Faultlines in a change context: The influence on conflict, psychological safety and team learning

(1)

Faultlines in a change context: The influence on conflict,

psychological safety and team learning

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics & Business

As part of the MSc. BA – Change Management

Submission date: 15-09-2014

(2)

6

Abstract

This study examined the role of organizational change in the activation process of faultiness.

Moreover, the influence of (activated) faultlines on psychological safety, conflict and team learning is explored. Data was collected in three cases in which qualitative as well as quantitative methods have been used. The results of this study indicated that the higher the impact of the change on the daily work, the more likely it is that change can function as a trigger in the faultline activation process. Moreover this study showed that personality is the most important basis for faultlines and at the same time can function as basis for the occurrence of relationship conflict. It seems that activated fautlines have a negative relationship with team learning. Furthermore relationship conflict can have a mediating effect on the relationship between activated faultlines and team learning. The

occurrence of a relationship conflict has also a negative effect on psychological safety which in turn has a negative impact on team learning.

Key words: Organizational change, faultlines, faultline triggers, conflict, psychological safety, team learning.

Word Count: 16939 (excluding appendices and reference list)

Acknowledgements

(3)

7

Table of content

1. Introduction ... 9

2. Theoretical Background... 12

2.1. Faultline theory ... 12

2.2. Faultlines and Team Learning ... 15

2.3. Explanatory mechanisms ... 17 2.3.1. Psychological Safety ... 17 2.3.2. Conflict ... 18 3. Methodology ... 20 3.1. Case selection ... 20 3.2. Case description ... 21

3.3. Data collection - Procedure ... 21

(4)

8 4.3.2. Activated faultlines ... 39 4.3.3. Conflict ... 40 4.3.4. Psychological Safety ... 40 4.3.5. Team Learning ... 41 4.3.6. Results Case 3 ... 41

4.4. Cross – Case Analysis ... 42

4.4.1. Faultline triggers ... 42

4.4.2. Fautline bases ... 42

4.4.3. Conflict ... 43

4.4.4. Psychological safety ... 43

4.4.5. Team learning ... 44

5. Conclusion & Discussion ... 45

5.1. Theoretical implications ... 48 5.2. Managerial implications ... 48 5.3. Limitations ... 49 5.4. Future research ... 50 6. References ... 52 7. Appendices ... 57 7.1. Interview Protocol ... 57 7.2. Questionnairre ... 62 7.3. Coding scheme ... 64

(5)

9

1. Introduction

Organizations nowadays are extremely changed in comparison to organizations years ago. Especially in the 1990s several major workforce-related trends became apparent (Cox, 2010). Examples of such workforce-related trends are the emancipation of woman in the workplace, internationalism and reliance on cross functional teams. This amount of change in combination of trends and events for the cultural milieu and intergroup relations of organization is astounding (Cox, 2010). As a consequence, the diverse workforce with an increasing reliance on teams in organization (e.g. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) raised the attention to gain a better understanding on how these teams should be formed. It is time for managers to meet the challenges of the increasing diversity in workgroups (Cox, 2010). Especially for organizations it is important to maximize a group’s ability to meet challenges and minimize process losses (Thatcher & Patel, 2012) and therefore it is important to understand how to make use of diversity within a group.

(6)

10 operationalization of faultlines and less research has been done on whether the members actually perceive subgroups based on individual attributes (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). The process of whether members perceive formations of subgroups based on individual attributes, is called the activation process of faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). In theory, members of a group can for example form subgroups based on gender, if the group consists of both women and men. If this difference does not lead to a subgroup in reality, but potentially can divide the group into subgroups then it is called a dormant faulline. When the subgroup formation really occurs based on individual attributes then the dormant faultline turns into an activated faultline. Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) started to identify what types of events, behaviors, or circumstances lead to the activation of faultlines, which they called triggers. These researchers developed a typology of faultline triggers based on field data from a variety of cultural contexts. Despite that they extended the understanding of this activation process, Chrabot-Mason et al. (2009) also mentioned that more research is needed on how contextual factors have an influence on the faultline activation process.

Organizations are currently operating in an extreme dynamic environment due to the global financial crisis, major recession and the technological development (Cawsey et al., 2012). This means that organizations need to keep changing to respond to this dynamic environment. Therefore change becomes more and more important in organizational life. This increasing importance stresses the value of exploring how faultlines evolve in a change context.

(7)

11 The mixed results in terms of diversity (e.g. Mannix & Neale, 2005) and the major focus on single attribute diversity stresses the importance to do more research in the field of diversity and especially on multiple attribute diversity. Researchers made major steps by developing the faultline theory which addresses these constrains, but however there is still relative limited research about the activation process of faultlines (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). In particular the influence of contextual factors on this process gained limited attention. The importance of managing change nowadays raised the attention of how faultlines evolve in a change context and also what the impact of faultlines are on important group outcomes as team learning. This study will explore these underexplored fields of research by answering the following research question.

How do faultlines get activated within a change context, what is their influence on team learning and what are the mechanisms that play a role in this relationship?

(8)

12

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Faultline theory

As highlighted in the introduction, workforce diversity has increased extremely during the years. The term diversity is often used and in general it refers to any kind of individual difference that can exist between people who work together in an organization (Ahkanasy et al., 2002). Thus a diverse team can consist of individuals with demographic differences (e.g. age, gender), but can also for example be diverse in terms of personality and educational background. Many researchers explored the effects of diversity on the outcomes of team processes and researchers even tried to capture all past results into a complete picture (e.g. Jackson et al., 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005). These meta analyses showed the mixed results of the effect of diversity. Past research, for example, suggests that team diversity can be very valuable for creativity due to the fact that team diversity leads to an increased range of knowledge and perspectives available in a team (Amabile, 1983), which can be indicated as a positive effect. While on the other hand researchers found that diversity creates social division, resulting in negative outcomes of team processes (Mannix & Neale, 2005). These inconsistent results about the effects of diversity suggest that the concept of diversity is more complex and dynamic than past researchers assumed. Major past findings about diversity are based on the assumption that diversity is constrained to a single individual attribute, while the concept of diversity need to be explored more comprehensively (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).

(9)

13 Table 1: illustration of diversity and faultlines

Group Member W Member X Member Y Member Z Diversity Faultline

1 Male 20 years Male 20 years Male 20 years Male 20 years - - 2 Male 30 years Male 30 years Female 20 years Female 20 years 0.5 Strong (2 attributes) 3 Male 30 years Female 30 years Male 20 years Female 20 years 0.5 Weak (1 attribute, 2 ways)

 Diversity: The standard of one divided by the number of different individual attributes

For instance, team two and team three from the above illustrated teams are equal in terms of diversity. However, from the faultline perspective, team two consists of a strong faultline based on gender and age. While team three also has a faultline, but this one is based on age or based on gender. This team has therefore a faultline on one individual attribute and is indicated as a weak faultline.

Besides the distinction between demographic and informational faultlines; weak and strong faultlines; Jehn & Bezrukova (2010) also distinguish between dormant and activated faultlines. They made this distinction, because they highlighted that much research has been done on operationalizing demographic faultlines (e.g. Lau & Murnighan, 1998), but that there is less known about whether members actually perceive these subgroups. The process by which a dormant (potential) faultline is actually perceived as an activated faultline is referred to as the faultline activation process (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). This means that when there is an objective demographical alignment (e.g. 2 women and 2 men), actually divides the group into separate subgroups based on the demographic alignment (e.g. gender). Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) started to identify what types of events, behaviors, or circumstances lead to the activation of faultlines. They identified five trigger events that can turn dormant faultlines into activated faultlines, which are (1) differential treatment, (2) different values, (3) assimilation, (4) insult, and (5) simple contact. Whereas Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) also mentioned that their findings supports the assertion made by Polzer et al. (2006), who suggests that the activation of faultline depends on the context in which a group operates. Therefore more research is needed on how contextual factors have an

influence on the faultline activation process.

(10)

14 diversity should be managed in this continuously changing organizational world. Gover & Duxbury (2012) started to explore the influence of organizational change by investigating how organizational change may have activated faultlines. Based on qualitative research they found that changes in work location and processes triggered faultlines. Gover & Duxbury (2012) discovered with this research the significant role that organizational change can play in the activation of organizational faultlines. As Gover & Duxbury (2012: 72) noted: “The notion that an organizational change can ignite powerful social dynamics such as the ones observed in here, which otherwise may have lay dormant, demonstrates the considerable and potentially underestimated impact of organizational change”. The findings of this study combined with the fact that Gover & Duxbury (2012) are the first researchers who examined the impact of organizational change on the activation of faultlines highlights the importance to do more research on the influence of change.

Porras (1987) developed a model of how organizations operate and what the key elements are of that operation. In that model four organizational subsystems can be distinguished: 1) Organizing arrangements (e.g. goals, strategies, structure and systems); 2) social factors (individual and group characteristics of the people in an organization, their patterns and processes of interaction and the organizational culture); 3) technology (tools, equipment, machinery, job design and technical elements); and 4) physical settings (space, ambiance, interior, design etc.). Porras & Silvers (1991) followed with a new model based on the model of Porras (1987), but is now cast in terms of change processes. This model indicates that an intervention activity (i.e. change) results in changes in the elements of work settings, which are extremely interdependent. So planned change results in changes in social factors directly and indirectly and is therefore interesting for research in the field of faultlines. Changes in the context of a group can for example create awareness of potential subgroups and in that way activate faultlines. Also an intervention activity can result in changes in individual characteristics which can be a trigger for group polarization. This study assumes, and thereby supports the assumption of Gover & Duxbury (2012), that change has such an impact on work setting elements as social factors (directly and indirectly) that it can have a significant role in the activation of organizational faultlines. Moreover, as change has such an impact on individual characteristics it could also has an influence on faultline bases. This results in the first two parts of the research question:

(11)

15

2.2. Faultlines and Team Learning

Researchers have studied the effects of diversity on group performance (e.g. Mannix & Neale, 2005; Polzer et al., 2006), as already mentioned. Due to the mixed results about the effects of diversity, researchers also examined the effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes (e.g. Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Gover & Duxbury, 2012). Faultlines may have direct and potentially negative effects on group processes and outcomes, even without the trigger of a faultline (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). However, faultlines that are strong and activated are likely to have negative impacts on group performance (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Thatcher et al., 2003), and these effects may be even stronger (Lau & Murnighan, 2005).

Due to several evolutions in the environment organizations are currently operating in (Cawsey et al., 2012), change becomes more and more important in organizational life. Consequently, organizations need to respond to the increasing organizational challenges related to rapid environmental changes by becoming learning organizations (Altman & Iles, 1998). This highlights the importance to do more research about team learning nowadays. Moreover, one of the most difficult aspects of any change initiative is sustainability (Sonenshein, 2010), whereas team learning can contribute to this sustainability in a change context. Namely, when people feel they are learning, they are likely to be more engaged in the work and to contribute to their work and to others, which is critical to sustaining implementation efforts (Kahn 1990). Therefore the focus of this study will be on what the influence is of (activated) fautlines on team learning.

Team learning includes the processes of information acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and information storage and retrieval (Huber, 1991; Offenbeek, 2001).

Processes Definition

Information Acquisition The process by which information is obtained by passive scanning or actively initiating inquiries in the internal and external environment. Information Distribution The process by which team members distribute information to the other

team members.

Information Interpretation The dialogue in which distributed information is given interpretations that are commonly understood by the team.

Information Storage and Retrieval

The storage of common information and locating and using information in the future.

Adapted from Woerkom & van Engen (2009)

(12)

16 learning. However, diversity does not lead directly to information distribution as many diverse informational resources often remain “hidden” (van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008). Many researchers relate the amount of information distribution to the motivation to do so (e.g. Strasser, 1999; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008). Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) particularly associated this influence with the phenomenon of in-group and out-group favoring. This social categorization distinguishing similar others (in-group) from dissimilar others (out-group). Intergroup biases may invite a closing of the mind to dissimilar others, which reduces the willingness to share and discuss information and diverse perspectives (Pieterse et al., 2013). This indicates that group polarization as a result of faultline activation would have a negative effect on information distribution. Moreover, intergroup biases result in the tendency to see diverse others as less trustworthy and knowledgeable sources of information, which consequently lead to paying less attention to diverse perspectives even if they are shared (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In that way intergroup biases would have a negative influence on information acquisition by not optimal making use of the information provided by the internal environment. Consequently, this assumes that an activated faultline would negatively influence the process of team learning. This supports the assumptions of Lau & Murnighan (1998) in suggesting that diversity has more potential for performance gains in resulting in enhanced creativity, and faulltines have more potential for performance losses owing to increased subgroup conflict. Moreover, van Knippenberg et al, (2004) suggest that these intergroup biases do not automatically follow from differences between team members, but that this relationship is influenced by other factors. Therefore it is important to explore how activated faultlines influence team learning. This results in the following research question:

(13)

17

2.3. Explanatory mechanisms

Researchers found direct effects of (activated) faultlines on group performance (e.g. Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). However, researchers also found influencing factors on the relationship between (activated) faultlines and group performance (e.g. Lau & Murgnighan, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2003; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Jehn & Bezrukova (2010) found for example results that supported the work of Kane et al. (2005) about team identity and learning. They found that even in groups with activated faultlines, team identification can help avoiding process losses by creating a united group feeling toward a common goal. This suggest that there are more factors that play a role in the relationship between activated faultlines and process losses, such as losses in team learning. Also Lau & Murnighan (2005) mentioned that future studies might investigate the interplay between faultlines, identities, beliefs, and communications affecting important group behaviors and outcomes. Therefore, this study not only focuses on how activated faultlines influences team learning, but also on the mechanisms that can play a role in this relationship.

2.3.1. Psychological Safety

One of the mechanisms that might play a role in the relationship between activated faultlines and team learning is the construct of psychological safety. Edmondson (2004) defines psychological safety in terms of to what extent individuals perceive an interpersonal threat within their group or organizational environment. Therefore a psychologically safe environment can be seen as an environment where people believe that they are able to express themselves without fear or negative effects on their self-image or status (Kahn, 1990). The concept of psychological safety is therefore related to the process of information distribution, which is part of team learning. People who feel psychological unsafe tend to withhold unique information and do not bring up concerns, or admit errors (Edmondson, 2004), which can influence team learning.

(14)

18

2.3.2. Conflict

Another mechanism that can play a role in the relationship between activated faultlines and team learning is the concept of conflict. Many researchers explored the relationship between conflict and group performance (e.g. Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Offenbeek, 2001; Woerkom & van Engen, 2009). Also numerous meta-analyses about the effects of intragroup conflict on group outcomes are published. De Dreu & Weingart (2003) made a meta-analysis in which task conflict and relationship conflict were the central constructs. Task conflict refers to differences of opinion on aspects of the tasks and relationship conflict refers to disagreements about interpersonal issues, such as personality differences or differences in norms and values (Jehn, 1995). Since the meta-analysis of de Dreu and Weingart (2003), more than 80 new empirical studies of conflict have been conducted, in which a new type of conflict was also examined, namely process conflict (de Wit et al., 2012). Process conflicts are disagreements among group members about for example delegation of tasks and responsibilities (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). The influence of the different types of conflict on group performance are examined. In the recently published meta-analysis of de Wit et al. (2012) negative relationships were found between relationship and process conflict and group outcome. Moreover, in contrast with the findings of the meta-analysis of De Dreu & Weingart (2003), De Wit et al. (2012) did not find a strong and negative relation between task conflict and group performance. These mixed results about the influence of conflict on group performance highlight that this could also be for the influence on team learning. Offenbeek (2001) found that task conflict can stimulate team learning, by providing different opinions regarding the tasks being performed. Woerkom & van Engen (2009) did not find a significant relation between task conflict and team learning, but they did found a negative relationship between relationship conflicts among team members and team learning. Jehn & Bezrukova (2010) did research about the influence of activated faultlines on group outcomes and found that activated faultlines can lead to negative group behaviors in terms of conflict. However, Thatcher et al. (2003) found in the case of relationship and process conflict that stronger subgroupings led to decreased perception of conflict. While Goyal et al. (2008) did research about the influence of different types of diversity on the three above mentioned types of conflict. Goyal et al. (2008) discovered that diversity as separation would positively influence relationship, task and process conflict.

(15)

19 This research does absolutely not suggest that this are the only two factors that possibly can influence the relation between activated faultlines and team learning. Therefore this research give room for possible other mechanisms that can play a role and therefore the following part of the research question is as follows:

(16)

20

3. Methodology

This research focuses on faultlines, team learning and on the mechanisms that play a role in the relationship between these two concepts. Faultlines are often related to a range of complex and dynamic relationships, and moreover they appear naturally in context (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). Therefore research on faultlines requires a research methodology that can gain a detailed picture of events that have occurred in the workplace, to capture this complexity (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2009). In order to capture this complexity, case study research seems suitable as its main objective is theory building based on rich and detailed information (Riege, 2003). A case study focuses on understanding the dynamics which are present within the single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). “A major reason for the popularity and relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of the best (if not the best) of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 25).

First the criteria for the selection of cases will be given, followed by a case description. Then the process of data collection will be described. In the next section the measures of the different variables in this research are given. Finally the data analysis process is described.

3.1. Case selection

(17)

21

3.2. Case description

The organization of analysis is an organization that produces different consumer goods (i.e. food), which are delivered throughout different countries in Europe. The organization consist of about 500 employees, divided over three locations in the Netherlands. This study will be conducted on one location with about 100 employees.

The organization of analysis, started to implement lean principles in January 2013. Wood (2004, p. 8) defines lean as: “a way of giving people at all levels of an organization the skills and shared means of thinking systematically drive out waste by designing, better ways of working, improving connections and easing flows within supply chains”. These lean principles have their origin in the mass production of automobiles (i.e. Toyota), but has been successfully been implemented in a variety of production and service industries (e.g. Bowen & Younghdahl, 1998). Moreover, Enguland et al. (2008) highlight the increasing relevance of lean implementation in large-scale foodservice, by stating that this industry is confronted by demands for increased efficiency of production.

For the organization of analysis, lean means continuous improvement of all processes. Examples of lean principles in this organization are; solve errors yourself; take initiative to improve; problems on the workfloor are problems of the whole organization. This means that every employee can hand in a plan to improve the current situation. They also work from the 5S principles, which means in this organization; “Standhouden, Standaardiseren, Schoonmaken, Schikken, Scheiden”. To measure the success rate of the lean implementation, the production line has to reach 90 “lean” points at the end of the year. Every month the teams of the production line will get an update about the current points they received. The change context for the different cases is the lean implementation in this organization. For this research the focus will lay on the production line where the lean implementation is up and running. This production line runs 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The 24 hours a day are divided into three shifts (i.e. three production teams). One production team consists of six members, three specialized in bakery and three specialized in wrapping. In summary this means a sample of 18 members, divided over three groups. These different groups are analyzed as three different cases as the teams all cope different with the organizational change.

3.3. Data collection - Procedure

Before the data collection started, the research was introduced by higher management to all participants. By publishing the research on the website, the monthly news article and sending an e-mail, the participants were informed about the content of the research.

(18)

22 provides stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses”. Therefore also in this study, data collection methods are combined, which will increase the validity (Yin, 2009). This means that a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection will be used to create a detailed description of the situation.

In the first place information was gathered about the organization and especially about the change context. This was done by interviewing higher management of the organization. After developing an understanding of the change context, data was collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with 17 participants of three teams. The reliability of this researched was increased by explicitly depicting the methodology of this research on forehand by providing an interview protocol. This interview protocol was used as a guideline for the interviews. The concept of semi-structured gives the possibility to add questions during the interviews to create a more complete picture of the situation. The interviews were conducted in a confined space and participants were informed that all their responses will be anonymous and that their answers will not be traceable to them as a person or as a team. Furthermore the interviews were recorded to ensure that the interviewer can pay attention to the interview itself. After conducting the interviews, the participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire. Eisenhardt (1989) stated that using multiple data collection methods results in triangulation which leads to a stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses. Therefore, making use of a questionnaire contributes to the validity of this study (Yin,2009). The questionnaire was mainly used to examine demographic attributes of participants to explore potential faultline bases. The questionnaire is also used to measure individual attributes which are difficult to declare about yourself, for example character type.

The interviews with the higher management took place in the end of March and the beginning of April 2014. The interviews with the 17 participants were conducted in May 2014. All interviews were conducted in Dutch which is the native language of both the participants as well as the researcher.

3.4. Measures

3.4.1. Interviews

(19)

23 The nature and impact of the change were measured by asking a few specific questions about the change context. This was mainly done to understand the specific context of the change but also to avoid that there are misunderstandings about the content of the specific change. Participants were asked to describe the change and also how they experience the impact of the change. Examples of such questions were “Can you explain the content of the change?”, “How satisfied are you with the change process?” and “To what extent does this change has an impact on your daily work?”.

To explore faultline triggers the critical incidence method used by Chrobot-Mason et al. (2009) was also used in this research. This method is used in order to identify events and situations that lead to the activation of faultlines. The participants were asked to think about an event or situation in which they became aware of certain differences between team members. If so, the questions were elaborated on this specific trigger event.

Faultline bases were assessed by asking the participants of which differences they became aware during the change process and beyond. Examples of such questions were “Of what kind of differences did you become aware?”, “Were there more differences you noticed?” and “To what extent did certain team members pull towards each other in this situation and what did they had in common?”. After the questions about the change and the faultline process, questions were asked regarding group interaction processes. Psychological safety was assessed through interview questions based on scales used in the survey of Edmondson (1999). These scales were rewritten from propositions to open questions. For example one proposition of the scale of Edmondson (1999) is: “No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts”, which is rewritten to the following open question: “To what extent do you think that your unique expertise and talent has been appreciated and used within your team?”. Then questions were asked about the occurrence and nature of conflict within the team. If needed also questions were asked about the specific types of conflicts based on definitions of Jehn (1995) and Jehn & Bedersky (2003). Example of such questions were “How often occur conflicts within your team?” and “What is the nature of these conflicts?” Scales of Drach-Zahavy & Somech (2001) are rewritten from propositions to open question to measure team learning. Examples of such questions are “To what extent does your team improve the work of the team?” and “To what extent do team members share knowledge and information to improve the team?”.

(20)

24

3.4.2. Questionnaire

A questionnaire was employed to measure demographic attributes of the participants. This questionnaire was directly filled in by every participant. The main demographic attributes that were measured were for example age, nationality, education level. Besides these general attributes also character type was examined for every participant. This scale is developed by Rupert (for more theory on this see Rupert, 2014) and is based on past research of Reich (1949). This scale measures five character types with five 7-Likert scale items for every type. For every participant the dominant character type could be explored. All individual attributes are presented in tables for every case.

3.5. Data analysis

After the data collection the interviews were transcribed in exact words which increased the instrument reliability (van Aken et al., 2012). The next step was to read the transcripts really carefully to become familiar with it and to analyze possible constructs. Then the transcripts were coded in both an inductive and deductive manner. The key variables of this research were the main basis of the coding scheme and were based on the definitions of the constructs. This resulted in a prior coding scheme which can be divided into different sections, namely organizational change, faultlines, group process and group outcome. These themes were divided into different subthemes to specify the codings even more. The deductive coding of the interviews was based on this prior coding scheme. After the deductive way of coding the inductive way of coding started. This means that answers of similar means which are often mentioned by the participants were also coded. To increase the reliability of this research, transcripts and codings were exchanged with fellow researchers in this field of study.

Besides the qualitative data, also the quantitative data have been analyzed. The individual attributes have been listed for every participant. The character types were analyzed by calculating an average of all items for all possible character types. The highest average was indicated as the dominant type for every participant.

(21)

25

4. Results

The results are reported from three different cases. The change of all cases is the same, namely a lean implementation. The total amount of the sample is 17 research participant distributed over three cases. The research participants have an age varying from 24 years till 59 years with an average of about 43 years. The sample consists of three females and 14 males. In the following chapters the results of the three cases are presented.

4.1. Case 1

The production team consists of six members, of which are five members participating in this research. From the six members are two female and four male. In this research, two female and three males are participating. The team has an average of team tenure of two and a half years.

Although the change content is a lean implementation, the team members mentioned the change primary as continuous improvement of the production line. Several aspects of the change are described by the team members for example solving errors yourself, reporting errors, less labour intensive work and as least waste as possible. Four members of the team indicated that the change had a low impact on their daily work, while one member mentioned that the change has a high impact on daily work. The change is experienced as highly satisfying by four members, while one member is not satisfied with the change. The following was mentioned: “Personally, I am not really satisfied with where we are now. Most of the improvement proposals are not realized”.

4.1.1. Faultline triggers

The participants in this case were asked about specific events or situations in which differences in the group became apparent during the change. When the participants mentioned that in a specific situation or during a specific event it became clear for the participant that people are different in this team, based on individual attributes, that event or situation is indicated as a faultline trigger. When this event or situation is related to the change or an aspect of the change, this faultline trigger is indicated as a change related trigger.

(22)

26 Two members mentioned situations, not related to the change, in which they became aware of differences. Both indicated that during a problem or an error differences between team members became apparent, as one member indicated: “This is not directly related to the change. Before this it was also the situation. (...) You recognize it particularly when there is a problem or error”. Problems and errors triggered faultlines along personality. One example specified that due to not interfering much with a part of the team members, faultlines along expertise field were triggerd, as he mentioned: “..But we do not interfere much with wrapping, but particularly with bakery”. This not interfering much has to deal with the physical position of the team members along the production line based on expertise field. So the team members which are specialized in baking are positioned in the beginning of the production line, while wrapping works at the end of the production line. The higher management mentioned that bakery and wrapping needs each other in the production line, while the team members reported that bakery and wrapping work most of the time independently.

To conclude in this case (aspects of) change are not seen as faultline trigger. The general impression is that the differences are always apparent and not related to a specific situation. However three members mentioned faultline triggers which are not directly change-related. During problems, errors or just not interfering with others differences between team members became apparent.

4.1.2. Activated faultlines

4.1.2.1. Faultline bases

The participants were asked to mention the specific differences between team members. All members experienced faultlines, which are not directly related to the change. The participants also independently highlighted occurrence of subgroups. First the mentioned bases are reported and next the occurrence of subgroups is mentioned.

(23)

27 interests. He is very technical, talks very technical and then I almost fell asleep”. Furthermore she indicated: “One has humour, the other not. 1.C. does not have humour. That is not a problem, but that is sometimes difficult. 1.B. and I are then laughing, and he is looking like what are you laughing about. That is I think the difference of interest”.

4.1.2.2. Subgroup occurrence

Four out of five participants experienced subgroup formation in their team, as one mentioned: “I experience that some people pull towards each other and some do not”. And one other participant reported the following: “If you look at the members who are really coping with each other, then 1.B. and I are that, we are always together “. To conclude it is apparent that there is subgroup formation within this group.

4.1.2.3. Faultline bases and subgroup occurrence

(24)

28 Table 2: Individual attributes case one.

Team 1 1.A. 1.B. 1.C. 1.D. 1.E. 1.F. Gender F F M M M M Age 47 50 42 41 50 53 Nationality NL NL NL NL NL NL Educational level

MBO LBO LBO LBO MBO MBO

Expertise field Wrapping Wrapping Wrapping Bakery Bakery Bakery

Payroll - X - - - - Internal education - - - - Character type “Verdrager” “Verdrager” + “Verbinder” “Prestatie Gericht” “Leidend” “Verbindend” Subgroup nr. 1 1  1.F. Not interviewed.

To conclude, the subgroup one most recognized by the participants is formed by 1.A. and 1.B. They share four individual attributes not mentioned as faultline bases by the participants, namely gender, age, nationality and internal education. However, the subgroup share two individual attributes mentioned as faultline bases: expertise field and character type. Therefore the subgroup occurrence in combination with the reported faultline bases results in an activated faultline. This subgroup has two faultline bases and moreover are the only female in this group and thus be seen as a strong activated faultline.

4.1.3. Conflict

The participants were specifically asked about the extent of conflicts in the group and the form of conflict. Moreover they were asked to specify between which people the conflict raised.

Four out of five participants reportedthat conflicts raised in this group, as one mentioned: “..Regularly, and then between 1.A. and 1.C., what I already mentioned”. Three of five participants indicated that the conflicts that raised in this group are between 1.A. and 1.C One research participant mentioned the following: “..But I am happy that I do not need to work with 1.A. any more”, and another indicated: “..They (1.A. & 1.C.) both think that they are smarter than the other”.. “..They (1.A. & 1.C.) cannot go through one door”.

(25)

29 three participants mentioned it as a relationship conflict, as one mentioned: “They cannot go through one door with each other. Both want to walk in front of the other, that is the whole case”. Based on the results of the questionnaire we found that 1.A. and 1.C. can be seen as different character types (see table).

To conclude it is apparent that there is a conflict between 1.A. and 1.C., which is most frequently mentioned as a relationship conflict. Moreover the activated faultline of 1.A. and 1.B. is related to the relationship conflict between 1.A. and 1.C. Besides that, the results suggest that the faultline basis, personality, also can be seen as conflict basis.

Specific questions were asked about psychological safety. Three out of five participants reported that they perceive the environment as safe. One mentioned: “I got that feeling, that everyone is accepted for who they are. For example as payroll employee I was always included”. Two out of five participants indicated the team as moderately psychologically safe. One participant mentioned: “.. I learnt much from 1.A. about the machines and stuff. If something broke down or something, then she let try it myself, so that i can do it by myself. But if i were in the same situation with 1.C., then he does it for me. Then i do not get the chance to do it myself.”. Also questions were asked about psychological safety with different team members. As indicated above, it was not psychological safe between 1.B. and 1.C.

Therefore it can be concluded that the activated faultline of 1.A. and 1.B. can be related to the psychologically unsafe environment between 1.B. and 1.C. This indicates that an activated faultline has a negative influence on the psychological safety of the environment with people outside the subgroup.

4.1.5. Team Learning

Two out of five participants reported a high level of team learning, as one mentioned for example: “..Yesterday I had that problem, what do you do about it (...) Constantly are you doing that, really on a daily basis”. While three out of five participants reported a low to moderate level of team learning. One mentioned for example: “You recognize that people just come for work and then go. All extra tasks and activities that you can do, are just very rarely taken by people. People want to go home very fast and just coming to make their hours”. Another indicated: “.. nine of ten times you are doing it by yourself”.

(26)

30

4.1.6. Results Case 1

In this case the participants reported that the change has played no role for faultline triggers as no research participant mentioned a trigger which was change-related. The low impact of the change on the daily work have contributed to this, as the participants experienced not much of the change. Problems, errors and not interfering were indicated as faultline triggers. Three different faultline bases were mentioned, namely expertise field, interest and personality, which are all not change-related. Personality was reported by all participants and can be seen as an important faultline basis. Four out of five mentioned the same subgroup, with as indicated basis personality.

Three out of five participants mentioned a high psychological safe environment, while two out of five indicated the team as moderately safe. In this team, four out of five participants mentioned that conflicts raised and three out of five agreed on the persons between these conflicts raised, which most frequently was indicated as a relationship conflict. There are also indications that an activated faultline has an negative influence on the psychological safety of the environment with people outside the subgroup.

(27)

31

4.2. Case 2

The production team consists of six members, whereas all members of this team participating in this research. Therefore a complete picture of the case can be made. Five members are male and only one member of the team is a female. The team has an average team tenure of about one year and eight months.

The change in this case was also a lean implementation, but also here were several descriptions of the change mentioned by team members of this team. The most mentioned change by team members is the continuous improvement of the process to produce as most as possible. An example in which this was mentioned is the following: “The improvement processes lead to a more efficient way of working. By doing this we can produce as much as possible with our production line”. Other aspects of the change that were mentioned by team members were creating a constant output, removing non value adding actions, improving collaboration between team members and reporting processes. Four out of six members indicated that the change has a high impact on their daily work, while the other two mentioned that the change has not an extreme impact on their daily work. One participant indicated to be highly satisfied with the change, while the other five members are not fully satisfied with the change. They mentioned that not everybody knows what the change is, that not every improvement process has been executed and that not everyone is adjusted to the change.

(28)

32 To conclude, the general indication is that differences of people are always apparent and not related to a specific situation of event. However two members mentioned situations which are not related to the change in which they became aware of differences. This were situations under time pressure and just not by collaborating with each other. Also one member mentioned the change itself as trigger in which differences between team members became apparent.

Four out of six team members indicated personality as an important basis for faultlines. This can be illustrated for example by the following pronunciations: “I think that this is mostly based on differences between people. Characters. For example one puts a lot of value to values, while another doesn’t, which results in a confrontation”. Another member mentioned: “..I think that my personality is 180 degrees different than that of 2.D. “. Therefore it is apparent that personality is an important basis for faultlines. Also four out of six team members mentioned that internal education can be seen as a basis for faultlines. This is stressed by pronunciations about expertise gained in the internal education and tasks and mentality related to the internal education. One member mentioned for example: “We are doing an education and will be trained to management level. Then you are going to view things differently, you are dealing different with things”. Moreover one stressed the following: “You just notice that the people in the internal education talks a lot about things that occurs there and with all the improvement proposals.” Two out of six team members highlighted tenure as a basis for faultlines. The tenure in the organization is related to a long period of doing the tasks in a standard way, which is now changed due to the lean implementation. As one member for example mentioned: “I became especially aware of people who work here for the longest period. Those people had an attitude of why should it be changed, if we do it always in this way”. Two out of six team members indicated expertise field as basis for faultlines as one member mentioned the following: “Of course you’ve got differences between wrapping and bakery”. Interest is also mentioned as basis for faultline by only one member as the member indicates the following: “2.B. and I like machines very much”.

(29)

33 4.2.2.2. Subgroup occurrence

Five out of six team members experienced subgroup occurrence in their team, as one mentioned: “I think that 2.B. and 2.C. experience the same. Therefore we pull towards each other, because we are in the same situation”. To conclude it is apparent that there is subgroup formation, as the majority indicates.

Three out of five participants mentioned the subgroup formation of 2.B, 2.C. and 2.E. (subgroup two). All participant who mentioned this subgroup indicated that this is related to internal education, as one example mentioned: “We exchange a lot about what can be improved and you recognize that we are really busy with this subject in our internal education”. Also three out of five participant mentioned the subgroup formation of 2.A., 2.B. and 2.C (subgroup four). and the subgroup consisting of 2.D., 2.E. and 2.F. (subgroup five), related to expertise field. Only one member mentioned the subgroup of 2.A. and 2.F., related to openness to change, as one mentioned: “2.A. and 2.F. are those who pull towards each other” ... “They work here the longest, and are used to this old way of doing”. The characteristics of team members are administrated in the tables below, with the subgroups most mentioned in colour.

Table 3: Individual attributes case two. Team 2 2.A. 2.B. 2.C. 2.D. 2.E. 2.F. Gender M M F M M M Age 46 24 26 46 39 53 Nationality NL NL NL NL NL NL Educational level

MBO MBO MBO LBO MBO MBO

Payroll - - X - - - Internal education - X X - X - Character type “Verdrager” “Prestatie Gericht” “Prestatie Gericht” “Leidend” “Verdrager” + “Prestatie Gericht” Undefinable Subgroup nr. 2 2 2

(30)

34 about the same for the whole group and therefore internal education and character type is distinctive for this subgroup.

Table 4: Individual attributes case two. Team 2 2.A. 2.B. 2.C. 2.D. 2.E. 2.F. Gender M M F M M M Age 46 24 26 46 39 53 Nationality NL NL NL NL NL NL Educational level

MBO MBO MBO LBO MBO MBO

Payroll - - X - - - Internal education - X X - X - Character type “Verdrager” “Prestatie Gericht” “Prestatie Gericht” “Leidend” “Verdrager” + “Prestatie Gericht” Undefinable Subgroup nr. 3 3 3 4 4 4

The other subgroups most mentioned are subgroup three and subgroup four. Subgroup three share three individual attributes with the whole group, namely nationality, educational level and expertise field. Nationality and educational level are about the same for the whole group and therefore this group is distinctive based on expertise field. Subgroup four share four individual attributes with each other, namely gender, nationality, expertise field and status of payroll. Also this group shares one attribute which is seen as faultline basis, namely expertise field.

To conclude three activated faultlines can be indicated in this team as subgroups are formed which share individual attributes which are mentioned as faultlines basis. The subgroup of 2.B., 2.C. and 2.E. can be seen as a stronger activated faultline as it has two faultline bases compared to the other activated faultlines based on one faultline basis.

4.2.3. Conflict

(31)

35 Four out of six team members reported that the conflict between 2.D. and 2.E. was about the internal education of 2.E, as one mentioned the following: “That was mainly about 2.E. its education and its projects”. Another member also mentioned: “There is one that does ECV4 and then he was often away in my eyes. I do not have to work for you. You are here, and if you want to study so badly you can do that at home or after work time”. Two out of six members indicated the conflict between those two members as relationship conflict, as one mentioned: “The story with 2.E. became a personal tension. It became really personal. I really felt sorry for him”. Based on the results of the questionnaire this can also be form of conflict based on character type as 2.D. wants to give direction to what 2.E. should do. Moreover one member also mentioned that 2.E. and 2.D. have different characters and therefore cannot work together with each other, as mentioned: “Those two are really different from each other, for example 2.D. has a big mouth ... , 2.E. is a bit more quiet”. From the results of the questionnaire also can be concluded that 2.E. and 2.D. have a different character type.

Four out of six team members indicated that the conflict between 2.D. and 2.E. influenced the communication between them and also between the whole bakery, as one mentioned the following: ”Almost nobody in bakery talked with each other, with that of 2.D. and 2.E”, and another mentioned: “On a certain moment, they did not communicate with each other anymore”.

Four out of six team members indicated that they perceive the environment as safe. One mentioned: “For example such a deaf person. Everybody just accepts that. In that case differences are accepted”, and another mentioned: “...I think that when it is really necessary, I think that I can go to everyone in my team”. However there were some specific situations that can be indicated as psychological unsafe, mentioned by 2.B. and 2.E. who follow an internal education. 2.B. mentioned for example the following: “Sometimes if I need to do something, then I got reactions like; Is that necessary now, and why is that necessary?”. Moreover 2.E. also mentioned situations that are psychological unsafe as he mentioned the following: “For example that it is not been appreciated that I put effort in my education, what eventually contributes to the whole organization” , and he also mentioned: “Not from 2.D., but the other team members I can ask for help”.

(32)

36

Five out of six members reported a low to moderate level of team learning. Examples for this indication are that the team is not busy with improvement processes and that only a few in the team took real steps to improve. One member said: “The whole team is basically searching for improvements, but the real improvements and steps that need to be followed, for example an improvement proposal, that do just a few people”. Moreover 2.E. stresses that he do not ask for help anymore to the bakery and especially not from 2.D. due to the conflict and low psychological safety, which results in low team learning as he mentioned the following: “I do not feel comfortable anymore with bakery and especially with 2.D.. I do not ask for his help for an improvement proposal or something. He do not want to know anything about it and thinks that I need to put effort in my daily tasks. From wrapping I got more support”. However, one out of six members indicated team learning as being high.

To conclude, the occurrence of a conflict and feeling not psychologically safe result in low team learning.

In this case half of the team members indicated that there were no faultline triggers. However, two members mentioned faultline triggers which are not change related, namely situations with time pressure and one indicated not collaborating as faultline trigger. One member mentioned the whole change as trigger. Five different faultline bases were mentioned by the team members, whereas the most mentioned bases for faultlines are personality and internal education. Furthermore, team members indicated tenure in the organization, expertise field and interest as bases for faultlines. One of the most recognized subgroups (i.e. two) shared two individual attributes and the other subgroups (i.e. three and four) shared only one attributed which is mentioned as faultline basis.

(33)

(34)

38

4.3. Case 3

In case three, the production team consists of six team members and all members of this team are participating in this research. All members of this team are male and the team has an average team tenure of one year and nine months.

Equal to the other cases also in this case a lean implementation was running. The main description given by the team members is that the change needs to ensure that the work become easier, as one mentioned the following: “.. We need to make it easier for the people and for ourselves”. Moreover, most of the team members mentioned that waste need to be reduced, as one mentioned the following: “We started to produce more in shorter time. This was due to the reduction of as much waste as possible”. Five out of six members reported that the change has low impact on their daily work. One member mentioned for example the following: “I am not working on it on a daily basis. I am not extremely busy with it”. However, one member mentioned that the change has a high impact on the daily work. All members stressed the change as satisfied, however a few members mentioned that the sharpness to improve is decreased during the change.

Three out of six team members stressed that no specific situation can be related to becoming aware of differences between team members. One member mentioned for example the following: “You notice that always. Every minute of the day”.

One member mentioned a situation in which he became aware of differences, namely when tasks need to be divided. This triggered faultlines along payroll stratus. He indicated the following: “If something needs to be done, the tasks often are distributed to the payroll employee”. Another member indicated that working on a smartphone during work time made him aware of age differences.

There was one member who mentioned the change itself as trigger, as he mentioned the following: “Believe me, it is just hard to change. I did not work there for a long time, so I was new and worked on other things. There were also people who worked there for a long time, who made it on their own way, who worked always in the same way. And if someone wants to change that, it is not always easy”. This triggered faultlines along tenure in the organization. Another member mentioned that when someone came with an idea to improve he became aware of differences.

(35)

39

Two out of six team members indicated expertise field as basis for faultlines as one member mentioned the following: “Bakery and wrapping is often a bit different from each other. We smoke together, but it is a bit like every man for himself”. Also two out of six team members indicated that personality is a basis for faultlines, as he mentioned the following: ”One is just more fanatic than the other”. Another mentioned: “I recognize myself in him, he has the same drive as me”. One out of six team members reported that people are different based on their values, for example one mentioned the following: “One is always on time, and the other always too late”. Also one out of six team members mentioned that function is a basis for faultlines, as he mentioned the following: “That has to deal with hierarchy, I mean they are all machine leader one and I am machine leader three”. One member stressed that age can be seen as faultline basis, as he indicated the following: “With 3.C. you recognize it due to the age”. Also one member highlighted organizational tenure as basis for faultline, as he mentioned the following: “There were also people who worked here for a long time”. As already mentioned in the faultline triggers, one member became aware of differences in status of payroll. To conclude the most recognized faultline bases are expertise field and personality. Besides these faultline bases, also values, function, age, organizational tenure and status of payroll are mentioned as faultline bases.

4.3.2.2. Subgroup occurrence

Four out of six team members experienced no subgroup occurrence in their team, as one mentioned: ”That is a good question (…) I do not think that there are subgroups.”… “In this group there is not really group formation”. However, one member mentioned that there was subgroup occurrence of bakery and wrapping.

(36)

40 Table 5: Individual attributes case three.

Team 3 3.A. 3.B. 3.C. 3.D. 3.E. 3.F. Gender M M M M M M Age 47 59 30 46 36 47 Nationality NL NL NL NL NL NL Educational level

LBO MBO High

School

MBO MBO LBO

Expertise field

Wrapping Wrapping Wrapping Bakery Bakery Bakery

Payroll - - X - - - Internal education - - - - Character type

“Verdrager” “Verbinder” “Creatief” “Verbinder” + “Leidend”

“Verdrager” “Verdrager”

Subgroup nr. 5 5 5 6 6 6

To conclude, the subgroups recognized by one of the team members are coloured. Subgroup five share four individual attributes with the whole group, whereas one was mentioned as faultline basis, namely expertise field. Subgroup six share five individual attributes with the whole group, whereas two attributes are mentioned as bases for faultlines namely expertise field and status of payroll. Therefore both subgroups can be indicated as activated faultlines.

4.3.3. Conflict

Three out of six team members stressed that there were conflicts in their group. Two of them indicated that they only heard of conflicts, as one mentioned the following: “I heard that there was one conflict between 3.D. and 3.E., just by hearsay”. This conflict was confirmed by the following pronunciation: “One men is always coming too late, that is 3.E..”. This conflict was thus related to the faultline basis mentioned above, namely values.

The majority of team members reported the environment as safe. One mentioned: “Yes of course. That has been accepted. You do not need to make constantly mistake s, but if you make one, that is okay”, and another mentioned: “..That they also mention that our cooks are really beautiful” ... “Given each other compliments”.

(37)

41 To conclude, the majority of the team members felt psychologically safe, but there were some situations stressed that can be indicated as psychological unsafe. These situations were between bakery and wrapping, which are activated faultlines. Therefore, we can conclude that an activated faultline results in psychological unsafe environment.

Half of the team members reported a high level of team learning. Examples for this indication are the following: “.. If you need someone for something, there was always someone” and “By making improvement proposals and talk about it with each other”. However there were some indications given by team members that the team scores low on team learning. Two team members mentioned that the team learning in the whole team was low as one mentioned the following:”Bakery transferred the problems to wrapping. That is no collaboration”. Another example that illustrates this is the following: “Sometimes it seems if the problems were not solved and if we told them that, they did not do anything with it”. Another team member mentioned that the team learning between payroll and the team was low as he mentioned: “The fixed employees were more concerned. The pay roll employees were sometimes less busy with it”.

To conclude, the activated faultlines result in lower team learning.

(38)

42

4.4. Cross – Case Analysis

After the within case analysis of the different cases, the similarities and differences across cases are discussed.

In total 11 participants mentioned that no situation or event happened during the change in which they become aware of differences between team members. These participants mentioned other faultline triggers which are not related to the change. Two members mentioned not interfering with each other as faultline trigger. Both members indicated that this triggered faultlines along expertise field. They reported that bakery and wrapping work most of the time independently, while higher management mentioned that both expertise fields need each other in the production line. However, baking is positioned in the beginning of the production line and wrapping at the end. Two members indicated the occurrence of an error or problem as a trigger, which triggered faultlines along personality. Other triggers that were mentioned by the participants are working on a smartphone, time pressure, task distribution and the process of an improvement idea. Working on a smartphone triggered faultlines along age and task distribution along payroll status. It is not clear of which bases the participants became aware during time pressure and the process of an improvement idea. However, two members mentioned the change itself as trigger. It is consistent across cases that this triggered faultlines along organizational tenure. These two members also experienced a high impact of the change on the daily work, while most of the participants did not experienced a high impact. Therefore it seems that the impact of the change is related to the perception of change related triggers. Moreover it is logical that this triggered faultlines along organizational tenure, due to that tenure is related to a long period of doing tasks in a standard way which is now changed due to the lean implementation.

In general, there are differences in level of faultline triggers. Small events, as working on a smartphone are mentioned, while also the whole change is mentioned as a faultline trigger.

4.4.2. Fautline bases