Transformational Leadership as a Moderator: Reducing the Negative Impact of Activated Change Related Faultlines on Team Performance

(1)

57

Transformational Leadership as a Moderator: Reducing the Negative

Impact of Activated Change Related Faultlines on Team Performance

By Francisca Venema

University of Groningen - Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc. Business Administration - Change Management

Supervisor: Dr. Joyce Rupert

Francisca Venema

Voorstraat 134a

1931AP Egmond Aan Zee

0651391969

francisca.venema@gmail.com

Student number: s2223457

29 April, 2014

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

The formation of subgroups within a work team, also referred to as faultline activation, can lead to many negative effects to the group process and outcomes. Faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that can cause the formation of subgroups due to having similar attributes. The actual formation of these subgroups is known as faultline activation. Faultlines can result in many negative effects such as, reduced communication, conflict, reduced team performance, identity threat and team fragmentation. The role that transformational leadership plays in reducing the negative effects, such as conflict, reduced team performance and reduced team identification in the faultline activation model are explored in this grounded-theory study. This research has been conducted with 48 real work teams, with differing compositions, tasks and branches, that are currently in a change situation. The main contribution of this study is that it shows a positive significant relationship for transformational leadership as a moderator between change related activated faultlines and team performance. This suggests that transformational leaders play a crucial role in increasing team performance in teams in which faultlines have been activated due to the change that have been put into effect within the team. The role of the different types of conflict; emotional, task and process conflict, in this process have also been investigated. Even though these types of conflict are a result of activated change related faultlines, there appears to be no relation between conflict and team performance. This research helps in our understanding into how team performance can be upheld in organizational change situations.

(3)

2

1. INTRODUCTION

Managing diversity in the workforce is becoming more and more relevant in today’s organization’s as the demographics of our society continue to change (Mannix and Naele, 2005; Rupert, 2012; Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000; Joshi et al., 2006; Soni, 2000). The management of this diversity has become more and more crucial in organizations nowadays. Society and organizations are experiencing a shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service based economy, combined with globalization of the marketplace, which is bringing people with more diverse backgrounds into contact with each other (Jackson, 1992; Shen, Chanda, D’Netto and Monga, 2009). Diversity has been described as being a ‘double-edged sword’ (Millikens and Martins, 1996; Phillips, Northcraft and Neale, 2006), having the potential to both benefit and disrupt team performance (van Knippenberg and Schipper, 2007; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Carefully managing and valuing diversity can make it a source of competitive advantage, increase the quality of organizational life and be good for business in the long run (Cassell, 1996). The growing importance of managing diversity can also be seen through the extensive research that has been done in this field of study in the past couple of decades (by authors such as, Alverson, 1998; Barrile, 2003; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000; Jehn et al., 2008; Mannix and Neale, 2005; Milliken and Martins, 1996; Soni, 2000). Diversity among people is often seen as “any attribute that another person may use to detect individual differences” (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998, p.81). Organizations have also changed to less hierarchical organizational structures and the increased the use of work teams in the past decades (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Jackson, Stone and Alvaraz, 1992; Tolbert, Andrews and Simmons, 1995). The increasing diversity of the workforce in combination with the growing trend of work teams has caused considerable interest in the inter-group interactions within work teams (Carton and Cummings, 2012; Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Webber and Donahue, 2001). The changing composition of the work force has consequently also changed the composition of work teams. In order to remain competitive in the today’s turbulent and continuously changing global economy, it is important for workers to become increasingly specialized, yet also work together in cross-functional teams, increasing demand for coordination and management of the work teams (Lipnack and Stamps, 1993; Mohrman, Cohen and Mohrman, 1995).

(6)

5 range of knowledge, expertise and perspectives within diverse teams than in homogenous teams (Hoffman, 1959), should work positively for work teams. The general belief that diversity in teams will lead to a direct increase in the variety of perspectives brought to a problem, due to increased information sharing, and consequently to greater creativity and the quality of team performance (Mannix and Neale, 2005), however, has only been under very limited circumstances. Diversity has however also been found to have several negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict in groups by creating social divisions (Webber and Donahue, 2001; Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). The larger the work team the greater the chance of negative consequences of diversity occurring within a work team (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007; Timmerman, 2000). Social division within a work team, caused by the increased diversity, has lead us to look at the reasons for and causes of these divisions.

Social division within a work team can be formed on different bases. Many different researchers (Mannix and Neale, 2005; McGrath et al., 1995; Jackson et al., 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; Carton and Cummings, 2012; Li and Hambrick, 2005; Lau and Murnighan, 1998) have researched diversity and in the different types of diversity that there is. The most common categorization of the types of diversity is between observable/demographic and underlying attributes/non-demographic (Jackson et al., 1998; Milliken and Martins, 1996; Mannix and Neale, 2005), these terms will be used interchangeably throughout this paper. Observable or demographic diversity attributes include age, gender, ethnic background and physical abilities. Underlying attributes or non-demographic attributes, are the attributes that you cannot identify by simply looking at a person. These attributes include technical abilities, educational background, tenure in the organization and personality differences. Differences between people within a group may lead to this social division of people within a group. The social division of people, and hence the formation of subgroups is closely linked to faultline theory which suggests that faultlines are the reason why subgroups are formed (Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Mannix and Neale, 2005).

(7)

6 have identified five trigger events that may activate these faultlines (1) differential treatment, (2) differing values, (3) assimilation (the expectation that all members will act similarly), (4) insult and (5) simple contact. Changes in organizations may have the potential to trigger these events, however only very limited research has been done in this regard. The trigger events may also be seen as change related faultline bases, that is a change in the organization is what causes one of the trigger events to occur. The change of interaction patterns and work processes can inadvertently trigger a faultline (Gover and Duxbury, 2012). Researchers have been trying to further understand the relationship between personal identity and the activation of faultlines and organizational changes, however the research examining this phenomenon is very limited (Gover and Duxbury, 2012). This paper attempts to add to the literature by examining the activated faultlines in a change context.

(8)

7 been found to be able to inspire its team members to move beyond their own self-interests for the wellbeing of the organization, it can have an extraordinary effect on the team members (Bass and Avolio, 1997).

This study contributes to theory in several ways: (1) to date there has been very little research into the activation of faultlines in an organizational change context (2) the role of leadership within the faultline theory and its consequent role as moderator in this process, and thereby the possibility of leadership helping to overcome the negative effects of activated faultlines and realizing renewed team identification and increasing team performance. This research will help managers to see understand the effects of faultline activation and what their role in overcoming the negative effects can be. Understanding how changes within an organisation can trigger the formation of subgroups in work teams is key for managers to respond to such change events (Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber, and Ernst, 2009).

The research question leading from this is: “What is the role of transformational leadership

(9)

8

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Diversity

Arai et al. (2001) define diversity as the “differences in age, gender and physical ability and qualities, religious belief, and sexual/ affectional orientation”. Another definition of diversity is “differences, similarities and related tensions among people in the workplace based on demographic dimensions, secondary influences, and work diversities” (Tetteh, 2008). However these definitions are very limited and only include the demographic aspects that are diversity. The most commonly used definition of diversity is “any attribute that another person may use to detect individual differences.” (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998, p.81). From this can be derived that diversity is anything that one can consider himself to be different from others. This may be on the basis of age, gender, nationality, beliefs, attitudes, values, and much more. This definition of diversity will be used for this thesis as it encompassed the fact that diversity is not only based on demographic, but also on non-demographic characteristics. Demographic characteristics, such as age, race and gender are most often negatively associated with teams being able to function effectively (Mannix and Neale, 2005). Whereas the non-demographic characteristics, such as values and beliefs have been found to be positively related to performance (Mannix and Neale, 2005), the demographic characteristics are objective as they are based on observable characteristics, whereas non-demographic characteristics are subjective. Both the objective and subjective characteristics may be perceived differently by each team member, as the values that one holds can be seen in another way by different people.

Rupert (2012) states that diversity is about two different aspects, it is a tension between wanting to be a unique individual and wanting to belong at the same time. Where the challenge in managing the diversity is to ensure that both needs are met simultaneously, creating both inclusion and integration in the organization. If this is not done there will be a state of conformity and competition in the organization. Cross (1996) indicates that the management of diversity follows a three phase model, where first individual education and awareness need to be addressed, followed by capacity building, where the necessary policies and procedures are introduced into the organization, and ending with a culture change, where diversity is recognized by all and creates a state of equality between all. Diversity management is however made difficult as on the one hand society wants everyone to integrate and become one pool of people, while on the other hand society wants to exist as a multicultural organization where differences between people are celebrated and upheld (Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000).

(10)

9 in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and the opportunity to share knowledge and thereby lead to greater capacity and quality of team performance (Mannix and Neale, 2005; Hoffman, 1959; Hoffman and Maier, 1961). However often a pessimistic view is also found where diversity creates social division, which leads to negative performance outcomes for the group (Mannix and Neale, 2005). Many researchers (Mannix and Neale, 2005; Chatman, Polzer, Barsade and Neale, 1998; Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999, Woehr, Arcinieg and Poling, 2013, Webber and Donahue, 2001; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998; Hofman, 1959; Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Greenhaus et al., 1990) have established that diversity can have negative effects on social integration and communication and can lead to conflict within the team. The challenge lies in minimising the pessimistic outcomes of diversity and maximising the optimistic outcomes through managing the perceived differences (faultlines) within a team. The negative view of diversity often has the formation of subgroups within teams as effect. The basis for the formation of these subgroups lies in the similarity-attraction and social-identity theories. Social-identity theory is based on intergroup behaviour by individuals centred around how members identify themselves socially (Carton and Cummings, 2012), individuals are attracted to one another as they identify themselves as having the same core characteristics as others (Hogg and Terry, 2000). The similarity-attraction theory predicts that attributes such as values, attitudes and beliefs will facilitate interpersonal skills and the liking of others within a group (Newcomb, 1961). Individuals will be more attracted to those with similar values, attitudes and beliefs (Byrne, 1971) and thus the formation of subgroups with those who hold similar belief, values and attitudes is likely. Thus diversity within teams can have both positive and negative effects, however the negative effects are often caused by the formation of subgroups within teams.

2.2 Faultlines

(11)

10 thereby creating two subgroups, one consisting of solely men and one consisting of solely women. However, if these men and women do not consider this to make them different from one another, then no subgroups need to form. Faultlines become stronger as more possible differences align (Lau and Murnighan, 1998). For example, when not only gender, but also the age of the team members creates the basis for the subgroup formation. Dormant faultlines can exist within groups without having any impact on team performance as long as they are inactive (Lau and Murnighan, 1998). Figure 1 shows the faultline activation model.

Figure 1: Faultline activation model

2.2.1 Faultline Activation

The activation of a dormant faultline occurs when the team members perceive the faultline as being present and form subgroups based on this, thereby activating the dormant faultline (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). Faultlines may be activated through a “faultline trigger”, which is a certain event or situation, which changes the current situation within the team (Rink and Jehn, 2010). Previous research by Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber, Ernst (2009) has identified five main faultline triggers, (1) differential treatment, (2) differing values, (3) assimilation (the expectation that all members will act similarly), (4) insult and (5) simple contact. A change in the organization is the result of a trigger event that has taken place. The change of interaction patterns and work processes can inadvertently trigger a faultline (Gover and Duxbury, 2012). This research will focus on situations where a dormant faultline has been triggered by a change in the organization and/or team, and thereby add to the literature by researching change related activation of faultlines. This research therefore assumes that the faultline activation is caused by change prior to investigation, and thus the activation process from dormant to activated faultline has already taken place. This research will look at all types of changes that affect a work team, ranging from an organization wide change, such

(12)

11 as mergers and large scale reorganisations to small procedural changes and changes which only affect one team or department, affecting the way in which the team works.

2.2.2 Activated Faultlines

An activated faultline has been found to have negative impacts on group performance (Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Thatcher et al., 2003; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). The negative interactions between subgroups that may result from activated faultlines can be explained by social identity theory, social categorization theory and similarity-attraction theory. These theories highlight the problems with differences within a group (Mannix and Neale, 2005). Social categorization theory (Turner, 1985) is the process by which people define themselves as being part of a particular group. Individuals see themselves as being part of a particular category, based on for example, race, age or beliefs, and want to be part of this ‘in-group’, which leads to depersonalization and various groups, causing lowered team identification (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1985; Thatcher and Patel, 2013). Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Bartel, 2001) considers that individuals self-identity is based on what groups they are a part of, it is an extension of the social categorization theory. People want to be part of the in-group as this gives them a sense of pride and self-esteem and would thus favour this at the expense of the team (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1985), this results in negative effects such as team fragmentation and conflict. Social identity theory and social categorization theory lead to negative aspects of group formation or faultline activation. Similarity-attraction theory in contrast explains why individuals are attracted to one another, they view those who hold similar beliefs as more intelligent, knowledgeable and well-adjusted (Byrne, 1971; Berscheid, 1985). In this theory the formation of subgroups is based on these similar characteristics (Thatcher and Patel, 2012).

(13)

12 2.3 Group Processes - Conflict

The activation of change based faultlines may cause a number of different group processes to occur. These processes include conflict, coalition forming, sharing of information, behavioural integration and psychological safety (Jehn, 1995; Lin, Hsu, Cheng, & Wu, 2012; Hambrick, 1994; Amason, 1996; Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). This research focuses on conflict as a group process that occurs after change related faultlines have been activated. Conflict in general decreases positive states within a group and leads to a decrease in a team’s ability to retain its members (Jehn, Greer, Levine and Szulanski, 2008). It interferes with cognitive processes that are necessary to process information and make effective and high quality decisions (Jehn, Greer, Levine and Szulanski, 2008). Many negative emotions such as jealousy, hatred, anger, and frustration are associated with conflict, which can negatively affect group processes and performance (Pinkley, 1990).

Conflict can be distinguished into three different types of conflict; relationship, task, and process conflict (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Jehn, Greeg, Levine and Szulanski, 2008, Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999; Amason, 1996). Relationship conflict involves the interpersonal incompatibilities between group members that are not directly related to the tasks of the work team, it includes personal issues such as dislike, frustration, annoyance, tension and irritation (Ayub and Jehn, 2010; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Amason, 1996; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Pinkley, 1990; Huang, 2012). Task

conflict involves disagreement with the content of the tasks, such as differences in the ideas,

opinions and viewpoints of the task (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Ayub and Jehn, 2010). More recently process conflict has also become a prominent conflict type. Process conflict are disagreements about the responsibilities each person has, and the resources different people should have (Jehn, 1997; Ayub and Jehn, 2010; Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999; Jehn and Mannix, 2001).

(14)

13 be a result of the faultline activation. As previously mentioned, a change can activate faultlines and as faultlines can cause conflict, I propose that change based faultline activation causes the three different types of conflict within a work team, as the activation of faultlines has been known to cause subgroup formation within work teams, which consequently leads to conflict between the different subgroups within the work team.

Hypothesis 1a: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of relationship conflict within a work team.

Hypothesis 1b: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of task conflict within a work team.

Hypotheis 1c: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of process conflict within a work team.

2.4 Group Outcomes

Within in the faultline activation model group processes result in group outcomes. Group outcomes in the faultline activation include change effectiveness, performance, innovation, team learning, team identification and commitment. The activation of change related faultlines often leads to negative effects on these group outcomes, such as lower change effectiveness (Gover and Duxbury, 2012), lower performance (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010, Li and Hambrick, 2005; Thatcher, Jehn and Zanutto, 2003), lower innovation, lower team learning (Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003; Lau and Murnighan, 2005; Jehn and Rupert, 2008), lower team identification (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Lau and Murnighan, 1996) and less commitment. This research looks at the group process conflict and two of the group outcomes leading from this, namely team performance and team identification.

2.4.1 Team performance

The effect of activated faultlines on team performance has been researched by many different researchers in the past (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003; Li and Hambrick, 2005; Thatcher, Jehn and Zanutto, 2003; Lau and Murnighan, 2005; Rink and Jehn, 2010). Activated faultlines have been shown to hinder team performance, due to the negative influence that group processes such as conflict and coalition formation have on a team (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Li and Hambrick, 2005, Thatcher and Patel, 2012; Rink and Jehn, 2010). The stronger the activated faultline is the higher the effect on team performance is (Thatcher and Patel, 2012; Bezrukova, Thatcher and Jehn, 2007).

(15)

14 impacts team performance (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix; 2001; Amason, 1996; Jehn, Greer, Levine and Szulanski, 2008; Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999). Research by Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) has shown that activated group faultlines also negatively affect team performance. As conflict is a group process resulting from activated faultlines we will assume that activated faultlines consequently also affect team performance. The three different types of conflict previously described can have different effects, therefore they will need to be discussed separately.

Relationship conflict distracts team members from the task at hand, by involving personal

issues and inhibiting cognitive functioning (Staw, Sandless and Dutton, 1981), which causes less effective work and leads to suboptimal results (Argyris, 1962; Kelley, 1972). Negative responses such as anxiety, affiliation and hatred are common responses in relationship conflict (Huang, 2012). Researchers have shown such reactions to lead to decreased team member satisfaction and unwillingness for them to be working together in the future (Jehn, 1995; Shah and Jehn, 1993). Relationship conflict has been found to be detrimental to decision quality and more importantly to team performance by many researchers (Jehn, 1995; Shah and Jehn, 1993; Huang, 2012; Jehn, 1997; Amason, 1996; Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Evan, 1965). I therefore propose that a higher level of relationship conflict will lead to lower performance in the work team.

Hypothesis 2a: The higher the level of relationship conflict within a team, the lower the performance of the work team.

Task conflict has been found to cause tension, antagonism, and unhappiness among the team

members (Jehn, 1995). However contrary to relationship conflict it has also been found to have several positive aspects to the workings of a team. In fact moderate levels of task conflict has been found to be improve decision quality due to constructive criticism and suggestions of alternative approaches (Mason and Mitroff, 1981; Burgeois, 1981; Schweiger and Sandberg, 1989; Swenck, 1990; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Jehn, 1997) and to be beneficial to team performance as superior decisions are made through the inclusion of different viewpoints (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Shah, 1997; Shah and Jehn, 1993, Amason, 1996; Barki and Hartwick, 2004; Amason and Schweiger, 1994). I therefore propose that as the level of task conflict within a team increases, so will the performance of the work team. That said it must be noted that task conflict has the ability to turn into relationship conflict if they cannot agree on the task issues, task conflict in this case is often seen as a personal attack (Jehn, 1997).

(16)

15

Process conflict has only been identified in recent years by researchers such as Jehn (1997),

Jehn, Northcraft and Neale (1999) and Jehn and Mannix (2001). It has been found to interfere with the task content and quality and to misdirect focus (Jehn, 1997), decrease productivity (Jehn, 1992), and reduce team members ability to effectively work on their task assignments (Jehn, Northcraft and Neale, 1999). Previous research has shown higher levels of process conflict are experienced by the team, the lower the group performance of the team will be (Jehn and Mannix, 2001). I propose that as the level of process conflict rises, the performance of the team will suffer and thus be worse.

Hypothesis 2c: The higher the level of process conflict within a team, the lower the performance of the work team.

2.4.2 Team identification

Activated change faultlines affect group outcomes such as team identification (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010). Team identification is defined as the emotional significance that team members attach to the team membership of their work team (van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Team identification leads to team members having an overall positive relationship with the work team (Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989), it helps them to perceive the team as a crucial part of their own identification and see the team’s goals and tasks as more important than their own (Shamir, 1992; Brewer, Manzi and Shaw, 1993). The level at which team members are willing to cooperate with the team is directly influenced by the extent to which they identify with the group (Tyler and Blader, 2003). Team identification is usually experienced through interdependence from three major sources: goals, tasks and outcomes (Campion, Papper and Medsker, 1996), team performance is a major outcome that is related to team identification. The positive aspects of team identification make it a desirable group outcome of the faultline activation process. A clear link between the group process conflict and group outcome team identification has also been established by several researchers (Millikens and Martins, 1996; Carton and Cummings, 2012; Tyler and Blader, 2003).

(17)

16 (Campion, Papper and Medsker, 1996), when conflict on one of these aspects team identification has been found to be lower, as people’s level of cooperation within a team is shaped by the extent to which they identify with group (Tyler and Blader, 2003). No previous research has been done into the differing effects of the different types of conflict onto team identification, however as we have determined there to be three different types of conflict, this research will add to theory by looking at the effects of the different types of conflict on team identification. I propose that the higher the level of relationship, task and process conflict there is within a team, the lower the team identification of the team will be.

Hypothesis 3a: The more relationship conflict within a work team, the lower the team identification of a work team is.

Hypothesis 3b: The more task conflict within a work team, the lower the team identification of a work team is.

Hypothesis 3c: The more process conflict within a work team, the lower the team identification of a work team is.

2.5 Moderator - leadership

Research by Gratton, Vuight and Erickson (2007) found that a team leader’s role or style can significantly affect a team’s ability to bridge the activated faultlines, and reduce their negative effects. For example, the way in which leaders prioritized their actions and their leadership style significantly reduced the strength of the faultlines which hindered collaboration and the flow of knowledge (Gratton, Vuight and Erickson, 2007). This suggests that choice of leadership style may also be able to work as a moderator in reducing the negative effects activated faultlines may have on reduced team identification (fragmentation of the team) and reduced team performance (Kunze and Bruch, 2010; Zander and Butler, 2010).

(18)

17 Bass (1999) differentiates transactional from transformational leaders. Transactional leaders follow an exchange relationship between the leader and follower to meet their own self-interests, the followers are guided towards the established goals by clarifying the role and task requirements (Bass, 1999). Transformational leaders, in contrast, inspire their followers to move beyond their own self-interests for the wellbeing of the organization, which can have a motivating effect on the followers (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Transformational leaders have the ability to provide employees with a vision for the future and thereby inspiring them to overcome the obstacles that they will encounter during the change (Bass, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1997). Transformational leadership knows 4 different leadership behaviours, also known as the 4 I’s. Individualized consideration is displayed by leaders when they give each employee individual attention, pay attention to their developmental needs and support and coach this development (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Intellectual Stimulation involves leaders helping their followers to be more creative and innovative (Bass and Avolio, 1997). This also involves the leader considering the learning possibilities for its subordinates, and stimulating them to excel in their respective fields. Leaders who have high expectation and express important purposes in simple ways are said to be displaying Inspirational Motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Lastly Idealized Influence are leaders who instil pride and respect in their followers and who provide vision and a sense of mission (Bass and Avolio, 1997).

All aspects of transformational leadership result in extra effort from followers, higher productivity, higher morale and satisfaction, higher organizational effectiveness, lower turnover, lower absenteeism, and greater organizational adaptability (Robbins and Judge, 2012). Leaders can display both transactional and transformational leadership characteristics simultaneously, they are not to be considered as opposing styles, but rather as complementary leadership styles, they do however display more of one of the styles. Transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership it is able to produce higher levels of team member effort and performance (Robbins and Judge, 2012; Bono and Judge, 2003). Bass (1999) states that transactional leadership can be reasonably satisfying however transformational leadership can impact a great deal more than transactional leadership is able to. Transformational leaders are more able to keep subordinates satisfied and committed to the organization due to their personal traits (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Research has shown transformational leadership as being able to engender more commitment on the part of their followers (Avolio et al, 2004), and have the ability to positively influence employees’ reactions to organizational change by facilitating their acceptance of new ideas and reforms (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

(19)

18 to be able to influence their team members to have greater identification with their work team and thereby be more likely to sacrifice their success for that of the work team (Hogg, 2001; Lord, Brown and Freiberg, 1999; Bass, 1998; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer and Hogg, 2004). I propose that transformational leadership is able to act as a moderator between the negative effects of activated change related group processes on group outcomes, thereby toning down this negative relationship to team identification.

Hypothesis 4a: Transformational leadership acts as a moderator between activated change related faultlines and team identification.

Researchers have been able to find positive relationships between transformational leaders and team performance, due to the motivating characteristics that these type of leaders are able to show (Braun et al., 2013; Robbins and Judge, 2012; Bass, 1999; Bono and Judge, 2003) encouraging teams to adopt a cooperative, as opposed to competitive, approach to conflict management (Zhang, Cao and Tjosvold, 2011). Transformational leadership has been found to be able to inspire its team members to move beyond their own self-interests for the wellbeing of the organization, it can have an extraordinary effect on the team members (Bass and Avolio, 1997). I propose that transformational leadership can act as a moderator in reducing the negative effects of activated change related faultlines on team performance.

(20)

19

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Collection Method

This research uses a theory testing approach in order to answer the main research question raised in this paper. It uses deduction, testing and evaluation in order to conclude whether a relation between the two tested variables exists (Aken, Berends and van der Bij, 2012). This research investigates the intragroup workings within a work team and thus required the collection of data from all the team members in the work team. Also it was desired to establish a level ground, where all team members investigated were asked the same questions, and thereby making it easier to compare the different views of each of the team members. Cooper and Schindler (2008) consider a quantitative research method to be most appropriate to derive comparable date across subsets of the chosen sample, making it possible to find similarities and differences between the answers. Therefore it has been chosen to use a quantitative method of data collection for this research.

3.2 Sample and Procedure

A total of 75 teams with 448 team members were collected. A response rate of at least 80% of each team was required in order to be able to compare the results of each of the participants and to satisfy team level data aggregation. Twenty-three teams were discarded from the research as they did not comply with this criteria, this was a total of 31.67% of the total number of teams researched. 5 of the 275 questionnaires were discarded from the research due to missing data, these were questionnaires where respondents had completed less than 65% of the questionnaire. The removal of these questionnaires resulted in four more teams not being able to meet the 80% of team members condition.

A total of 48 teams consisting of 244 team members were researched for this study. The teams consisted of 3 to 15 team members with an average of 6.60 team members. 61.1% of the respondents were males and 38.9% of respondents were females. The respondents ranged from 17 to 62 years of age, with a mean age of 40.9. The level of education was, ranged from LBO to Master level, with a majority of the respondents with a least a HBO degree. The average tenure of the respondents at the current company was 41.8 months, where 62.5% of respondents were full-time employees, while 32.5% of respondents were part-time employees.

(21)

20 were researched. Hackman (1987) considers a group of people to be a team if it meets three criteria (1) team members and others within the organization recognize the group as a social system or team (2) there are at least three team members and (3) these team members share a responsibility for an end goal within the organization. Thus a group of workers is considered to be a work team if they work together to reach a common goal, it doesn’t need to necessarily be called a team within the organization, but may for instance also be called department, unit or group.

This research used several selection criteria in order to gain the sample for this study. Two criteria were selected for organizations to be considered as feasible for research (1) the organization and/or part of the organization had to be in change situation and/or have been affected by a change situation in the past year (2) the members of the organization had to work in teams. Possible organizations for data collection were found by firstly approaching people within my own personal network and inquiring whether the organization they worked for was experiencing a change or whether they knew of any organizations that were experiencing a change, and secondly, by approaching organizations known to be in a change situation. The first contact with organizations was established (1) through personal contact by contacts from my personal network that worked within organizations which satisfied the criteria, (2) through email contact outlining the research, its objective and contribution and potential benefits for the organization, (3) by calling the potential organizations and thereby also outlining the research, its objective and contribution and the potential benefits for the organization. Once organizations confirmed their willingness to cooperate in the research, it was discussed with the organization whether it would be best to distribute the questionnaire in hardcopy or digitally. In order to ensure an as high as possible response rate those organizations who received a hard copy version of the questionnaire were reminded of the questionnaire by the contact person within the organization after two weeks. Those organizations who received the questionnaire digitally were reminded of the questionnaire via email after two weeks.

3.3 Questionnaire

(22)

21 asking several different questions about the same topic, using different wording and testing different aspects (Aken, Berends and van der Bij, 2012).This is desirable for this research as the leadership style, team performance and team identification of the work teams were researched. The questionnaire was in Dutch as all respondents were Dutch and can be found in Appendix 5. However as the leader surveys did not reach minimum requirements they were not included in the research.

3.4 Measurements

This research examines three independent variables, activated faultlines, a change event and subgroup formation. This research also examines three dependent variables, team performance, team identification and conflict and one moderator transformational leadership. Validated scales were used for the questionnaires in order to increase the validity and reliability of the study (Cooper and Schindler, 2008; Jiang, Jackson, Shaw and Chung, 2012). A team grid completed by the team leader was also collected. This grid consisted of the demographic characteristics of the entire team, even of those members who did not (satisfactorily) complete a questionnaire in order to ensure the possibility of comparisons and analysis of the entire team and calculate objective faultlines. The variables were measured using a questionnaire developed. It must, however, be noted that the instrument is still in development and that therefore the change related activated faultlines variables may still have some flaws.

3.4.1 Independent Variables

Activated faultlines. Activated faultlines is made up of two variables, subgroup formation and activated change related faultlines. They were both measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from

(23)

22 3.4.2 Dependent Variables

Team performance. Team performance was measured by two questions in the team member

questionnaires. These statements are “My team performs well” and “My team works effectively”. The measurement of the variables is based on research by Jehn, Northcraft and Neale (1999).

Team identification. Team identification was measured by six items in the team member

questionnaire. These items included “I consider the group to be important” and “I feel a strong bond with my team”. The team identification items are based on …. (staat niet in de code lijst).

Conflict. Conflict was measured by nine items in the team member questionnaire. These

items included questions such as “How often do people get angry during work in your team?” and “How much conflict about ideas is there in your team?”. The conflict items are based on research by Jehn and Mannix (2001).

3.4.3 Moderator

Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured by ten items in the

team member questionnaire. These items include “Our leader speaks about his/her values and beliefs” and “Our leader stresses the importance of having a common mission”. The transformational leadership items are based on the typology of leaders by Bass and Avolio (1997).

3.4.4 Control variables

Change event. The research assumes that the faultlines have been activated by a change

event in the team. It was the main control variable in this research. The questionnaire covered several aspects of the teams change, such as when the change took place, what the main reason for the change was and in what phase of the change the organization was.

Goal similarity. Goal similarity was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The questionnaire

covered three questions regarding goal similarity. The scale for goal similarity was developed from research performed by Jehn (1995). Goal similarity was used to determine whether the teams researched in fact identified as a team. Statement included “As a team we have the same goals” and “As a team we agree on what is important to us as a team”.

Team interdependence. Team interdependence was also measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

(24)

23 3.5 Factor Analysis

After an initial investigation of the data using descriptive statistics and a missing values analysis, a factor analysis was performed. The factor analysis was a principal component analysis, with an eigen value of > 1. A varimax rotation was used for the factor analysis. A minimal loading of ,30 was required for it to be accepted, items lower than this were rejected. Double loadings were only removed initially if there was a minimum difference of ,20 between the loadings. The initial factor analysis had a KMO score of .63, and a significance of ,000. This can be accepted as the KMO score needs to be at least 0,6 and the significance can’t be greater than ,005. The initial factor analysis looks at 6 different components, that is; team performance (Perf), team identification (Identif), conflict (Conf), faultlines subgroup forming(FAU1-4), change related faultlines (FAU21, 22, 25-30) and the levels of transformational leadership, namely, idealized influence attributed (IIA), idealized influence behaviour (IIB), individualized consideration (CON), inspirational motivation (INSPIRE) and intellectual stimulation (INSTIM).

This initial factor analysis automatically gave 9 components, with many double loadings especially on the conflict and faultline items and some components created did not even have an item strictly loading on it. As said above the factor analysis should, based on theory reflect 6 different components, therefore the factor analysis was redone and forced into 6 components. This quickly showed that the team identification items continued to split their load on two components. Investigation of the team identification questions showed that this was because the first three statements were asked in a positive way and the second three questions were asked in a negative way. A separate factor analysis of the team identification items showed that these items were loading on two different components (see appendix 1), thus based on this an extra component was used that is, 1 component for team identification items 1-3 and one component for team identification items 4-6. Therefore the separation of the loadings of these items was accepted, however based on the theory all six items would still be included in one scale for further analysis’s. The factor analysis of the team identification items had a KMO of .70 and a significance of .000 and thus could be accepted as reliable.

A separate factor analysis of the faultline items was also conducted in order to confirm the theory that the scale was made up of two different components, namely subgroup formation and change related faultline bases. This showed a loading on two components, that is 1 the subgroup formation items (FAU1 – 4), and FAU 21, 22 and 25-30, which reflected change related bases (see appendix 2). The factor analysis of the faultline items had a KMO of .867 and a significance of .000, and therefore could also be accepted for use.

(25)

4-24 6, 4. Subgroup Formation (FAU 1-4), 5. Change Related Faultline bases, 6. Conflict and 7. Transformational Leadership. The repeated factor analysis had a KMO of .63 and a significance of .000, and thus could be used for analysis. Forcing the factor analysis into 7 components gave a much more spread out results, only two items were now causing a problem. Team Identification item 4 and Conflict item 9 were double loading and dominantly loading on a different component than expected. A separate factor analysis of the conflict items was conducted to investigate whether this item was loading on a different component than the others (see appendix 3). With a KMO of .85 and a significance of .000 this analysis could be used. The initial result showed no real pattern between the different items. Based on theory the factor analysis was repeated by forcing it into three components, as three different types of conflict were investigated, that is relationship conflict, task conflict and process conflict. The factor analysis below shows how item 9 continues to load on a different item than expected.

A reliability test was also conducted to see whether the Cronbach Alpha of the scale would improve if Conflict item 9 would be removed. The Cronbach Alpha of the scale is .909 prior to removal and improved to .916 if the item would be removed. It was therefore decided to remove Conflict item 9 from the factor analysis. The different conflict items will be used as three different variables in the results section, however it will be accepted that they load on the same component in the final factor analysis (see table 1) as they are all part of the same scale. However in order to test whether different types of conflict can have different results, they will be seen as separate variables in the results section.

(26)

25

Item No.

(27)

26 A separate factor analysis of the control variables was also conducted (see appendix 4). The control variables used are team identification, team interdependence and goal similarity. As team identification item 4 was removed in the prior factor analysis it will also be removed in this separate factor analysis. The initial result of the factor analysis based on eigen value > 1 and varimax rotation gave 4 components, which was to be expected as team identification loads on two different components. However when forced into three components all of the team identification items also loaded on 1 item, therefore it was chosen to use this factor analysis solution as most suitable. (see appendix 4) Table 2 below shows the Cronbach Alpha’s of all the scales after the previously mentioned items had been tested and verified.

Variable Cronbach Alpha

Team Interdepence .737 Goal Similarity .869 Change Faultlines .903 Transformational Leadership .919 Relationship Conflict .911 Task Conflict .904 Process Conflict .934 Team Performance .820 Team Identification .749

(28)

27

4. RESULTS

This section looks at the results of the data collected and analyzed during this research. The analyses in this section are performed at the group level as we want to consider the effects of the whole group on the phenomenon researched, these were aggregated previously and saved into a new database. The first step in analyzing the results is to perform a correlation analysis to determine whether there are any correlations between the variables researched. A Pearson Correlation was used in order to determine whether there were any significant correlations between the variables. Table 3 below shows the results of the correlation analysis.

Mean SD N 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Task Interdep. 4.84 ,87 48 - - - - - - - - - 2. Goal Similarity 5.52 ,71 48 .29* - - - - 3. Change faultlines 2.54 ,70 48 .29* -.08 - - - - 4. TransLeadersh 4.75 ,70 47 .20 .11 .23 - - - - 5. Relationsh Confl. 2.32 ,92 48 .34* -.02 .49** .05 - - - - - 6. Task Conflict 2.91 ,99 48 .25 .13 .39** .08 .46** - - - - 7. Process Conflict 2.55 1,15 48 -.01 -.26 .39** .11 .67* .42** - - - 8. Performance 5.24 ,70 48 .19 .63** -.13 -.02 -.11 -.00 -.25 - - 9. Team Identif. 5.48 ,55 48 .19 .48 .05 .05 -.35* -.22 -.46** .37** -

* significant at 0.05 level, ** significant at 0.01 level Table 3: Correlation Analysis

From the above correlation table several correlations can be seen as significant according to the data. As the above table shows a positive correlation between the control variables goal similarity and team interdependence can be found (r = .29, p < .01), this suggests that as the team experiences more goal similarity it will also experience more team interdependence. A positive correlation also exists between change faultlines and team interdependence (r = .29, p < .01), this suggests that the more change related faultlines are perceived, the more team interdependence there will be within a team. A positive correlation is also found between team performance and goal similarity (r = .63, p < .05), suggesting that the higher a team’s performance the more goal similarity they will have. Team identification and team performance also positively correlate with one another (r = .37, p < .05), this suggests that the higher team identification is, the higher team performance will be.

(29)

28 more change related faultlines and team interdependence. Relationship conflict also negatively correlates with team identification (r = .35, p < .01), this suggests that as the level of relationship conflict rises, the amount of team identification will decrease. Task conflict positively correlates with Change Faultlines (r = .39, p < .05) and relationship conflict (r = .46, p < .05), suggesting that the more task conflict there is within a team the more change faultlines and relationship conflict will also be present. Lastly, process conflict positively correlates with change faultlines (r = .39, p < .05), relationship conflict (r = .67, p < .05) and task conflict (r = .42, p < .05), suggesting that as the level of process conflict in a team increases, so will the number of change related faultlines, and the amount of relationship and task conflict. Process conflict also negatively correlates with team identification (r = .46, p < .05), suggesting that as the level of process conflict within a team increases the level of team identification will decrease.

4.1 Hypothesis Testing

4.1.1 Change activated faultlines and conflict

H1a: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of relationship conflict within a work team.

In order to analyse the relationship between the two variables a multiple regression, with team interdependence and goal similarity as control variables was performed. The consequent results of the regression analysis, Beta = .413 (p = .004), R2=.284, F = 5.823, showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables. Therefore hypothesis 1a will be accepted.

H1b: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of task conflict within a work team.

Hypothesis 1b follows on from the first two hypotheses. The multiple regression analysis, where team interdependence and goal similarity were used as control variables, resulted in, Beta = .365 (p = .015), R2=.183, F = 3.289, showing a positive significant relationship between a change related faultline and task conflict. Thus hypothesis 1b is accepted.

H1c: Faultlines activated by a change event lead to the higher levels of process conflict within a work team.

(30)

29 4.1.2 Conflict and performance

H2a: The higher the level of relationship conflict within a team, the lower the performance of the work team.

A single regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis, resulting in, Beta = -.107 (p = .468), R2_{=.011, F = .535, these results were not significant and thus the hypothesis must be rejected.}

H2b: The higher the level of task conflict within a team, the higher the performance of the work team.

To test this a single regression analysis with the following result was performed, Beta = -.003 (p = .985), R2=.000, F = .000. The results of this regression are not significant an thus hypothesis 2b is rejected.

H2c: The higher the level of process conflict within a team, the lower the performance of the work team.

The results of the single regression are as following, Beta = -.247 (p = .091), R2=.061, F = 2.981. The results of this regression are not significant and thus the hypothesis will be rejected.

4.1.3 Conflict and team identification

H3a: The more relationship conflict within a work team, the lower the team identification of a work team is.

The single regression analysis results in the following, Beta = -.351 (p = .014), R2=.123, F = 6.468. The result of this is shows a negative significant relationship between relationship conflict and team identification. We can therefore accept hypothesis 3a. Thereby concluding that the more relationship conflict is present within a work team, the less the team members will identify with the team.

H3b: The more task conflict within a work team, the lower the team identification of a work team is.

Hypothesis 3b proposes that the higher the level of task conflict within a team is, the less team members will identify with the team. The subsequent single regression analysis, showed a negative relationship between the two variables, however these results were not significant Beta = -.217 (p = .138), R2=.047, F = 2.275. Therefore hypothesis 3b is rejected.

(31)

30 Finally the relationship between process conflict and team identification was also analyzed. The regression analysis showed a negative significant relationship between process conflict and team identification Beta = -.459 (p = .001), R2=.211, F = 12.298. Therefore hypothesis 3c is accepted.

4.1.4 Moderator and group outcomes

H4a: Transformational leadership acts as a moderator between activated change related faultlines and team identification.

To determine whether transformational leadership has a moderating effect on fragmented teams due to activated change related faultlines and team identification several steps need to be taken (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Firstly, transformational leadership and change faultlines needed to be centered, by subtracting the mean of the variables from the variable scores. Secondly, the moderator variable had to be calculated by multiplying transformational leadership with change faultlines. In order to determine the effect of transformational leadership as a moderator a multiple regression, with team identification as dependent variable, was performed. The results of the moderator regression are shown in table 4 below.

Variable Beta Sig. (p) R squared F

Transformational Leadership (M) .032 .836 .032 .476

Change Faultlines (X) .068 .661 .032 .476

Moderator (M*X) .172 .262 .032 .476

Dependent variable: Team Identification (Y) Table 4: Regression analysis moderator 1

No significant relationships could be established between these variables and thus hypothesis 4a will be rejected.

H4b: Transformational leadership acts as a moderator between activated change related faultlines and team performance.

(32)

31

Variable Beta Sig. (p) R squared F

Transformational Leadership (M) -.090 .548 .230 4.281

Change Faultlines (X) .068 .626 .230 4.281

Moderator (M*X) .471 .001 .230 4.281

Dependent variable: Team Performance (Y) Table 5: Regression analysis moderator 2

Based on the results of the regression analysis a positive relation between the moderator and team performance has been suggested. In order to be able to determine what the interaction between these variables exactly means they need to be plotted on a graph. This graph can be seen in graph 1 below.

Graph 1: Interaction between activated change related faultlines, team performance and transformational leadership

The results of the graph imply that a strong transformational leader, is able to improve team performance when there is strong subgroup formation due to activated change related faultlines. This would consequently mean that a strong transformational leader is able to moderate the effect of lowered team performance due to activated change related faultlines, and thus reduces the negative effects that are caused by activated change related faultlines. The graph however also shows that when there is a weak transformational leader, team performance suffers when there is strong subgroup formation. This implies that a weak transformational leader in fact causes team

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Change related faultline bases

(33)

(34)

33

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Key Findings

Previous research on faultlines have established many different reasons for faultlines to exist and have also determined many negative effects of these activated faultlines on teams and individuals, such as a social division, conflict, team fragmentation, lower team performance and identity threat (e.g. Lau and Murnighan, 1998; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Millikens and Martins, 1996; Carton and Cummings, 2012). This research has analysed what role a transformational leader could have as a moderator to limit the negative effects that are created by activated change related faultlines. Two negative outcomes, namely reduced team identification and lower team performance, were the focus of this study. Although no significant moderating effect by transformational leadership was found between activated change related faultlines and team identification, a significant moderating relationship by transformational leadership between activated change related faultlines and team performance was found.

The significant relationship between transformational leadership as a moderator between activated change related faultlines and team performance, shows that transformational leadership is able to moderate the negative effect that activated change related faultlines have on team performance, however this is only under certain conditions. A strong transformational leader is able to improve team performance when there are strong change related faultlines. A weak transformational leader is unable to do so, team performance will in fact decrease under conditions of strong activated change related faultlines when a weak transformational leader is present. This effect can be explained by the stimulating and motivating attributes that a transformational leader has, as the manner in which leaders prioritized their actions and their leadership style has been shown to significantly reduce the strength of the faultlines which hindered collaboration (Gratton, Vuight and Erickson, 2007). Transformational leaders are able to inspire their team members to move beyond their own self-interests for the wellbeing of the organization (Bass and Avolio, 1997), resulting in extra effort, higher productivity, higher morale and satisfaction and higher organizational effectiveness (Robbins and Judge, 2012). Therefore this would imply that the more attributes of transformational leadership a leader had, the better the team performance of a team with strong activated change related faultlines will be. Several other significant findings were also established during this study.

(35)

34 This research also shows positive relationships between relationship and process conflict and team identification. The results indicate that increased relationship conflict that has resulted from activated change related fault lines leads to lower team identification. Similarly, increased process conflict also leads to decreased team identification. This supports research by Millikens and Martins (1996) and Carton and Cummings (2012), which also found conflict within a team to lead to reduced team identification, as conflict leads to divisions within the group.

5.2 Theoretical Implications

Prior research into the faultline theory by researchers such as Lau and Murnighan (1998), Jehn and Bezrukova (2010), Gratton, L., Voigt, A., and Erickson, T. (2007), and Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2007) have all found negative effects of faultline activation, however no research to date has looked into the possibility of transformational leadership as a moderator to reduce these negative effects. Therefore this research extends to the existing literature, by investigating this phenomenon. This research has shown transformational leadership to be able to moderate the effect between activated change related faultlines and team performance, when a strong transformational leader is present under conditions of strong activated change related faultlines. Based on this further studies could investigate whether transformational leadership is able to moderate other negative effects, such as emotional and process conflict and lowered communication. This implicates that even though activated faultlines lead to negative effects, there may be other factors, such as transformational leadership that are able to reduce or eliminate the negative effects that activated faultlines can have on team processes and team outcomes.

Furthermore this research is one of the first studies to look into the activation of faultlines in a change situation. Research by Gover and Duxbury (2013) is one of the only other studies that has researched faultlines in situations of change. The research by Gover and Duxbury (2013) is also only a single case study, which limits its generalizability. This research therefore extends to the existing literature by looking at the activation of faultlines in different situations. As change in organizations is occurring more and more frequently in today’s society, it has become increasingly important to look at the effects change has on all different aspects within organizations (Mannix and Naele, 2005; Rupert, 2012; Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000; Joshi et al., 2006; Soni, 2000). This research therefore extends to the current literature and indicates the importance of change in activating faultlines to future researchers.

(36)

35 faultlines activated by a change event have the same effect on conflict. Change related faultline activation has a positive relationship with all three types of conflict, relationship, task and process conflict. Thus the stronger the activated faultline, the more relationship and/or task and/or process conflict there will be in the work team. This supports previous research and thereby makes this argument made by other researchers even stronger.

This research further extends to research by researchers such as Millikens and Martins (1996) and Carton and Cummings (2012), which suggests that conflict within a team leads to decreased team identification. It thereby adds to the theory by re-establishing that a high level of conflict within a team leads to low team identification. It has been able to show positive relationships between relationship and process conflict and lowered team identification. This low team identification is an undesirable factor as further research has established that low team identification leads to low performance. The fact that no findings have been found to support a relationship between task conflict and team identification may be able to support the fact that task conflict also has several positive outcomes.

5.3 Managerial Implications

The confirmation of the fact that transformational leadership plays a significant role in the moderating the negative effects caused by activated change related faultlines and team performance gives managers an insight in their role in situations where change related faultlines have been activated. It is important for managers to recognize the significance of this in order to be able to improve their team performance when faultlines have been activated due to a change event. Firstly, managers should be aware that a change event can lead to faultline activation, and consequently will lead to their team to split up into subgroups. These subgroups consequently can lead to a decrease in the team’s performance (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010; Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003; Li and Hambrick, 2005). Reduced team performance is an unwanted phenomenon in an organization. Managers should understand that they can play a role in reducing the effect that activated change related faultlines have on team performance. Placing a leader in the team which has strong transformational leadership attributes will help to reduce the negative effects that the activated change related faultlines has on the team performance of that team. For management this implicated that it is crucial to have leaders with transformational leadership attributes in the role as team leader in teams that are affected by a change event.

Transformational Leadership as a Moderator: Reducing the Negative Impact of Activated Change Related Faultlines on Team Performance