The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes

This research examines the effects of group faultline activation on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. We distinguish between dormant faultlines (potential faultlines based on demographic characteristics) and activated group faultlines (members actually perceive subgroups based on the demographic characteristics) and hypothesize that while dormant faultlines do not automatically turn into active group divisions, a group’s entitlement configuration can activate divisions among group members. Study 1 was a construct validity study to verify the psychometric properties of the activated group faultline measure and explain its connection to other process variables. In Studies 2 and 3, we tested our hypotheses and found that groups with activated faultlines were more likely to form coalitions, have high levels of group conflict, and lower levels of satisfaction and group performance than dormant faultline groups. Furthermore, team identification moderated the effects of activated faultlines on group processes such that a strong workgroup identity decreased the likelihood that activated faultlines led to coalition formation and conflict. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Group composition and its effect on group processes and outcomes are central to the study of organizations. However, much research on group diversity has shown mixed results (cf. Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduced the concept of group faultlines to forward research on group composition. Group faultlines ‘‘divide a group’s members on the basis of one or more attributes” (p. 325). The group faultline framework allows group composition researchers to make predictions about subgroup interactions within the group based on member demographic characteristics. However, much of the empirical work has neglected a number of aspects of faultlines that we consider critical to understanding the theoretical link between members’ demographics and group performance: faultline activation, group personality configuration, and superordinate team identification. Our main research question is when are objective demographic alignments (dormant faultlines) actually perceived by group members? That is, when do dormant faultlines become activated faultlines? According to Lau and Murnighan (1998), groups may have many potential faultlines, ‘‘each of which may activate or increase the potential for particular subgroupings” (p. 328). Subgroups, in general, are two or more individuals within a group separated from other group members (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; O’Leary & Mortensen, 2008). Faultline subgroups are based on demographic alignments that divide groups; for instance, into male and female subgroups (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) or even based on location (Cramton & Hinds, 2005; O’Leary & Mortensen, 2008; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). We define faultline activation as the process by which an objective demographic alignment (a potential, or dormant faultline) is actually perceived by group members as the division of the group into separate subgroups based on demographic alignment (an activated faultline). While Lau and Murnighan’s initial conceptualization of faultlines infers activation, the majority of the recent work on faultlines operationalizes faultlines based on objective demographic characteristics such as gender, nationality, and race (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Molleman, 2005; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008; Polzer et al., 2006; Sawyer, Houlette, & Yeagley, 2006; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). Despite the theorizing, much of this past work on faultlines (see Earley and Mosakowski (2000) for exception) does not examine whether the members actually perceive these subgroup distinctions based on demographics that Lau and Murnighan (1998) suggested were the basis for consequent intragroup processes and outcomes. We therefore draw on the diversity research which has suggested: (a) that diverse groups are likely to contain subgroups (Phillips, Mannix, Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004; Polzer et al., 2006); (b) that there is a conceptual distinction between objective and 0749-5978/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008 * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.A. Jehn), [email protected] (K. Bezrukova). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010) 24–42