THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED GROUP FAULTLINES AND PERCEIVED CHANGE EFFECTIVENESS: THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF
COLLABORATIVE BEHAVIOR AND INTRAGROUP CONFLICT
by
J.K. (Janko) van der Kooi
Master Thesis
Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen MSc BA Change Management June 2015 Supervisor: Dr. J. (Joyce) Rupert Second Supervisor: Drs. H.P. (Heleen) van Peet
PREFACE
ABSTRACT
A combination of diversity and teams in today’s organizations are omnipresent due to rapid changing technologies and increasing globalization. It is therefore argued by many scholars and practitioners that diverse teams are pivotal for today’s operations and their effects need to be closely studied. This paper investigates the relationship between perceived faultlines and the change effectiveness of teams. Furthermore, it looks at how collaborative behavior of team members and intragroup conflict between team members act as mediating processes in this relationship. To gather data, a quantitative research method was used and 72 different teams from 27 different Dutch organizations have been studied. Results of this study indicate that individuals who perceive activated faultlines indicate to have lower change effectiveness, and that this relationship is mediated by collaborative behavior and relationship conflict. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction 5 Literature review 7 Change effectiveness 7 Faultlines 8 Collaborative behavior 11 Conceptual model 14 Methodology 15
Participants and procedure 16
Measurements 17
Factor analyses 19
Data analyses 21
Results 23
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis 23
Hypothesis testing 25
Concluding remarks 27
Discussion and Conclusion 29
INTRODUCTION
Organizational change has been a prominent theme due to increasing globalization and today’s technology driven markets. Many factors, such as employees’ readiness for change, contribute to the effectiveness of organizational change (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007; Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005). At the same time, due to this increasing globalization and the rapid changing technology, companies become more reliant on cross-functional teams (Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, Weber, & Ernst, 2009; Van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013). This implies that individuals will work in more diverse teams to complete their work and undergo organizational change.
It has been empirically shown that diverse teams can be beneficial to attain goals and successfully finish the change situation, because of the multiple forms of expertise and knowledge different members can bring in and thereby create greater team output (Mannix & Neale, 2005). On the other hand, diverse teams can be counter-beneficial, because team members will not effectively cooperate with each other because of their apparent differences (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). These differences may also influence the change effectiveness of teams. This also implies that greater diversity has a negative influence on team outcomes (see also Mannix & Neale, 2005).
Due to these mixed results and greater dependency on teams, Lau and Murnighan (1998) were the first with their new developed concept, so-called faultlines, to create a different view on diversity, which depends on multiple compositional attributes that form subgroups. Faultlines are “hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). The more attributes align themselves in the same way, the stronger the faultline. Previous research shows that stronger faultlines tend to result in undesirable outcomes (Choi et al., 2010). The question that rises is: do group members perceive activated faultlines and do these perceived activated faultlines influence their individually perceived change effectiveness? Therefore, this study will research the following:
To what extent and how does group members’ perceived faultline activation affect group members’ perceptions of change effectiveness in a change context?
explain the effects of group members’ individual perceived faultline activation on perceptions of change effectiveness in a change context. Specifically, this study first examines the mediator collaborative behavior in the relationship between individuals’ perceived activated faultlines and their perceived change effectiveness. Thereafter, the mediator intragroup conflict will be examined in the same relationship.
This study contributes to the theory of faultlines and organizational change by examining different faultline bases and how these might affect group members’ perceived change effectiveness. The underlying processes are currently unknown in the direct relationship between activated faultlines and change effectiveness, and therefore this study will try to fill the gap in the literature. Moreover, given that change is omnipresent in today’s business life, this study will show managers how diverse teams can impact the change effectiveness for their organization. Groups have become complex mechanisms within today’s operating organizations, but from the current literature it is unknown whether the diversity in groups will positively or negatively relate to change effectiveness. In addition, change is omnipresent and groups are pivotal for today’s organizations and thus the complexities that rely within this relationship need to be closely examined.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Change effectiveness
Scholars studying organizational change have tried to understand change, and practitioners have attempted to successfully implement such change (e.g., Dunphy & Stace, 1988, 1993; Kotter, 1996; Lewin, 1951; Nadler & Tushman, 1980). However, it is widely acknowledged that still up to 70 percent of change initiatives fail (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). After Lewin introduced his basic three-step concept in 1951, many different approaches and models have been developed since, all to help understand and implement change (Gustafson et al., 2000; Weick, 1995). Although change is inevitable in today’s organization and the need for change keeps growing, the extensive literature on change management approaches and models does not guarantee an effective and successful change. Hence, Higgs and Rowland (2005) tried to figure out what the reasons are for failure of change initiatives and what makes a change successful. Since the current literature does not provide a clear definition on change effectiveness, this study defines change effectiveness as “a successful and accepted change implementation, one that is accepted and used by individual group members, who are affected by the change and are pleased with the change results”.
Previous research revealed different beliefs and attitudes of employees towards organizational change and that many factors, such as readiness for change, contribute to the effectiveness of organizational change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that there are many factors that may influence change, and thereby change effectiveness. However, in later research, Higgs and Rowland (2005) argue that previous research indicates that a successful implementation may be a difficult goal and that there is currently relatively little research on what leads to a successful implementation. Hence, more research is needed to examine which factors may or may not lead to change effectiveness.
effectiveness. The present study will further examine collaborative behavior as explanatory variable (more details below).
Previous research also shows that the level of effectiveness is considerably affected by conflicts that may arise between team members (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In addition, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) argue that conflict can be beneficial, because when conflict is absent, teams might not realize that inefficiencies exist (p. 741). Intragroup conflict (consisting of relationship and task conflict) will be the second mediator this study examines (more details below)
According to Molleman (2005), the few published studies on faultlines show mixed results and none directly study the effect of change effectiveness. Teams are pivotal for organizations and the change failure rate needs to decrease. This raises the question whether diverse teams can have a significant impact on organizational change, and in specific enhance change effectiveness and to what extent. In other words, what factors (can) have a potential benefit to change success, and therefore make the change more effective (see also Higgs and Rowland, 2005)?
In addition to literature on change effectiveness, this study uses Lau and Murnighan’s (1998) faultline theory to study the effects and group compositions of diverse teams.
Faultlines
Faultlines are defined as “hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328). Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduced their “faultline” concept in 1998 to forward research on group composition. Faultline theory takes multiple attributes and perspectives into account to grasp a better understanding of diversity and therefore not miss any potential impact (p. 327).
Faultline theory describes the process of coalition formulation within organizational groups (Gover & Duxbury, 2012) and form subgroups based on demographic alignments (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). This implies that faultlines divide its group members into subgroups on the basis of one or more attributes.
extreme strong faultline could include six young Dutch men, all 25 years old who had worked for a company less than two years and five French females, all 20 years old and all have a job as a receptionist. This faultline example consists of strong gender, age, nationality and job relation attributes and creates two subgroups in this example. At the same time, faultlines are weak when such attributes are not correlated and no subgroups can be formed. An example of a weak faultline is a young Dutch man, aged 25, a British man, aged 28, a French female at the age of 27 and a Spanish female at the age of 21 all in one group, can be seen as a weak faultline. This implies that the more attributes are correlated, the stronger a faultline, increasing the likelihood that subgroups will develop (Rico, Molleman, Sanchez-Manzanares, & Van der Vegt, 2007).
Lau and Murnighan (2005) assume that members of a strong faultline group are likely to assume that their values and assumptions are the same as that of their fellow group members. This in contrast to weak faultlines, such members are likely to focus more on the entire set of groups and assume they are broadly similar to their fellow group members (p. 647).
Activated faultlines
Faultlines in and of themselves are not undesirable and may exist, but can be unnoticed for a long time (a potential, or dormant faultline) and therefore not divide the team into subgroups. Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) explain:
“[…] Faultlines in groups are analogous to geological faults in the Earth’s crust; they are always present, they create various levels of friction as boundaries rub together, pull apart, grind, and collide; and yet they may go unnoticed without the presence of external forces” (p. 1768).
This is in line with what Gover and Duxbury (2012) argue that faultlines always exists, but may not have impact while inactive. Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) define faultline activation as the process by which a dormant or potential faultline is actually perceived by group members as the process of separating into subgroups based on these demographic alignment (an activated faultline).
(expectation that others will act just like them), (4) insult or humiliating action (comments or behaviors that devalue one group relative to another) and (5) simple contact (high intergroup anxiety can be polarizing).
Gover and Duxbury (2012) argue that to date (note: 2012) there was no previous research on faultlines and organizational change, and found a remarkable discovery during their study. They found reasons to believe that the major organizational change that they examine in their study itself caused the faultlines to become activated. While they also argue that their study brought along a few changes in management and geographical locations within a similar period, they are confident that the “organizational change” itself is responsible for triggering their faultline.
Activated (strong) faultlines can have undesirable outcomes, as mentioned, including, for example, emotional and task conflict, decline of performance, group-level organizational commitment and team cohesion (Choi et al., 2010; Gover & Duxbury, 2012; Rico et al., 2007). These undesirable outcomes may affect and have negative consequences for team outcomes, and also for change effectiveness. Molleman (2005) also argues that the few published studies on faultlines already show mixed results. Therefore, it is important to gain more knowledge about faultlines and the effects faultlines have on different outcomes. At the same time, teams haven been shown to be inevitable for today’s organizations and so is organizational change due to globalization and the rapid pace of new technology. Given that scholars argue that perceptions of (strong) activated faultlines tend to have undesirable outcomes, this study also assumes that the stronger the faultline, the undesirable the outcome (see also Choi et al., 2010). The reason behind this is that perceptions of (strong) activated faultlines make employees cooperate less with each other, focus more on apparent differences (and group members are thus distracted more from work), and share less valuable information needed to complete work (Choi et al., 2010; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). This makes it less likely that groups will be able to effectively handle a change situation, and thus change effectiveness is likely to decrease when individual group members experience (strong) faultline activation. Since previous research has shown that activated faultlines can have undesirable outcomes, it is expected that faultline activation will hamper the change effectiveness. Consequently, it is hypothesized:
However, the processes underlying this relationship are largely unknown since only few studies have been published (Choi et al., 2010; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Molleman, 2005; Rico et al., 2007). Indeed, why this effect exists is rather unclear. This study expects that two mediators, collaborative behavior and intragroup conflict (consisting of relationship and task conflict) can explain this relationship.
Collaborative behavior
Seers (1989) claims that teams’ working relationships are of interest from different perspectives and have an obvious advantage due to the teams greater amount of knowledge variety and skills (Driskell & Salas, 1992).
According to Seers (1989) team working relationships have already been shown to have a major impact on behavior of other team members. A reason why teams can work effectively is because they develop a trusting environment and assess reciprocity between the team members, such as willingness to share ideas and feedback (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Seers, 1989). The ability of exchanging and sharing information between team members can be beneficial for their effectiveness (Driskell & Salas, 1992). Hence, team diversity offers the advantage of allowing members to learn from each other and generate new ideas (Molleman, 2005). Therefore, this study defines collaborative behavior as “the ability and willingness to exchange and share information with other team members and help each other whenever necessary and thereby increase effectiveness and outcome”. First, the quality of such a relationship indicates the willingness of a team member to help each other and share ideas (Liu, Loi, & Lam, 2011; Seers, 1989). Second, this implies that the quality of such behavior may increase the outcome and enhance the effectiveness of a product or a service to be delivered.
Several scholars also argue the downside of diversity, that more diversity may impair collaboration and information sharing and thus negatively associate with their collaborative behavior and performance. (Molleman, 2005; Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). At the same time, much research has shown that helping behavior occurring among team members has a major impact, and also increases performance (Liang, Shih, & Chiang, 2014; Seers, 1989).
collaborate with each other, the better they should perform, which is in line with previous findings by Barrick et al. (1998) and Liang and colleagues (2014). Liang and colleagues (2014) argue that the level of helping behavior among team members increases their performance. This also implies that such behavior influences a group member’s individual effectiveness and that of the team.
In this study, it is expected that the quality of group members’ collaborative behavior will have a significant positive impact on group members’ perceived change effectiveness. This is because group members who show collaborative behavior are more likely to share crucial information and insights needed to handle to change situation in an effective manner. When collaborative behavior is low, on the other hand, group members may be more likely to act as individuals, making it harder for the team to handle the change situation. Moreover, this study expects that stronger faultlines (i.e., more aligned demographics) will negatively relate to collaborative behaviors. This is expected because individuals who perceive strong faultlines in their group are not likely to share information or cooperate with other individuals who are (completely) different than themselves. Indeed, individuals are likely to better work together in groups with similar, as opposed to dissimilar, others (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Following above reasoning, the present study believes that collaborative behavior can explain the negative relationship between perceived activated faultlines and change effectiveness. Consequently, it is expected that collaborative behavior will positively mediate the relationship between perceived activated faultlines and change effectiveness. Thus, hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: Individually perceived collaborative behavior will mediate the negative relationship between individually perceived activated faultlines and group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team.
Intragroup conflict
Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) argue that intragroup conflict is key to performance loss in groups that perceive activated faultlines. This is consistent with earlier findings by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) who found empirical evidence that intragroup conflict negatively influences team productivity and satisfaction.
Jehn (1995) distinguishes two types of conflict in her study, relationship conflict and task conflict. This present study proposes that relationship conflict and task conflict is a second pair of mediating mechanisms by which individual perceived activated faultlines have an impact on the group members’ perceived change effectiveness. Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) have recently found evidence that inter-subgroup (activated faultlines) relations may be more competitive and decrease trust among team members and are more conflictful than those between two individuals or in a group that does not perceive faultline activation (p. 27). Li and Hambrick (2005) explain that such negative processes, as intragroup conflict, are likely to arise when the two sides become wary of one another (see also Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010).
According to Jehn (1995), relationship conflict exists when there are interpersonal incompatibilities, which typically include tension, animosity, and annoyance among team members. An earlier study by Jehn and Mannix (2001) claims that low levels of relationship conflict allow group members to develop the familiarity necessary for positive patterns of future interaction (p. 240). In addition, previous research indicates that the anxiety produced by relationship conflict may inhibit the cognitive functioning and therefore causing team members to get distracted from their task, which affects team outcomes (Jehn & Mannix, 2001), in this case change effectiveness. This is in line with earlier found evidence by Jehn (1995), which indicates that group members who have interpersonal problems work less effectively and produce suboptimal products.
According to this perspective, perceived activated faultlines seem to have a negative influence on intragroup conflict, and this relationship conflict then negatively influences the change effectiveness. Because of apparent differences, perceptions of strong faultlines make it more likely that group members will have conflict with each other on a relational basis. This relationship conflict is then likely to decrease group members’ perceived change effectiveness. Therefore, this study predicts that:
According to Jehn (1995) task conflict exists when team members have disagreements about the content of tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas and opinions. In contrast to relationship conflict, moderate levels of task conflict have shown to be beneficial for team outcome (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Furthermore, they claim that when conflict is functional, it is often task-focused. Results also show that when a team is given a complex task, they benefit from the different opinions about the work being done, different ideas and different views on how it should be done (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
Conceptual model
A conceptual model concerning the independent and dependent variable and its mediating variables is provided in figure 1 below.
FIGURE 1: Present study’s conceptual model
METHODOLOGY
This study contributes to the literature of faultlines and change effectiveness by studying the effects of teams in a change context. Furthermore, this study makes use of a quantitative secondary dataset, which has been gathered by several researchers in 2014.
Participants and procedure
A total of 86 teams representing a total of 492 team members from 35 different organizations were selected for this study. Selection of these teams and organizations were based on the following criteria: members work together in teams, in an organization facing organizational change. Another requirement is the combination of at least three members to form a team, however, such a team does not necessarily mean a functional team on paper. Such a team could also be three different members working together to get a specific job done. Organizational representatives indicated whether their organization is facing an organizational change, or have been with a maximum of three years ago. Furthermore, this representative also selected the teams within the organization.
In terms of procedure, first contact with the organization was initiated via e-mail or personal contact, to explain the purpose and contribution of the study and the possible benefits for the organization. Once interested, the representatives of the organizations received an email with an accompanying letter regarding instructions of the data collection procedure of this study. After receiving confirmation, the questionnaire was distributed digitally via Google docs. In addition, the organizational representative distributed the questionnaire within the team(s) and assigned a unique code to each team. Henceforth, this referral code was necessary to link individuals with their team. Note: the assigned unique code by the representative was changed to a unified code, referring to the organization and unique team within that organization. The recoding process of the unique code is done to guarantee the anonymity of the participants and therefore cannot be linked back to a specific team within the organization.
organizational name is required for specific organizational analysis and feedback for the organizational representative.
The final sample of this study comprised 362 team members from 72 different teams operating at 27 different organizations. The majority of the participants are fulltime employed (57.3%). Furthermore team members averaged 40.44 (SD = 12.00) years of age and have a team tenure average of 37.48 months (SD = 86.84). Second, the gender within teams is almost equally distributed (male: 53.3%, female: 46.7%) representing a nice overview for the present study. In addition, the final 27 organizations are all Dutch organizations.
Measurements
The influence of individuals’ perceived activated faultlines on group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team is examined with several measurements, which examined faultlines, collaborative behaviors towards colleagues and types of conflict, affecting the change effectiveness. Existing reliable and validated scales have been used for all measurements. All scales have been translated from English to Dutch due to the nationality of the respondents. Scale translation is done using the back-translation procedure by Brislin (1970) to maintain the reliability and validity while using Dutch questionnaire items.
Change effectiveness. The first part measures the team members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team using a 6-item scale (a = .87) based on Higgs and Rowland (2005) and Yukl and Fu (1999). Higgs and Rowland studied what change management approach is the most successful to complete a change. An example item was: “About the team functioning after and by the change I am satisfied”.
Activated faultlines. To measure activated faultlines an 17-item scale (a = .92) based on Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) was used. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale is subdivided into two parts, where the first part (four items) measures whether individuals perceive activated faultlines in their teams. The second part, the thirteen remaining items, measure the perceived faultline bases within teams. An example item was: “During the work my team regularly splits up into subgroups”.
from Simsek and colleagues (2005). Respondents were asked to agree upon the following: (1) “When a team member is busy, other team members often volunteer to help manage the workload”, (2) “Team members are flexible about switching responsibilities to make things easier for each other,” and (3) “Team members are willing to help each other complete jobs and meet deadlines.” This instrument measures a team member’s perception of his or her willingness to assist other members, to share ideas and feedback and in turn, how readily information, help, and recognition are received from other members (Seers, 1989, p. 119). The quality of the willingness to assist other team members reflects the level of the collaborative behavior relationship.
Relationship conflict. This study relied on a 3-item scale (a = .89) from Jehn (1995) and Jehn and Mannix (2001) to measure relationship conflict. Respondents were asked to agree upon the following three questions: (1) “How much relationship tension is there in your work group?” (2) “How often do people get angry while working in your group?”, (3) “How much emotional conflict is there in your work group?”. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot). These scale items measure how much conflict and tension team members perceive to arise between team members and within the team.
Task conflict. To measure how much task conflict exists within a team, a 3-item scale (a = .89) also from Jehn and Mannix (2001) is used. Respondents were asked to agree upon the following: (1) “How much conflict of ideas is there in your work group?” (2) “How frequently do you have disagreements within your work group about the task of the project you are working on?”, (3) “How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about the project you are working on?”. These items measure the level of conflict based on distributed tasks or ideas within the team. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot).
Control variables
outside this study’s scope, commitment could say something about the level of collaborative behavior or intragroup conflict, whereas commitment is important when someone is fulltime employed. Henceforth, the contract type is used as a control variable to see whether there are any significant effects.
Goal similarity concerns the agreement on goal attainment and purpose behind activities of the team. A three-item scale (a = .87) was adapted from Jehn (1995) to measure this scale. Second, task interdependence concerns the degree of interdependence between members of a team and whether the work they do is interrelated to each other. Another three-item scale (a = .77) was used from Campion, Medsker and Higgs (1993).
Factor analyses
The present study made use of several well-known and reliable scales to gather the data. However, the data has been gathered at different organizations with different backgrounds could affect the reliability of items. Therefore the five different scales were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis employing principal component method with a Varimax rotation.
At forehand, two items have been deleted from the factor analysis, and thereby from the accompanying scales, due to too many missing values (Fau8 and Fau17). The two deleted items are about the employee’s nationality (Fau8) and whether (s)he is a part-/full-time (Fau17) employed.
The factor structure that was emerged is shown in Table 1 below, consisting of the independent, mediating and dependent variables used in this study. It should be noted that the factors Fau1 through Fau4 measure team members’ perceived faultline activation. The factors Fau5 through Fau16 represent the bases of this faultline activation as noticed in Fau1 through Fau4. Fau5 through Fau9 and Fau13 represent a faultline bases based on social experiences and Fau10 through Fau16 is based on the work relation.
TABLE 1: Factor analysis IV, mediating and DV
TABLE 2: Factor analysis relationship and task conflict.
This study also makes use of control variables. Therefore, another factor analysis, concerning only the control variables was conducted. It should be noted that this study uses three control variables, contract type (not included), goal similarity (goal similarity 1 through 3) and task interdependence (task interdependence 1 through 3). Because the contract type consists of one item, this item was not taken into consideration in this factor analysis. Table 3 below shows the generated structure, based on a Varimax rotation with a minimal loading of .30. It can be concluded from this factor analysis that it shows a clear distinction between both scales.
TABLE 3: Factor analysis control variables goal similarity and task interdependence
Data analyses
To get a clear and complete overview of the data, all main variables used for this study have been checked on missing values. When a main variable consisted of a missing value, the complete record was deleted to increase the internal validity. Second, as mentioned before a minimum of three team members was required for a faultline composition (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Therefore, all teams with less than three team members have been excluded from the analyses.
From the conceptual model as presented in figure 1 and the hypotheses that have been drawn up, this study tries to test a mediation study with different mediating variables.
The intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient is determined to find out whether data should be analyzed in accordance to a multilevel structure as Snijders and Bosker (1999) propose. Results showed, after running null models with group members’ perceived change effectiveness, individual perceived collaborative behavior, individual perceived relationship conflict and individual perceived task conflict as dependent variable and no predictors, an ICC of .28 for change effectiveness, an ICC of .20 for collaborative behavior, an ICC of .26 for relationship conflict and an ICC of .35 for individual task conflict (all p < .01). This shows that there is relatively much variance on team-level, making the data suitable for analysis using multilevel regression analysis in SPSS (i.e., Mixed-Models). A multilevel analysis takes the variance within and between the different teams and also the different organizations in this case, into account when running the regression analysis.
Furthermore, this study tries to test a mediation model and therefore followed the four-step approach by Baron and Kenny (1986). Results of this multilevel study testing a mediation study are displayed in the different tables in the result section. At last, it should be noted that a sobel test is conducted to see whether the results provided by the multilevel regression analysis hold and the mediating variable explains the effect of perceived activated faultlines on perceived change effectiveness.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Table 4, as shown below, provides an overview of the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlation statistics for all variables used in this study. These statistics present a global overview and interpretation of the results.
Descriptive statistics
Several conclusions can be drawn from these descriptive statistics. First of all, the control variables that stand out are the contract type (M = 1.42, SD = .50) and goal similarity (M = 5.49, SD = 1.08). From these control variables it becomes clear that the majority is fulltime employed and team members perceive to have the same goals for their team.
Correlation analyses
The correlation table (see table 4) shows a number of significant correlated variables. At first it should be noted that this study expected that the type of employment, indirectly referring to commitment, could say something about the relationship that team members may perceive due to absence of fellow colleagues. The study’s expectations are in line with the results presented in table 4. The contract type shows different types of significant relationships. However, it should be noted that it does not have a significant relationship with this study’s dependent variable, change effectiveness. Furthermore, results show that employees that are part-time employed, perceive a higher collaborative behavior than employees that are fulltime employed (r = .15, p < .01).
Furthermore, this study investigates two types of individual perceived faultline bases (more information below) and from the presented results it can be concluded that both types are closely related to each other and have approximately the same outcomes (e.g., relationship conflict, respectively: r = .42, p < .01 and r = .46, p < .01).
Hypothesis testing
Below the results of the tested hypotheses are presented. The results from the multilevel regression analyses are presented in table 5 and 6 on p. 28. Furthermore, this study conducted two different independent multilevel regression analysis considering two different independent variables, based on the faultline bases, concerning social (FauSo) and work base faultlines (FauWo).
Results hypothesis 1
This study’s first hypothesis was a negative relationship between individually perceived activated faultline groups and group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team. Consequently, it was hypothesized that individuals perceiving activated faultlines would individually perceive lower change effectiveness of their team. Results show for both independent variables a significant negative relationship with the perceived individual change effectiveness: individual perceived activated social faultlines (FauSo) (b = -.14, SE = .04, p < .01) and individual perceived activated work faultlines (FauWo) (b = -.16, SE = .04, p < .001).
From these findings it can be concluded that team members, who perceive activated faultlines, will individually perceive lower change effectiveness of their team. This also indirectly implies that they will see as a group to have less success with the change effectiveness, than groups and individuals who do not perceive to have activated faultlines. Hence, hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
Results hypothesis 2
was still significant. The indirect effect of FauSo on group members’ perceived change effectiveness via individually perceived collaborative behavior was significant (z = -2.38, p = .02). The second indirect effect, FauWo on group members’ perceived change effectiveness via individually perceived collaborative behavior was also significant (z = -2.81, p = .00). Thus, it was found that individually perceived collaborative behavior mediated both relationships between the two bases of faultline activation and group members’ perceived change effectiveness. This is also consistent with the study’s expectations on individually perceived collaborative behavior.
Furthermore, it can be concluded that FauWo had a slightly stronger mediating effect than FauSo. Hence, hypothesis 2 is accepted.
Results hypothesis 3
The third hypothesis concerns the mediating effect of individual perceived relationship conflict. In the first step, regression analysis showed that individually perceived activated faultlines are positively and significantly related to relationship conflict. FauSo shows a highly positive significant correlation (b = .40, SE = .05, p < .01), whereas FauWo also shows a highly positive significant effect (b = .38, SE = .05, p < .01).
As expected, in the second step, relationship conflict was negatively related to group members’ perceived change effectiveness (b = -.15, SE = .05, p < .05). Moreover, the direct effect between both individually perceived activated faultlines (FauSo and FauWo) and group members’ perceived change effectiveness decreased in strength when including relationship conflict, whereas the relationship between individually perceived relationship conflict and group members’ perceived change effectiveness was still significant. The indirect effect of FauSo on group members’ perceived change effectiveness via individually perceived relationship conflict was significant (z = -2.81, p = .00). The second indirect effect of FauWo on group members’ perceived change effectiveness via individually perceived relationship conflict was also significant (z = -2.79, p = .01).
Results hypothesis 4
Regression analyses were also conducted for the second type of conflict by Jehn (1995), task conflict, which was also predicted to act as a mediating variable. Findings of the regression analysis for FauSo show a highly positive significant relationship with task conflict (b = .40, SE = .06, p < .01). Second, regression analysis with FauWo also shows a highly positive significant relationship with task conflict (b = .42, SE = .05, p < .01). This is also in line with this study’s expectations; team members who experience individual perceived activated faultlines (FauSo and FauWo) indeed have more task conflict.
Contrary to this study’s argumentation, this study found that task conflict was negatively and insignificantly related to perceived individual change effectiveness (b = -.03, SE = .04, p = .42). The regression analysis does not show a significant result, and it is also in the opposite direction. Thus, the last hypothesis is rejected, and thus task conflict does not mediate the relationship between perceived faultlines and change effectiveness. The sobel test also confirms that task conflict does not act as mediating variable therefore in this study, respectively (FauSo) z = -.75, p = . 46 and (FauWo) z = .74, p = .46.
Concluding remarks
TABLE 5: Results of Mixed-Models Linear regression analysis perceived activated social faultlines
TABLE 6: Results of Mixed-Models Linear regression analysis perceived activated work faultlines
Predictor)Variables Model)1 Model)2 Model)3 Model)4 Model)5
Intercept 1.73%(.54)** 3.27%(.54)*** 3.88%(.58)*** 3.43%(.42)*** 3.34%(.43)*** Control Contract%type .22%(.18) 7.00%(.12) 7.02%(.13) 7.06%(.09) 7.06%(.09) Goal%similarity .43%(.05)*** 7.30%(.05)*** 7.27%(.06)*** .21%(.04)*** .21%(.04)*** Task%interdependency .21%(.08)** 7.09%(.08) 7.12%(.08) .03%(.06) .03%(.06) Independent Perceived%activated%social%faultlines 7.14%(.05)** .40%(.05)*** .40%(.06)*** .04%(.04) Collaborative%behavior .18%(.04)*** .18%(.04)*** Relationship%conflict 7.15%(.05)** 7.16%(.05)** Task%conflict 7.03%(.04) 7.04%(.04) Note:%*p%<%.10,%**p%<%.05,%***p%<%.01 Change)effectiveness Dependent)variable
Predictor)Variables Model)1 Model)2 Model)3 Model)4 Model)5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The present study aimed to make a contribution to the literature on organizational behavior and organizational change by examining the relationship between group members’ perceived individual faultline activation and group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team. Unlike other authors (e.g., Choi et al. 2010; Gover and Duxbury 2012), it was argued in this study that (perceived) activated faultlines may or may not produce undesirable outcomes, and that collaborative behavior and intragroup conflict may explain the underlying processes that are perceived by individual team members.In the following part the implications, limitations and future directions for research will be described.
Summary findings
Results of this study in generally showed the expected results. Moreover, this study examined the effect of two types of individually perceived activated faultline bases, namely socially and work activated faultlines. Both faultline bases predicted outcomes is roughly similar ways, and therefore it cannot be stated that one faultline base is a more prominent antecedent of change effectiveness than the other. Although, previous scholars argued that strong activated faultlines may produce undesirable outcomes (Choi et al., 2010), this study aimed to find an underlying explaining mechanism that could explain these undesirable outcomes. However, results of this study show that the faultline bases used in this study produce nearly identical results. Therefore, it can be concluded that both faultline bases have significant effect on group members’ perceived change effectiveness. However, it should be noted that this study cannot show differential effects between the two faultline bases. Results showed nearly identical results for both types, whereas FauSo was stronger at the former hypothesis and FauWo was stronger at the latter hypothesis.
Also, this study found some support for intragroup conflict as mediating variable. Findings on relationship conflict support the concept of Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) showing that indeed (perceived) faultline activation increases the conflict between employees. Moreover, it shows that relationship conflict is a crucial mediator influencing the relationship between perceived individual activated faultlines (FauSo and FauWo) and perceived individual change effectiveness.
Finally, and contrary to this study’s expectations, no support was found for task conflict to function as a mediating variable between the perceived individual activated faultlines (FauSo and FauWo) and team members’ perceived change effectiveness relationship. Furthermore, in the first step, regression analyses already showed that task conflict had no significant relationship with group members’ perceived change effectiveness. In addition, the relationship showed to be negative, which was also in contrast to this study’s expectation. However, whereas this study expected that task conflict might be beneficial for the team change effectiveness, this study still conducted a sobel test. Results from the sobel test also confirmed that task conflict did not mediate the relationship in this study.
To answer the main research question of this study “To what extent and how does group members’ perceived faultline activation affect group members’ perceptions of change effectiveness in a change context?” it can be concluded that individually perceived activated faultiness have a strong negative effect on group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team, and this relationship can be explained by a decrease in collaborative behavior, and an increase in relationship conflict. Moreover, results showed that these results exist irrespective of the faultline bases (work or social). Hence, this study could thus explain that the level of collaborative behavior and the level of relationship conflict significantly explain the relationship between individually perceived activated faultiness and perceived individual change effectiveness.
Theoretical implications
and therefore group members’ perceived change effectiveness of their team as examined in this present study. However, given that this study measured individually perceived faultlines, no clear conclusions can be drawn about objective faultline strength, and it could also not be shown which faultline base has the strongest effect on change effectiveness.
Following previous research (e.g., Molleman, 2005; van Knippenberg et al., 2004) this study argued and found that team diversity may result in less collaborative behavior between team members, because team members share less information and knowledge with each other. This decrease in collaborative behavior can then explain why a change is handled less effectively, because collaborative behavior is necessary to increase team cohesion and thereby enhance team performance and outcomes that teams produce (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995; Van Knippenberg et al., 2013). Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) also argue that creativity can enhance team outcome, whereas creativity relies in exchanging information with fellow team members. So, this could be an explanation for the individually perceived collaborative behavior positively influenced group members’ perceived change effectiveness.
The other results, regarding the intragroup conflict, are in line with theoretical reasoning and, and results showed significant effects for relationship conflict. This study hypothesized a positive relationship between task conflict and group members’ perceived change effectiveness, but results show otherwise. Jehn and colleagues (2010; 2001; 2003) have completed several studies examining the different outcomes of task conflict and faultlines in relation to beneficial outcomes. Hence, the effects of task conflict with respect to producing beneficial outcomes remain yet unknown. Moreover, Jehn and Mannix (2001) have speculated about task conflict to be beneficial under certain circumstances, however these circumstances are largely unknown. Hence, did this study not find the circumstances that lead to task conflict to become beneficial for team outcome, in this case change effectiveness and could therefore be an explanation why results were completely opposite of what was hypothesized.
interpreted using this study’s definition, which does not guarantee that another investigator may interpret it the same way.
The final theoretical implication is that collaborative behavior and only relationship conflict relate to the change effectiveness as mediating factors of this study. In addition, such behaviors have been well studied within the organizational behavior literature. Unfortunately, task conflict does not act as a mediating variable.
Practical implications
This study also has various practical implications, which can make a difference within a team. First of all, this study shows that diversity, in particular activated faultlines, have a negative effect on the perceived individual change effectiveness. An organization and its managers should provide means by which teams can enhance their collaborative behavior within the team and not to cause relationship conflict, given that this conflict will negatively influence their change effectiveness outcomes. Cawsey and colleagues (2011) state:
“Change management is about keeping the plane flying while you rebuild it” (p. 326).
Furthermore, different scholars argue that teams are pivotal and therefore “building blocks” of an organization and managers should make use of this opportunity. The creativity of individuals should be used and seen as a significant benefit for the organization, using it to resolve relationship conflict or task conflict and increase outcomes. Diversity is not a bad thing per definition. It drives and enhances possibilities that could not have been done without such diversity.
Future directions
Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) argue that under certain conditions task conflict is beneficial to team outcomes. However, what these certain conditions are speculations. Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) argue that under certain circumstances task conflict is beneficial for the outcome. This study tried to study the effects of task conflict and find these circumstances to be beneficial, unfortunately did not find any. Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) already argued that further research is necessary. This study also argues that future research is necessary. Future research should examine under which conditions (moderators) task conflict is and is not negatively related to change effectiveness. Different opinions and different angles and views can be beneficial for task conflict in order to solve complex situations. Therefore, it is an addition to the organizational change literature to find these conditions, which may be beneficial for change outcomes and thereby stimulate and improve organizational change in the near future.
Second, this study tried to discover differential effects between the two faultline bases and the relationship with change effectiveness. Results of this study showed nearly identical results and thus did not find any differential effects. So future research should devote attention to this topic. It could, for example, be that there are even more faultline bases that could explain change effectiveness in different manners.
Limitations
was expected that the nationalities of employees could also control for different results of the current study with respect to the mediating variables.
Second, a practical limitation of this study was the data set, which was gathered prior to writing this thesis. Whereas this study investigates faultlines and change effectiveness that should be seen as group indicators, this study did analyses on the individual level. Analyzing the data at the group level (with aggregated data) unfortunately showed no significant effects for any of the hypotheses.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, G. H., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. a. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2011). Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit. SAGE Publications.
Choi, J. W., Kim, J. W., Seo, J.-W., Chung, C. K., Kim, K.-H., Kim, J. H., … Choi, S. H. (2010). Implementation of Consolidated HIS: Improving Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare. Healthcare Informatics Research, 16(4), 299.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M. N., Weber, T. J., & Ernst, C. (2009). The challenge of leading on unstable ground: Triggers that activate social identity faultlines. Human Relations, 62(11), 1763–1794.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309– 328.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective Behavior and Team Performance. Human Factors, 34(3), 277–288.
Dunphy, D. C., & Stace, D. A. (1988). Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned Organizational Change: Beyond the O.D. Model. Organization Studies, 9(3), 317–334. Dunphy, D. C., & Stace, D. A. (1993). The Strategic Management of Corporate Change.
Human Relations.
Gover, L., & Duxbury, L. (2012). Organizational Faultlines: Social Identity Dynamics and Organizational Change. Journal of Change Management, 12, 53–75.
Gustafson, D. H., Saintfort, F., Eichler, M., Adams, L., Bisognano, M., & Steudel, H. (2000). Methods Developing and Testing a Model to Predict Outcomes of Organizational Change. Health Services Research, 38(2), 751–776.
Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Kearney, E. (2013). Perceived Diversity and Team Functioning: The Role of Diversity Beliefs and Affect. Small Group Research, 44, 33– 61.
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Feild, H., & Harris, S. (2007). Readiness for Organizational Change: The Systematic Development of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232–255.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987– 1015.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. a. (1999). Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–430.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Harper.
Li, F., Li, Y., & Wang, E. (2009). Task Characteristics and Team Performance: The Mediating Effect of Team Member Satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(10), 1373–1382.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.
Liang, H. Y., Shih, H. A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2014). Team diversity and team helping behavior: The mediating roles of team cooperation and team cohesion. European Management Journal, 33(1), 48–59.
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: the moderating role of team-member exchange. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3187–3201.
Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: Do organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a difference? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 213–234.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. a. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement, 6(2), 31–55.
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173–193.
Nadler, D. a., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 35–51.
Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The Effects of Diversity Faultlines and Team Task Autonomy on Decision Quality and Social Integration. Journal of Management, 33(1), 111–132.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135.
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-Member exchange under team and traditional management. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 18–38.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Sage Publications.
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in Diversity Research : The Effects of Diversity Faultlines on Conflict ... Opposite results than expected in faultline research . Group, 217–241.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). Rights and responsibilities of dissent: Cooperative conflict. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(1), 13–23.
Van de Vliert, E., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 211–222.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.
Van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 183–193.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: SAGE Publications.
