN presented a new strategy, driven by the continual changes in the telecom and IT sector. KPN aims to strengthen, simplify and grow their businesses. The organization is oriented to improving quality, service and technology in order to become the best service provider and strengthen its market position as leading provider in the Netherlands.
A significant part of KPN’s innovation projects covers the improvement and renewal of KPN’s fixed infrastructure. KPN is the only operator of fixed copper infrastructure with nationwide coverage in the Netherlands and, therefore, this fixed infrastructure is important for continued business operations and financial performance. In the Netherlands, KPN accelerated investment strategy with the aim to upgrade its mobile and fixed networks in order to provide the highest quality of service to its customers. Within its fixed network KPN is making investments in the fiber network, which allows greater upload and download speeds as compared to cable or traditional copper DSL. The rollout of the fiber network in the Netherlands is being executed through the joint venture. In 2012 KPN acquired fiber service provider Lijbrandt and Reggefiber Wholesale KPN provides the fiber services, whereas
Reggefiber focuses on the fiber network rollout, i.e. Reggefiber places the transmission medium. KPN believes connecting customers to the fiber network, which is superior in the long-term, is important for the improvement and renewal of KPN’s fixed infrastructure.
PQR is responsible for directing the rollout of the fiber network. Every day customer orders are reported back unfinished. Causes can be failure at activation, the service does not work or due to reasons related to the customer the order could not be finished. PQR ensures that these customer orders receive the right follow up. At the same time in the preparation phase problems can occur due to which the installation appointment cannot proceed. PQR takes those appointments from the planning and makes sure that the customer is kept informed on the progress of the order. In the past, the responsibility reschedule orders was outsourced to external parties, however, directing a customer order at a central location allows KPN to run this process more directly and efficiently and to respond even better to customers and, therefore, in April 2013 team XYZ was formed, which was a new team with a new role at the PQR department. XYZ is responsible for securing the call traffic with the customer both inbound and outbound; an activity in the aftercare process that used to be outsourced to external parties that KPN decided to internalize activity in order to bring the substantive knowledge concerning an order and the knowledge regarding the rescheduling procedures together.
Sample and Case Access
A theoretical sampling procedure was used for case selection, meaning that the theoretical purpose of the project, rather than a strict methodological mandate, determined the selection (Marvasti, 2004). Theoretical sampling is typically used for qualitative research aimed at generating new insights into phenomena and the underlying mechanisms that explain the effects (Van Aken et al., 2012). A single location was sought where a trigger, in the form of change, affected a group, with the premise that diversity would be present. Accordingly, the host organization selected for the case study was KPN, a large telecommunications and ICT service provider in The Netherlands, which at the time of the study was reorganizing.
From a site selection standpoint, the XYZ team was an ideal case to study, since it was conceivable that diversity was present and that interaction between the newly hired group members was required to learn about the task, the processes and each other.
Access was negotiated in 2013 through the manager of the PQR department at KPN.
A first intake meeting was conducted with the department manager and supervisor to get acquainted and to discuss the feasibility and the goal of the research. The researcher was granted opportunity to observe and attend meetings and develop relationships with people, allowing the obtained data to be rich (Myers, 2009). The organization set the time frames for the implementation and in correspondence with the management points in time were specified for data collection.
The sample comprised three groups of respondents, which were included in the research (Table 1). The main group concerned the employees of the newly formed team XYZ, who were all new to the organization and who are responsible for the internalized activity.
The second group concerns employees of the PQR department. This department is responsible for analyzing scheduled orders and when these planned orders are not ready for delivery then these orders taken from the planning, after which the XYZ team informs the customer and schedules a new appointment. PQR was included into this research because over the course of the research XYZ and PQR were merged, due to which PQR played a significant role in the research. The supervisors, who acted predominantly as change agents during this process alongside their daily work, form the last group. The participants were all employees of KPN. Respondents were selected based on their involvement during this change project and their availability for conducting an interview (Rowley, 2012). The researcher kept the explanation given to the respondents with regard to the research topic deliberately vague in order to prevent the respondents to make a conscious effort to pretend to get along with colleagues that are perceived to be different from oneself. Respondents were told that the researcher was interested in observe collaboration and learning behavior within the group and were promised confidentiality.
Data collection
In order to increase internal validity and reliability, triangulation, e.g. using multiple research instruments (Van Aken et al., 2012), was applied. Several methods for data collection were used, i.e. observations, individual interviews, and written reports. Each of these types of data collection has unique strengths and weaknesses, however, the combination of these strengths compensate for the weaknesses of the other methods (Hall & Rist, 1999), i.e. triangulation can remedy the specific shortcomings and biases of instruments individually as they complement and correct each other in combination (Van Aken et al., 2012). Two main purposes of triangulation are to confirm data and to ensure data are complete (Houghton, 2013) and to prevent for vivid, but false, impressions in the qualitative data (Eisenhardt, 1989).
T A B L E 1:
O verview team member characteristics
Observation A less-structured observational research approach was applied, because this approach gave the opportunity to examine the way in which interactions and social meanings changed and developed over time (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). Less-structured observational research methods involve the researcher spending long periods of time in the field, building relationships and participating in social interaction with subjects and allow for the production of detailed data on the behavior of particular groups in a particular setting (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). Over a four month period - April 2013 to July 2013 - the researcher was a participant observant, i.e. the researcher did not only observe people doing things from the outside, but participated to some extent in these activities and interacted with employees to gain an understanding of their beliefs and activities from the inside as well (Myers, 2009). The observer interacted with the group, but did not take on an established role in the group. The researcher made clear from the offset that his role was to observe and to conduct research.
The method of participant observation allowed the researcher to come close to experiencing and understanding the ‘insider’s point of view, to get information about the physical environment and about human behavior without having to rely on the retrospective or anticipatory accounts of others, to see important features of the environment and behavior which were taken for granted by participants and allowed the researcher to gain full understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (Houghton et al., 2013; Sapsford &
Jupp, 2006; Zahle, 2012). In addition, the role of participatory observation allowed to researcher to acquire interactional expertise, the knowledge required for the observer to communicate about a domain without being able to practice in that domain (Collins, 2004), which allows the researcher to relate to participants in ways that engage them in sharing what they know, and what is going on in the setting (Langley et al., 2013).
The behavior the researcher chose to observe and record depended on the overall topic and research questions being investigated. In less-structured observational research the researcher typically brings with him certain sensitizing concepts drawn from previous research (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). The researcher was particularly interested in the linguistic behavior, i.e. the interaction processes that occur between people or in a group, and the spatial relationships, which emphasizes how people relate physically to each other (Cooper &
Schindler, 2008). Observations were collected in field notes taken during the day and at the end of each day and included both descriptive (i.e. a description of activities and events) and reflective notes (i.e. notes about the researchers experience, learning’s, and ideas) (Creswell, 1998) and contained information about the context of an event or behavior that may be relevant (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). The distortion that can occur when the researcher relies upon memory to write field notes can be a significant source of error threating the validity (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006), due to the lack of accuracy (Gimenez & Pinel, 2013). Therefore, field notes are made on the spot and at the end of the day.
Prolonged engagement and persistent observation can enhance the credibility of research, however, the credibility of a study rests on the procedures implemented and the self- awareness of the researcher throughout the research process (Houghton et al., 2013). People may, consciously or unconsciously, change the way they behave because they are being observed, and therefore, observational accounts of their behavior may be inaccurate representations of how they behave naturally, potentially threatening the validity of the research (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). The participant observer aimed to intervene as little as possible by remaining fairly unobtrusive or non-disruptive in the setting being studied (Zahle 2012). The researcher was present on a daily basis at the office space from the outset when the XYZ team was formed, where the researcher had a desk at his disposal at the edge of the office space where the researcher could perform his own activities throughout the day. This allowed the subjects to become accustomed to his presence and allowed that subjects came to trust the researcher (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006). In addition, the researcher attempted not to interfere in the social processes within the team by remaining secluded. The less-structured observational approach allowed the data produced to be less influenced by reactivity to the researcher and the research process (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006).
Individual interviews Observations were combined with data of other kinds. Important sources of data for this research were longitudinal qualitative interviews (LQI). ‘LQIs are conducted with the same people over a time period sufficient to allow for the collection of data on specified conditions of change (Hermanowicz, 2013: 190)’ and underscores the principal aim of longitudinal qualitative research; to expose process and evaluate causality linkages, whether conceived at an individual, group, institutional, or societal level (Ruspini, 1999). This study examined the dynamics of the social categorization processes and how these processes influence the elaboration information and team learning within the team.
Over a period of four months, in correspondence with the management, points in time were specified for conducting in-depth one-to-one semi-structured interviews. The first interviews with XYZ team members were conducted in week 19, soon after the training of three weeks was completed and team members were prepared to perform their job.
Hermanowicz (2013) noted that the time between successive sets of interviews should be sufficient to examine relevant change from one point to another and, therefore, XYZ members were again interviewed in week 26 after a period in which XYZ and PQR were relocated to the same office. LEAD A was interviewed various times during this period, as he was responsible for leading and managing the XYZ team. Week 29/30 the members of PQR, LEAD B, and LEAD C were interviewed with regard to their perceptions regarding the social processes and collaboration that have occurred since the merger at the department. An overview of the interview occasions is presented in Table 2.
T A B L E 2:
O verview interview occasions
All team members were interviewed by face-to-face interviews at their place of work at a location where others could not hear the conversation. The interviews were semi- structured and standardized interview protocols (Appendix A) were used; using a list of specific questions in a set order but with some flexibility in the questions asked and probing leaving sufficient room for exploring issues that arise spontaneously (Doody & Noonan, 2013; Rowley, 2012; Van Aken et al., 2012). A strength of a longitudinal qualitative study is that the interview protocol can consist of posing different questions on selected same and newly emergent themes, because in this type of design, questions do not serve as the baseline of comparison, but rather characterizations of people and their situations (Hermanowicz, 2013). Perceptions of diversity and group learning are compared across time, rather than specific question about these topics.
Interviews began with generic questions and then, on responses to these questions, interviewees were further probed to clarify relevant issues. The standard interview protocol for the first interview contained thirty questions, and were grouped in five broad categories;
(1) introduction question (2) group learning, (3) collaboration within the team, (4) intergroup bias, and (5) remainder questions. Each question had two to four sub-questions or prompts, which were used by the researcher when they were necessary to ensure that the interviewee explored the main question sufficiently (Rowley, 2012). Interviews on average interviews lasted an hour and were conducted in Dutch, the native language of the respondents, at the research site. At the start of the interview interviewees were assured anonymity and confidentiality of the discussions and were told that the conversation was recorded.
Documentation Alongside the primary data, secondary data was collected from documents such as emails, blogs, web pages, corporate records and newspapers. These secondary data sources provided some evidence that allowed building a richer picture than could be obtained by interviews and fieldwork alone (Myers, 2009). An important advantage of documentation is that it may provide information that organization members have partly or completely forgotten (Van Aken et al., 2012). The used documents were assessed on four quality criteria, i.e. authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning, before they were used for analysis.
Measures
Research that is informed by previous theory is described as inductive (Rowley, 2012). With inductive research, theory is a significant factor in determining the research question, and it may be possible to use interview schedules in two or three published research articles to serve as the basis for the interview schedule of the research (Rowley, 2012). As a guideline, different quantitative measurement scales were used to formulate the interview question used in this study to measure the main variables identified in this research.
Perceived/activated faultlines To assess the extent to which an objective alignment is actually perceived as a division of the group into separate subgroups validated items from the questionnaire of Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) were used to formulate interview questions. The main research questions used in this research to assess activated group faultlines regard ‘to what extent does the group split into subgroups?” and “if your group splits into subgroups, on the basis of what characteristics did the team divide?” These questions reflect the extent to which team members perceived a division based on alignment on objective differences (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).
