and readiness for change, on individual and group level.”
MAIKE BRINKHOF (1866168)1MSc BA Change Management2
First Supervisor: dr. J. Rupert/ University of Groningen
Second Supervisor: dr. A.G. Regts-Walters/University of Groningen
June 2015
Word Count: 12.983
Existing research has shown the importance of understanding team member diversity and the influence on organizational success. This study contributes by analyzing faultlines that are perceived within teams, with organizational change functioning as a trigger event. Faultlines are lines created between team members based on attribute similarities, such as age or gender. A trigger event is an event which can activate these faultlines, resulting in the possible subgroup creation. The perceived faultlines are linked to the concept of readiness for change. A qualitative research method is used to gather information. Fourteen members, from two different teams in a Dutch organization, are interviewed. Results of this study indicate that organizational change does function as a trigger event, resulting in activation of faultlines, based on both visible and nonvisible attributes of team members. In addition, individual readiness for change seems to be a nonvisible attribute on which team members form faultlines. After these faultlines are triggered by organizational change, subgroups are formed in the teams with either a low or a high readiness for change. These subgroups influence the readiness for change of the team (e.g. group readiness). Finally, theoretical and managerial implications will be discussed.
Keywords: Faultlines, objective faultlines, perceived faultlines, superordinate identity, equivocality,
readiness for change, individual readiness for change, group readiness for change, organizational change, trigger event.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 2 TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1 Objective faultlines ... 7
2.2 Organizational change as a trigger event ... 8
2.3 Perceived faultlines ... 8
2.4 Readiness for change ... 10
3. RESEARCH METHOD ... 12
3.1 Design of the study ... 12
3.2 Case description ... 13
3.3 Data collection ... 14
3.4 Data analysis ... 15
4. RESULTS ... 17
4.1 Case one ... 17
4.1.1 Organizational change as a trigger event ... 17
4.1.2 Perceived faultlines ... 18
4.1.3 Readiness for change ... 20
4.1.4 Conclusion ... 21
4.2 Case two ... 22
4.2.1 Organizational change as a trigger event ... 22
4.2.2 Perceived faultlines ... 23
4.2.3 Readiness for change ... 24
4.2.4 Conclusion ... 25
4.3 Cross-case analysis ... 25
4.3.1 Organizational change as a trigger event ... 25
4.3.2 Perceived faultlines ... 26
4.3.3 Readiness for change ... 27
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 29
5.1 Theoretical implications ... 31
5.2 Implications for practice ... 32
5.3 Limitations and future directions ... 32
5.4 Conclusion ... 33
REFERENCES ... 35
APPENDICIES... 40
Appendix A – Interview Protocol ... 41
Appendix B – Additional questionnaire……….42
Appendix C – Coding Schema... 425
M.C.A. Brinkhof 3 1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of teams in organizations is growing, according to Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach & Allinger (2013), teams can be seen as the building blocks of organizations. One of the reasons for the growing importance is the fact thatteams are able to complete tasks that are too big or complex for an individual. Since the complexity of organizations and their external environment increases, organizations depend more on the performance of their teams (Salas, Cooke & Rosen, 2008). Not only organizations and their external environment become more dynamic, also, teams become more dynamic (Mathieu et al., 2013). Salas et al. (2008), state that it is important to get a better understanding of the dynamics of (adaptive) teams and the diversity of its members to be able to control and guide teams more efficient. Work teams are more diverse due to the demographic changes, globalization and the workforce mobility. This team diversity consists of two categories of diversity; visible and nonvisible diversity (Jackson, May & Whitney, 1995). The former relates to race, ethnicity, age, and gender, the latter to education, skills and abilities, values and attitudes, and personality diversity. Both categories influence team effectiveness, but due to increase of collaboration among team members, the influence of nonvisible diversity effects increase over time (Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey, 2002).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 4
Regarding the concept of faultlines, it is important to make a distinction between the
potential and actual activation of faultlines. The former is the formation of faultlines based on
the similarity of attributes of team members, and the latter relates to the fact that a trigger event can cause the faultlines to come to the surface (Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber & Ernst, 2009). A trigger event is “an event involving two or more people from different social identity groups that ignites a replication of societal-based identity threat in an organization.” (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009; p. 1770). The current study contributes to existing literature by providing insight in the activation of perceived faultlines within teams, with organizational change functioning as a trigger event. Another reason to incorporate organizational change as a trigger event is the possibility to investigate the multilayered component of identification of employees, on either subgroup- or superordinate level (Gover & Duxbury, 2012).
Superordinate identity is the extent to which members of the organization identify with the
organization and perceive a stake in the success of the organization (Sethi, 2000). According to Sethi (2000), more insight in the relationship between project- and structure, related factors (e.g. organizational change activities) and superordinate identity could help organizations to match these two concepts better. This can help organizations to accomplish that team members relate to the success organizational change on superordinate level instead of on subgroup level. This could enhance the effectiveness of cooperation across team boundaries, when multiple team members from different teams identify on a superordinate level.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 5 Readiness for change is the active attitude of employees toward the change, resulting in
information seeking, making assumptions about the change process, and understanding the need for change (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Choi, 2011). The concept of readiness for change is linked to the success of implementation and the engagement of employees during organizational change (By, 2007; Lyons, Swindler & Offner, 2009). Besides this, more research is needed about the relationship between the social identity of team members (e.g. categorization) and readiness for change (Gover & Duxbury, 2012). For example, this can enhance the understanding of the relationship between strong/weak faultlines and the creation of readiness for change (Gover & Duxbury, 2012). This paper provides a better understanding regarding the activation of faultlines, triggered by organizational change at play, and the relationship between these perceived faultlines and readiness for change. The concept of objective faultlines is introduced in the literature paragraph in order to provide a basic understanding of this concept. However, this specific faultline concept will not be included in the actual research, since of the nature of this study. The faultlines that are included in this study, are the perceived faultlines. These are faultlines that are perceived by team members, in this case, after the occurrence of organizational change. This provides more insight in perceptions of team members about the faultlines present in their team. In figure 1, a conceptual model displays the concepts and their relations that are analyzed in this study.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Taking this into account, the following research question if formed: “How do activated
(perceived) faultlines, triggered by organizational change, influence the readiness for change on both the individual and group level?”.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Objective faultlines
The faultline concept is introduced by Lau & Murninghan (1998), and refers to “hypothetical dividing lines splitting a team into homogeneous subgroups based on team member’s attributes” (Lau & Murninghan, 1998; p. 328). These faultlines are formed on the basis of visible and nonvisible attributes of team members. Visible attributes relate to the demographic attributes of team members, such as age, gender, and race. Nonvisible faultlines are less overtly evident attributes, such as work experience and education level (Thatcher, Jehn, Zanutto, 2003; Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, & Savador, 2008).
There are two features of faultlines that are important to understand. The first feature of faultlines is the fact that they can be either strong or weak. The strength relates to “(a) the number of individual attributes apparent to group members, (b) their alignment, and as a consequence, (c) the number of potentially homogeneous subgroups” (Lau & Murninghan, 1998; p. 328). The strength of faultlines increases when more attributes align, resulting in reduction of the number of faultlines and the increase of homogeneity of the subgroups. An extreme example is, a group includes five white female administrative workers, in their mid-twenties, working with the company less than two years and five black male managers, 40+ years of age, working for the company for over 15 years. These group’s potential faultlines would be extremely strong, because all the attributes align (Lau & Murninghan, 1998). Faultlines are weak when the attributes are not align and there are multiple subgroups present (Lau & Murninhan, 1998). A second feature of faultlines is the fact that they can be latent or
activated. Latent refers to faultlines that are present but that do not influence performance
because they are not active. Activated means that faultlines are present and dividing the group into subgroups, which may, for example, lead to limited communication between subgroups (Lau & Murninghan, 1998). A trigger event can activate a latent faultline, and refers to “an event involving two or more people from different social identity groups that ignites a replication of societal-based identity threat in an organization.” (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009; p. 1770). Trigger events are most likely to be some kind of task or context variable, such as moving to a new work area or change of job tasks (Lau & Murninghan, 1998).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 8 2.2 Organizational change as a trigger event
When organizational change is placed on a line, it presents major changes on one side and small, incremental changes on the other side (Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012). In this study, organizational change relates to the planned alterations of different components in the organization, such as the structure, mission, the goals and the processes. These alterations are made to increase the effectiveness of the organization and to increase the ability to generate value (Cawsey et al., 2012). The ongoing process of the formation and activation of faultlines and possible subgroups can create stability for teams; they create their own group of people based on similarity in attributes. When organizational change occurs, this stability may change because team members need to change their way of working (LePine, 2003). For example, organizational change (e.g. trigger event) acts as a signal that there may be a threat for the existing social identity groups (Murphy, Steele & Gross, 2007). These changes in a team are the result of the fact that organizational change may demand changes in a team in order to make the implementation of organizational change successful. When looking at organizational change as a trigger event, it influences the latent faultlines in such a way that organizationa change related activities activate them. For example, organizational change (e.g. trigger event) can force a subgroup to interact with other, different subgroups (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009; Jehn & Bezrukoca, 2010). Other examples of trigger events are differential treatment, different values, insult and the expectation that all members will act the same way (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). Organizational change relates to the concept of faultlines; it can lead to equivocality, which is the existence of unclear data and multiple interpretations, leading to ambiguity and uncertainty (Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Weick, 1979). To reduce equivocality, members of the organization interact with each other and seek company of people with similar attributes to cope with equivocality, possibly resulting in the creation and/or activation of faultlines. By doing so, they reduce the number of possible outcomes and reduce the level of uncertainty (Daft & Weick, 1984). This leads to the following sub question: How does organizational change as a trigger
event activates the latent faultline(s) in the team?
When organizational change triggers faultlines, these faultlines become noticeable in an organization; team members perceive faultlines within their team. In the following section the concept of perceived faultlines is discussed.
2.3 Perceived faultlines
M.C.A. Brinkhof 9
teams, it can result in the fact that team members perceive faultlines, meaning that latent faultlines are activated (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2015). Possible reasons are that team members need to communicate more (with each other and other subgroups) during the change and the changes in work processes (Gover & Duxbury, 2012). Another explanation is that during periods of change, the team members become more aware of the ‘other groups’ in the organization, for example the other subgroups within their team (Gover & Duxbury, 2012). A result of faultlines is that people can classify themselves based on visible and nonvisible attributes, leading to the creation of in-groups and out-groups. This idea is based on the Social
Identity Theory (SIT) (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The SIT explains the formation of groups
and how these groups influence the individuals which operate within these groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The assumption is that employees derive their social identity from the groups which they belong to (e.g. team). Key to the social identification is enhancement and
self-categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987; Terry
& Callan, 1998). Self-enhancement is the process of individuals seeking to feel positive about the groups in which they belong. Mostly, this results in acting negatively towards the other groups (Terry & Callan, 1998). Self-categorization is the process of individuals placing themselves in a group (Turner et al., 1987). Organizational change can influence the level of categorization (e.g. identification) (Jetten, O’Brian & Trindal, 2002).
One concept that helps to get a better understanding of different levels of categorization (e.g. identification), is the superordinate identity. This relates to the identification of employees with the organization itself and, in this study, the identification with the goal of the organizational change. Researchers have found positive effects of superordinate identification regarding organizational change (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Mackie & Goethals, 1987). For example, Begley & Czajka (1993) have examined that superordinate identification functions as a stress-buffer and that horizontal identification can alleviate the negative consequences employees experience when they lose subgroup identification (Jetten et al. 2002).
For this study, it is particularly interesting to focus on the perceptions of team members on existing faultlines in their team when organizational change triggers the activation of (latent) faultlines. This provides insights in the different attributes on which the faultlines are based. In addition, the concept of superordinate identity is used to analyze the difference in categorization of team members, on either subgroup- or superordinate (e.g. organizational) level. This leads to the following sub questions: How do team members perceive the faultlines present in their
M.C.A. Brinkhof 10
Due to the activation of latent faultlines, team members become more aware of these faultlines, the subgroups and the differences among these subgroups (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). This may result in different responses to the change initiative (Choi, 2011). In the following section, one of the many responses to organizational change is discussed; readiness for change. In existing literature, the importance of the relationship between social identification and readiness for change is addressed. This study will provide more insight about this relationship (Gover & Duxbury, 2012).
2.4 Readiness for change
Multiple authors have stated that the responses of organizational members play an important role in the success of organizational change (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph & DePalme, 2006, Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). One of the most cited responses is
resistance to change. Change involves uncertainty, for example about how it will affect people,
their roles, and responsibilities. This uncertainty may lead to fear because people imagine real or perceived threats to their current situation. This fear often leads to resistance among employees (Umble & Umble, 2014). Resistance is linked to the rejection of out-groups (i.e. groups the individual does not belong to) which can enhance the activation of faultlines (Watson, 1971). However, resistance is not the only response that team members express when they face changes. Piderit (2000) states that the concept of resistance is widely studied, but has its limitations and argues for a different and more positive view on employee responses. Therefore, this study focuses on readiness for change. Readiness for change is the active attitude of employees towards the change, resulting in information seeking, making assumptions about the change process, and understanding the need for change (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Choi, 2011). Readiness for change is influenced by previous experiences, the support of management, and openness to change. Readiness for change will increase when employees understand the need for change, in a way that they see that the change will produce better outcomes and believe in the success of the change (Cawsey et al., 2012). Previous research (Madson et al., 2005) have linked readiness for change to the concept of faultlines, but not much research is conducted to gain insights in the nature of this relationship. This study investigates this relationship, in order for organizations to better manage the relationship.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 11
to the fact that a team member exhibits a proactive and positive attitude towards the change, resulting in support and confidence in the change initiative. An important feature for this active attitude is the individual understanding of the urgency of organizational change (Cawsey et al., 2012). According to Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993), readiness for change may preclude resistance, making the change initiative potentially more successful. When looking through this lens, low or high readiness for change is related to a negative (e.g. resistance) or positive attitude towards change (Vakola, 2013). Group readiness is based on the collective beliefs and perceptions of a group, regarding the need of the change, the ability of the organization and the group (e.g. subgroups and/or teams) to cope with the change (Vakola, 2013). In this study, group readiness is included to provide a better understanding of the individual readiness for change, because group readiness can influence the individual readiness of its group members. Lastly, organizational readiness is the perception of organizational members about the readiness of the organization. This perception ranges from viewing the organization capable to perceiving the organization not ready to be engaged in such an effort (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000). Important facets of this perception are the support of the organization for employees during the change and the capability to manage the change successfully (Cawsey et al., 2012). This perception about organizational readiness is used in order to gain understanding about the influence of this perception on the individual readiness for change. Taking the concept of readiness, and the relationship with readiness for change into account, the following sub question is formed: What is the relationship between perceived
M.C.A. Brinkhof 12 3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Design of the study
To identify the constructs at play during the period of organizational change, and the influence on the creation and/or possible activation of faultlines, a qualitative approach was used. This approach was chosen to get a better understanding of the experiences of the recipients during the organizational change period, it facilitates the exploration of a phenomenon within the context in which it is presented (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Because the focus of this study on the different perceptions of faultlines of team members and their different responses during the change period, this approach was suitable to get a deeper understanding of these different experiences and the interaction between them and their work environment (e.g. context) (Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam, 2002; Mukhopadhyay & Gupta, 2014). Because of the content of this study, the qualitative nature and the needed information, the main focus in this study was on the relationship between the concepts organizational change as the trigger event, perceived faultlines and the readiness for change (on individual- and group level). The nature of the concept “objective faultlines” was difficult to measure due to the subjective nature of the questions that are asked and, thereof, beyond the reach of this study.
A case study was used to perform this qualitative research. According to Yin (2003b), a case study is suitable to answer “why” and “how” research questions, which was the case in this study. The cases were suitable since the organization was exposed to an organizational change. Within the organization, multiple teams were concerned with responsibilities concerning their professionalism, which makes it possible to investigate the faultlines, the influence of organizational change, and the readiness for change within and among these teams. The analysis of the cases was done in the form of a within and cross case analysis. With the within-case analysis, it was possible to provide insights about the mechanisms regarding the main concepts of this study, and the cross-case analysis provides understanding about the similarities and the differences between the cases (e.g. the teams) (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Ulf, Alvaro & Bernhard, 2014). Furthermore, this study was defined as a descriptive case study, because it provided insights relating to the phenomenon in a real-life context, namely the influence of organizational change on the perceived faultlines, and the resulting readiness for change (Yin, 2003b).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 13
members. For this study, the information collected was gathered in two of these teams. In order to get a deeper understanding of the organizational change itself and to broaden the view, two interviews were conducted with the change facilitator leading the organizational change and an HR employee.
3.2 Case description
In the past 3 years, AOC Terra Groningen (Intermediate Vocational Education) changed its way of educating their students. They introduced a new program, called Regioleren, which is related to the combination of regular classroom education and the advantages of projects and practical education outside the school. This program aligns education to the demand of the external (job related) environment, relating to the broadening of the education and knowledge of students. The school focused more and more on the external environment, aligning themselves to this changing environment and the (social) demands concerned with this change. To make this transition to a new educational system more successful, the organizational structure needed to change, especially the team composition. Before, the organization formed teams according to the specialty of the teachers, such as ‘animal’, ‘styling’, ‘flower’. These teams existed of 3-5 teachers. Now, the focus is more on commonality of the specialties, such as ‘living’, combining multiple teams of teachers into one, larger team. These new teams consist of approximately ten teachers, working together to provide a more broad and suitable education. This will help the students to be educated more broadly, enhancing their knowledge and increasing their job perspective. A consequence for the teachers is that they have more direct colleagues because of the increase of the size of the team. This leads to more meetings and the time pressure is higher.
Two teams form AOC Terra were selected for this study: a team consisting of the professions flower, design, and styling (e.g. creative professions) and a team that was formed with professions relating to the agriculture (e.g. traditional professions). The first team, the creative professions, consisted of ten team members, including the team leader. The second team consisted of eleven members, including the team leader. Within this team, the only female team member was the team leader. Because of the differences between these two teams, relating to the professions and the teachers in these teams, this was considered to be a representable sample. As stated before, this was also the main reason to conduct a within-case and cross-case analysis, to highlight the main differences and similarities between the two teams (e.g. cases).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 14 3.3 Data collection
The most important source of information for the current study, were semi-structured interviews. This interview form was chosen to be able to further discuss the answers provided by the respondents, in order to gain a better understanding of the constructs at play (Reza, Baptista, Tiago & Alex, 2014). The interviews were based upon a pre-designed interview protocol in order to gather the wanted information from every respondent (Appendix A – Interview Protocol). The questions were of an open-ended nature to ensure that the information gathered is about the facts and the experiences of the respondents about the events. It also gave the researcher the opportunity to ask about additional information when necessary (Barribel & While, 1994).
The interview protocol was divided into three parts (see Appendix A). The first part is concerned with questions about the organizational change and the facets related to this change. These questions included general questions about the change, questions related to the identification of team members with the overarching goals of the change (e.g. superordinate goal) and their experiences with the process of the change (e.g. equivocality). The second part of the interview includes questions about the relations among team members and if certain team members were drawn towards one another (e.g. faultlines/subgroup creation). Furthermore, questions are included about the influence of perceived faultlines and resulting subgroups on the rest of the team and about the attributes on which the team members think these faultlines were based. These questions were asked in order to collect information about the perceived faultlines within the teams and the attributes on which these faultlines were based. In the third part of the interview, questions were asked about the readiness for change, on individual and group level. To gather information about the individual readiness for change, questions were asked about their perception of the urgency of the change, their attitude toward the change and about the personal (dis)advantages of the organizational change. To collect information about the readiness on group level, questions were asked about the attitude of the team and about the (dis)advantages of the organizational change on group level. In addition, questions were asked about the perception of team members about the organizational support during the change and the ability of the organization to manage the change effectively to see if these perceptions influence the individual and/or group level readiness for change. Lastly, at the end of the interview, a question was asked which gave the respondents the possibility to tell about an interesting event or other important information.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 15
and some general information about their personalities. For the questionnaire, see appendix B. The questionnaire was designed according to a 7-point Likert Scale and scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree). It took approximately ten minutes to fill in. These questionnaires were used to compare the answers provided by the respondents during the interview to the answers on the questionnaire, especially the ones concerning their perception about subgroups and their readiness for change. Unfortunately, two team members from team one were not able, due to work pressure, to fill in the questionnaire, which explains the missing information in Appendix D.
Fourteen interviews were conducted with the team members from two different teams and two other organizational members (HR employee and change facilitator). The duration of the interview period was six weeks and the interviews themselves took seventeen to forty-five minutes, with an average of twenty-seven minutes. Eleven interviews were conducted face-to-face and three interviews were conducted by telephone.
3.4 Data analysis
M.C.A. Brinkhof 16
Throughout the transcript(s), many of the same codes were found, because there is a pattern of actions in human affairs. Besides this, the main goal of the coding process was to find a pattern in all the actions (Saldana, 2008). These patterns were characterized by similarities, differences, sequence (happen in a certain order) and correspondence (happen in relation to another event/activity) (Saldana, 2008). The coding process is described in table 1. In Appendix C, the coding scheme can be found with the code names, descriptions and examples.
Table 1 - Coding process
Step Coding process/description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Transcribing of the interviews
Developing of a coding scheme (deductive) Coding of the interviews
Additional codes designed (inductive) Finalizing coding scheme
Checking of the transcripts and coding activities Generalize and complete the transcripts and codes
After coding the transcripts, data was analyzed in order to draw conclusions. In order to properly display data, a table was formed, to support quotes and information provided in the result section (Miles & Huberman, 1994) (Appendix D – Respondent Information).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 17 4. RESULTS
In this section, results are presented. First, the two different cases (e.g. teams) are discussed according to a within-case analysis. The different sub questions are answered per case. After this, a cross-case analysis sheds light upon the main differences and similarities between the two cases. Before discussing the results according to a within and cross-case analysis, some important overall impressions regarding both cases need to be discussed. The first thing that was noticed during the interview sessions is that respondents had different perceptions about the change content and the goal of the change. Most of them saw ‘Regioleren’ as one change and the structural changes within the teams as different ones; others did not even mention the structural changes within their team. Only four respondents saw that those two separate changes were in fact two facets of the same organizational change. In addition, different answers were given when asked about the main goal of the change. Ten respondents were indeed aware of the fact that the organizational change is being implemented to connect the internal to the external environment, providing better and more suitable education, but the other respondents did not express this understanding. They stated that they felt ‘cutting cost’ or ‘politics’ were the main reasons for the organizational change. In Appendix D, a table can be found with information about the team members, their profession and their readiness for change score based upon their answers in the questionnaire. This table is based upon the information gathered with the additional questionnaire.
4.1 Case one
The team consisted of ten members, all concerned with more creative professions, such as design and flower decoration. The information is gathered by performing interviews with seven team members, including the team leader, is presented.
4.1.1 Organizational change as a trigger event
The sub question relating to this concept is: How does organizational change as a trigger event
activates the latent faultline(s) in the team?
M.C.A. Brinkhof 18
“Before the change, we were just separate teams. Now, the different teams are one team and
we have meeting with all the members. More things have to be aligned.” During this process,
they became aware of the other team members they did not worked with prior to the change. This resulted in activation of faultlines among them. For example, three team members were very concerned with the success of the organizational change and had a very different role as prior to the organizational change. They organized meetings, workshops and perform tests throughout the organization in order to inspire other members to become active and supportive to. These team members worked together to make the organizational change a success and prior to the change they did not worked together: “Then the new situation [organizational change
implementation], and we formed a couple. We are different, but is really works.” and “I know him/her for 20 years, and just worked together as normal colleagues, nothing special. And in the beginning of the year [implementation of the organizational change], we began to work together.” To conclude, it seems that organizational change functioned as a trigger event
because it changes the size of the team and roles, tasks and responsibilities within the team. This resulted in the activation of (latent) faultlines.
4.1.2 Perceived faultlines
The sub questions relating to this concept are: How do team members perceive the
faultlines present in their team, after the occurrence of organizational change? and How do the team members categorize themselves (e.g. on subgroup- or superordinate level)?
The team members perceived the faultlines, after the occurrence of the organizational change in a very similar manner. They expressed that the team members were drawn to each other based on their perception about the future, their way of working and the personal characteristics. This can be seen in the following quotes: “What binds us, is that we look to the
future”, “We both have the same attitude towards working; when we understand one part, we move on to the next.” and “Sometimes it is because we can drink a beer together, or we share the same hobby…we have the same personal circumstances, kids and stuff.” Before the
M.C.A. Brinkhof 19
“They find each other in the way they want to cope with students and how they want to organize
things”, “We work together in order to go a step further” and “Their motivation to change bounds them.”
When linking the activated faultlines to the formation of subgroups, two subgroups are noticed, namely a subgroup with the three team members who have taken an active role within the change and are concerned with the success of the change and a subgroup consisting of the other three team members. These subgroup consisted of the six other team members, seems to be formed based upon the attributes working manners and personal characteristics: “I am a
practical guy, and I find myself more comfortable around people who are also practical” and “We know each other, so we know we can count on each other.” The team member in this team
who keeps distance from the organizational change, cannot be placed in one of these two groups. Other team members also notice this: “Some people struggle with the change, especially
one person within this new team who struggles with the change” and “One person is completely different, compared to me, we differ so much when it comes to work.” The team leader expressed
that (s)he also notices this difference between him/her and other team members: “it is a
challenge to keep him/her involved in the change, taking him/her with us on this journey.”
The team members perceived this subgroup creation not as a negative thing. The subgroup with the three active members is still concerned with the other subgroup, trying to keep them enthusiastic and this is perceived as a positive thing by the other subgroup. The overall impression about the relations between all the team members within this team is perceived by all team members as “good” and “open and friendly”. One team members stated that (s)he felt that, as a team, they are pioneers which has a positive effect on the relations in this team: “This causes that we feel more connected to each other…we are more open and
honest towards each other.”
Finally, the concept of categorization seemed to be important in order to fully understand this team. What seemed to be the case, was that the three team members who had an active role within the change, do categorize on a superordinate level. They were concerned with the overall success of the organizational change and this guided them. One of the three team members for example stated that “Sometimes it can be a bit chaotic, but when we talk
about the new plans and the change, this is not the case” and “We work together to make it happen.” The team leader, who can be placed within this subgroup, expressed that they do work
together towards the main goal of the organizational change. This subgroup was not only active within their own team, but is also active across team boundaries: “I am responsible for the
M.C.A. Brinkhof 20
effect this group had on the performance of their team during the change period and gave them the opportunity to develop this throughout the organization, by, for example, organizing meetings for all the teams. The other team members (e.g. other subgroup) did not express this categorization on a superordinate level. For example, one team member of this subgroup expressed that (s)he still thinks in the old structure that was present before the change (e.g. the three different teams): “We have to discuss things with team flower, we have to discuss thing
with team green in order to make things clear. The lines are too long.” Another team members,
in the same subgroup stated: “When we meet, we do it will all the teams, team flower, green
and styling.” This can be seen as categorization on subgroup level, leading to a less active role
in the organizational change. However, this does not mean that they do not perform tasks related to the organizational change. The difference with the other subgroup is that the performance of new tasks is not across team boundaries.
4.1.3 Readiness for change
The sub question relating to this concept is: What is the relationship between perceived
faultlines within the team and the readiness for change, on both individual and group level?
As can be seen in the table in appendix C, the overall readiness for change of team one is 6.25 (on a 1-7 scale). When this score was compared to the answers given by the team members during the interview, it indeed seemed that the team members are ready for the change. Mainly, this is expressed by team members when they were asked about their feelings about the need for change: “There is a great need for change…it feels like there is finally room for
change. The plans that were formed over the past ten, fifteen years, can finally be performed.”, “The students have changes, so we need to change the way we educate them.” and “If we do not change, this school will stop existing within ten years.” The understanding of the need of
the change is an important facet for readiness for change. When looking at the one team member within this team who kept the most distance from the change and anything concerned with this change, (s)he expressed some positive feelings about the need for change, but also stated that “It needs to be about the quality of the education.”
The concept of perceived faultlines within the change was linked to the individual and group readiness for change. The relationship with individual readiness for change was based upon the formation of faultlines, in a way that team members who perceived to have a higher readiness for change level, form faultlines with other team members who had the same level. Examples of quotes which implicate high readiness are: “There are always people, no matter
M.C.A. Brinkhof 21 opportunities”, “I think the change goes to slow, I always think that good things come fast.”
and “I experiment the whole day, I find this situation very exciting.” The members of this team who express such feelings, are forming subgroup one.
Within this team, all team members (except for one), were ready for the change. However, there was a difference in the level of readiness – the members of subgroup one perceived to be even more ready than the other subgroup. When looking at the relationship between perceived faultlines and group readiness for change, this was mainly related to the fact that the faultlines are activated between team members who express a high(er) readiness for change, resulting in subgroups that perceived to be ready for change. In this team, the two subgroups were both ready for change, the one even more than the other. This had the effect that the entire team was more ready, when compared to the other teams in the organization. According to the team leader, this seemed to be because this team exists of members with creative professions; they were more flexible and looked at the opportunities in times of organizational change.
4.1.4 Conclusion
M.C.A. Brinkhof 22 4.2 Case two
This team consisted of elf members, all concerned with professions related to agriculture, such as arable farming and animal husbandry. Five team members, including the team leader, were interviewed.
4.2.1 Organizational change as a trigger event
The sub question relating to this concept are How does organizational change as a
trigger event activates the latent faultline(s) in the team?
Within this team, the organizational change functioned as a trigger event for the activation of (latent) faultlines. Due to the occurrence of the organizational change the team had to perform different tasks than prior to the change. The different specialties present within this team have worked together for three years prior to the change, but after the implementation of the organizational change the way they needed to work together was more intense because they depended more on each other in order to perform tasks effectively. This can be seen in the following quote: “I always had a normal connection with him, just drinking coffee, but nothing
besides that…Now, we [different professions] are working together, trying to find project in the region.” A related concept to the implementation of the organizational change, in this team, is
equivocality. All of the team members interviewed from this team expressed that they felt uncertain about the direction of the organizational change and the influence hereof on them and the team: “A lot of things are uncertain, this leads to chaos.” and “It is difficult to execute, you
first need to get the picture before starting.” Three of the interviewed team members did not
understood the ‘Why’ of the change. The following quotes are examples of these feelings: “I
do not know what the direction wants to achieve with this change, I guess they just want to save costs.”, “I think it needs to happen because the government wants it” Lastly, it seemed that
team members experienced uncertainty about their role and the role of their team members: “No
one know what to do, what the new roles are, what the situation is.” and “There is a lot of uncertainty about who does what and who is responsible for which tasks. Not only the teachers, but also the management team finds this difficult to deal with [HR]” To conclude,
M.C.A. Brinkhof 23 4.2.2 Perceived faultlines
The sub questions relating to this concept are: How do team members perceive the
faultlines present in their team, after the occurrence of organizational change? and How do the team members categorize themselves (e.g. on subgroup- or superordinate level)?
After organizational change triggered the activation of faultlines, the team members of this team perceived different faultlines within the team. These faultlines were created on different attributes, such as profession, tasks, and roles within the organizational change: “It is
related to the role you have; if you need to work with somebody, and you spend more time together, a bound is created.” and “You always have people who are more open to change, and one’s that are not”. It also seemed to be important for team members that they know each other,
due to the fact they have worked together for some time: “You have a mutual past…you shared
things, and you know each other more personally.” Within this team, two members toke an
active role within the organizational change. The other team members did not take such a role, and expressed they “wait-and-see” about what was going to happen. This difference in attitude and behavior during the change leads to the creation of three subgroups in this team. The two active members formed subgroup one and the other team members formed subgroup two and three: “There are people concerned with Regioleren, and talk about this all the time, and you
have the team members who do not do this…This leads to some kind of separation within the team.” and “There is a group who is trying to make the best out of it. And there is a group who does not speak about it, hoping the change would not happen.” Subgroup two and three are
not found based upon expressions of team members, so the researcher cannot state how many members were in the two groups. Two team members stated the following: “We have a group
that is in the middle, a group that is ahead of the rest, and a group that is somewhat left behind.”
and “There is a category plus, a category min and a large group that is in the middle.”
Considering the influence of these subgroups on the relationship within the team, it seemed that sometimes, during meetings for example, it was difficult to get everybody facing the same direction. A member of subgroup one stated that (s)he perceived some kind of power struggle between the two groups. Especially, the group who was not willing to talk about the change, was not content with the way the change influenced their tasks and responsibilities, was mainly concerned with the wellbeing of their own subgroup: “I see that these people are
all about their own wellbeing, and do not take into account the wellbeing of the whole team.”
M.C.A. Brinkhof 24 have a whole bunch of tests they need to check, and I am just driving around through the region, talking to people about projects [acquisition].”, “They do not see that I am busy with the change all the time, even in my car.” and “Some people pick up the changes more faster than others, and you get some kind of incomprehension, jealousy, and even resentment.”
The created subgroups were linked to the concept of categorization on a subgroup- or superordinate level. It seemed, the team members who were present in subgroup one, were concerned with the overall success of the organizational change: they were willing to invest extra time and energy in order for the change to become successful. One of them expressed that (s)he finds the change and the new tasks challenging, but was willing to take this challenge, because (s)he felt it was a good change: “It takes time, but it is very pleasant to do.”, “I had the
feeling, for some time now, that something needed to change.” and “I see it as a challenge, I see the positive things in the change.”. The members of the other two subgroups did not express
any feelings of attitude that could be interpreted as categorization on superordinate level.
4.2.3 Readiness for change
The sub question relating to this concept is: What is the relationship between perceived
faultlines within the team and the readiness for change, on both individual and group level?
The readiness for change score of team two is 3.97 (Appendix C). When this score was compared to the answers of the team members provides during the interview sessions, this seemed to be correct, but it was expected even to be lower. Two of them did not felt the urgency to change and expressed a somewhat negative attitude towards the change: “Students will have
time to gain experience when they are working, why do we need to do this now.” and “I do not see the point of changing the way we teach.” They did not see the need of the organization to
change its way of education its students, in order to adapt to the external environment and its demands. Only two team members (subgroup two) expressed positive feelings towards the change and were perceives to be ready for change. They had some concerns, but were feeling the urgency to change, focusing on the positive parts of the change: “Students change, so
educating them the old fashion way does not work anymore. So, in my opinion, something big needed to change.” and “I now that is we do not change right now, the school will not survive.”
M.C.A. Brinkhof 25
based upon low(er)/high(er) readiness, the resulting subgroup is also low(er)/high(er) ready for change. Within this team, subgroup two was the larger subgroup in the team. This team, mainly consisting of members with a lower readiness for change, influenced the readiness of the entire team (e.g. group level), but not in a positive way. It seemed that the team members influenced the others in a such a way that it increased the negative attitude towards the change: “During
meetings they have big mouth, screaming things they do not want to do, when they not even take part in the change.” Because the other subgroup only exists of two members, their influence
on the entire team was minimal. Other members of the team just mention them as the “two
people who are ahead” and do not seemed to be inspired by their actions.
4.2.4 Conclusion
Organizational change does trigger the activation of faultlines present in team two. The members in this team perceived faultlines based on different attributes, both visible and nonvisible, such as profession, tenure, and their role within the organizational change. These perceived faultlines that were active within the team lead to the creation of three subgroups, the one consisting of two team members and the other two with the other ten members. Within this team, the individual readiness for change relates to the concept of perceived faultlines in a way that it functioned as a nonvisible attribute on which team members form faultlines. Perceived faultlines, and the resulting subgroups, related to group readiness for change in a way it influenced the overall readiness of the team. The subgroups in this team which consist of ten team members, based on a low readiness for change, leads to a lower readiness of the entire team.
4.3 Cross-case analysis
4.3.1 Organizational change as a trigger event
M.C.A. Brinkhof 26 to be flexible. But I like this, I like chaos and flexibility.” When looking at team two, this effect
was found; team members talked about the uncertainties and searched company of people who felt the same way (mainly an uncomfortable feeling). The team leader of this team noticed that the team members felt uncomfortable about the uncertainties caused by the change: “I notice
them being insecure. This is because it is so big. Prior to the change you just had lessons you needed to prepare and after you gave this lesson, it was over. Now they have to let things go, let other people do the tasks, and they do not know if these people perform the tasks the right way.”, “People who like structure, who want to perform at a high level, have to wait longer to receive confirmation about the success of the tasks.” and “This dependency on other parties is the main bottleneck in this team.” (S)he also stated that it was noticeable that these members
searched company of members who shared these feelings, resulting in a large group with the same feelings.
4.3.2 Perceived faultlines
First, it seemed that both teams perceived faultlines based on visible and nonvisible attributes. Examples of these visible attributes were tenure and profession. Nonvisible attributes, such as personality, orientation (conservative/future), and working methods, seemed to be more present in both teams. A main difference between the two teams, was the creation of subgroups based on the perceived faultlines and the influence hereof on the relations within the teams. In team one, the resulting subgroups had a positive influence on the overall relations within the team – the subgroup consistent of members with a highly positive and active attitude towards the change inspired the other subgroup. However, in team two, the subgroups were so different, that members from the subgroup consisting of only two people experienced a distribution within the team. This difference was mainly found in the roles team members had in the organizational change – the two members who formed subgroup one had a very active role, related to the organizational goal of this change (e.g. superordinate identification), and were willing to invest time and energy within the change. The other team members expressed to be more “wait-and-see” and will change when they need to change. One team members for example expressed to be “sceptic” and the following quote is an example of this attitude: “Some
guru comes to our school to give some kind of lecture about things. But he has no experience with is, not with the students etc. But apparently he knows things, so he can give us a lecture about it.” The difference between the two teams seemed to be due to the fact that the differences
M.C.A. Brinkhof 27 4.3.3 Readiness for change
In both teams individual readiness for change functions as an attribute for the creation and (after organizational change occurs) activation of faultlines. Team members who felt more ready for the change bounded with team members who experienced the same level of readiness. This was also true for team members with low(er) readiness for change. The relation between perceived faultlines and group readiness for change differs between the two teams. The readiness of team one (group level), were both the subgroups (resulting from the activation of perceived faultlines) expressed higher readiness for change, was higher than the readiness of team two. This was because the subgroups present in team two that consists of a combined number of ten team members was perceived to be (very) low in terms of readiness. This leads to a lower readiness for change level of the entire team.
Another difference that was found between the two teams was the difference in individual readiness for change of the team leaders. In team one, the team leader expressed to be ready for the change, felt the urgency and need for change, and was fully supporting the change: “My work becomes more interesting”, “The longer we are in the change, the more I
like it.” And “I do not see the disadvantages, I only see that it is fun and interesting to do.”
The team leader of team two was a bit more reticent about the organizational change and felt slightly uncomfortable with the equivocality resulting from the change: “I feel slightly
uncomfortable with changes, and I notice this also among the people in my team”, “Would like to see more organized changes” and “This system is brought into our organization in a very chaotic manner, but this is not my style” and “This was not the best method for us.” This was
also experienced by her/his team members and the team members from the other team, who describes him/her as “conservative”.
Another factor that differs between the two teams was the need for support from the organization during the organizational change. In team one, they feel comfortable with the process as it was. They express that the organization could do more about coaching, but they have enough support from the other team members in their team. The team leader stated: “Support is translated to a high degree of freedom. When we need something, we can come up
with an idea an present this to the director.” and “We use the space we get and just go on.” A
team member in this team expressed this same attitude: “When I roughly know what needs to
be done, I just think of possible ways to get there.” The team members in this team were more
M.C.A. Brinkhof 28
team members in subgroup one stated that this might helped to change the sceptic attitude of some team members: “I think everyone understand that we need to change, and that they are
willing to change. But at the moment, they react on the process.” and “People react and are disappointed about the process, and they do not want to proceed. They feel powerless, disappointed and are not happy about the way the organizational handles the change.” (S)he
M.C.A. Brinkhof 29 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this section, the main research question “How do activated (perceived) faultlines,
triggered by organizational change, influence the readiness for change on both the individual and group level?” will be answered.
First, the study implies that organizational change functions as a trigger event and does activate (latent) faultlines. Due to organizational change, the roles and responsibilities of team members change, resulting in different working relations as prior to the change. A result of this shift within teams is that team members are bonding with different team members than before the change, activating (new) faultlines within the teams. Organizational change makes differences among team members more visible. The activated faultlines are based mainly on nonvisible attributes such as the personality and interests of team members. This differs from the situation prior to the change, were the main attributes were visible attributes, such as education and tenure. One of these nonvisible attributes that came to the surface after the occurrence of the organization change is the position of team members within the organizational change and their orientation towards the future. Team members who are future oriented, active, and supportive of the change are drawn to people with a similar orientation. This is also true for team members who feel more comfortable with the situation as it was, and are more conservative – they form faultlines based upon this orientation. A possible explanation for this diversity among team members’ orientation, is the profession in which the team members are teaching. This may be a reason because, for example, the agriculture in which team two is specialized is a more conservative sector itself compared to the professions present in the other team (e.g. more creative professions). The contacts between team members of this profession and the external parties within this sector, may influence their attitude toward the change in a way they are content with the situation as it is and do not feel the need to change. The results also indicate that there were indeed team members, especially from team one, which identify themselves on a superordinate level. This identification results in an active and supportive attitude of these team members, because they are concerned with the overall success of the organizational change. The team members, especially present in team two, who did not identify on a superordinate level, but still identify on a subgroup level, did not show this attitude.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 30
This is also true for team members who are not ready for the change; they have a less positive attitude towards the change, and relate to team members who express the same attitude. The results indicate that the creation of faultlines is based upon the individual readiness for change level (low/high); individual readiness, in this study, seems to be a nonvisible attribute of faultline creation. When organizational change functions as a trigger event, activating faultlines formed on this different readiness levels, the resulting subgroups also differ in terms of readiness for change. The low or high (sub)group readiness for change in return influence the team readiness (e.g. readiness for change on group level) in a way that the created subgroups based upon individual readiness influences the overall readiness of the team, potentially in positive or negative ways. This effect was found in both teams, but the readiness of the team is only influenced by the larger subgroups. Another variable that seemed to be important in determining the group readiness for change is the individual readiness for change of the team leader. A difference between the two teams was the attitude of the team leader of these teams. One team leader expressed to be ready for the change, had an active attitude, and was communicating the need for change towards his/her team members. The team leader of the other team stated that (s)he was more conservative and expressed an wait-and-see attitude. This may have influenced the team members in such a way they might have copied his/her level of readiness for change.
Considering these insights, a revised conceptual model seems to be in place (figure 2). The arrows from the variable individual readiness of the team leader (TL) to the individual readiness of the team members (TM) and (sub)group readiness for change is dotted, because the information gathered in this study is not enough to determine the precise nature of these relationships. Based upon the information that is gathered, assumed is this would be the accurate position of this variable in the revised conceptual model.
M.C.A. Brinkhof 31 5.1 Theoretical implications
The results have several theoretical implications. Firstly, the analysis of teams operating in a change context provides more insight in the nonvisible attributes that are important in the activation of faultlines (Li & Hambrick, 2005; Mathieu et al., 2013). As suggested by Harrison et al. (2002), both the visible and nonvisible diversity influences the effectiveness of a team. Consistent with this idea, in this study, it seems that both forms of diversity influence the effectiveness of the teams, but the nonvisible diversity within the teams seems to have a higher impact after the implementation of organizational change. Most existing research was focused on the visible attributes (e.g. age, gender etc.), but in this study, it seems that these attributes were less important in a situation where organizational change functions as a trigger event. The faultlines were mainly formed based on nonvisible attributes, such as personality characteristics and working methods. Because team members have to change the routines, roles and tasks, the stability within this team decreases (LePine, 2003). Team members are ‘forced’ to start again in the stabilization process, resulting in the creation and activation of (new) faultlines within these teams. In this study, these new and activated faultlines were based on personality attributes and individual readiness for change, leading to the creation of subgroups that were different as prior to the change.
Second, current study provides insight in this activation of faultlines by focusing not only on subgroup identification, but also on the identification at the superordinate level (Gover & Duxbury, 2012; Sethi, 2000). This can be seen in the fact that certain people were not supporting organizational change, and focused on their own subgroup and the wellbeing of this subgroup. Other team members did identify on a superordinate level, resulting in an active attitude towards the organizational change and a feeling of responsibility for the overall success of the change on organizational level. This has the result, as investigated by Begley & Czajka (1993), that the team members who did identify themselves on a superordinate level, experience less stress during organizational change and the resulting loss of stability. In line with the social identity theory, it indeed seems to be that team members place (e.g. self-categorization) themselves in a subgroup and want to feel positive about their place within this group (e.g. self-enhancement) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
M.C.A. Brinkhof 32
facets that are important for the creation of readiness for change (Cawsey et al., 2012). In addition, readiness for change is linked to the concept of social identity, as suggested by Gover & Buxbury (2012) in a way individual readiness for change functions as a nonvisible attribute, leading to subgroup relation based upon the activated faultlines. Subgroups are formed and team members derive their identity from these subgroups in which they place themselves. The readiness for change of the subgroup influences the readiness for change of the individuals.
5.2 Implications for practice
This research also has some practical implications. Firstly, this study shows the importance of creating awareness about the urgency and a need for change among team members. An organization, and its managers, should provide means to team leaders in order to create this feeling among their team members. For example, they can organize meetings where they explain the ‘why’ of the change, answer questions of team members and give them a chance to express their concerns. This will help to create awareness about the urgency and at the same time, the critical attitude of the team members can help the organization to perform better. Second, it also seems to be important to ‘make the change your own’, as suggested by Caswey et al. (2012). Team members felt that the change was forced upon them, and by letting them be part of the change, make them change agents, their attitude might be more positive. Even though this will not work for all the team members, as showed in this study, the individual readiness will be influenced by the readiness of the subgroup. This group readiness will become higher, when more people feel ready, and the rest will follow because of their identification with the subgroup. In this way, the organization and its managers/team leaders can use the subgroup creation in a positive way. Thirdly, this research highlights the important role of superordinate identity. The organization can invest time and energy in the stimulation of superordinate identification to enhance the active attitude of team members and their willingness to support organizational change. This can be done by linking the individual performance to the performance of the organization as a whole, make team members aware of the fact that the effectiveness of the organization is a result of their actions, and vice versa. A result of this might be that team members will feel less powerless in the periods prior and during the organizational change because they can influence the success of it.
5.3 Limitations and future directions
