Theoretical Background. The effects of demographic faultlines on group processes and performance are often explained using the theories of similarity-attraction, social identity, and social categorization. The similarity-attraction paradigm posits that group members are attracted to similar others (▇▇▇▇▇, 1971), such that members who share a demographic characteristic will be likely to form a subgroup on the basis of the mutual similarity. Social categorization theory argues that the categories that people base their identities on (and thus admire in similar others) proscribe their behavior. When social identities are salient, people will strive to enhance themselves by making their in-group appear superior to the out-group (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1986; Turner, 1987). To accomplish this, members may exhibit pride and loyalty to their in-group and derogatory and prejudiced attitudes and behavior toward the out-group (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989). These processes over time may lead to a breakdown in communication between subgroups (e.g., Lau & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2005) and the eventual polarization of the different subgroups from each other (c.f. Lau & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). We propose that faultline placement (whether the faultline creates a solo-split or coalitional split) determines the degree to which these social psychological mechanisms impact team processes and outcomes. While past research has explored whether processes such as these lead faultlines to be associated with higher levels of conflict (e.g., ▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2005; ▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2006; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2003), research has yet to investigate how the effects of faultlines might vary depending on the placement of the faultline in the group – whether the faultline divides two subgroups from each other or whether the faultline separates a single member from a larger subgroup. In this chapter, we specifically focus on the group process of conflict as explaining the effects of faultline placement on team and individual performance. Because our study examines team composition, conflict is a particularly relevant construct, as past theory and research has often suggested that these two concepts - team composition and conflict - are closely related (e.g., ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇, 1999; ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇, 1999). Additionally, conflict has been found to be a major contributor to the effects of group processes on outcomes such as performance or satisfaction (e.g., ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1996; ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇, 1995; 1997). Past conflict research has identified three main types of conflict: task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict (▇▇▇▇, 1997). Task conflicts typically involve disagreements about the task being performed, such as disagreements about what strategic goal to pursue; relationship conflicts are disagreements about personal issues and incompatibilities; and process conflicts are disagreements about logistical issues, such as the assignment of responsibilities or the setting of an agenda (Jehn, 1997). In the following sections, we discuss potential differences between teams with faultline solo-splits or faultline coalition-splits in terms of their levels of intragroup conflict and then discuss the implications of this for group performance. We propose that teams with faultline solo-splits will have lower levels of all three types of intragroup conflict – task, process, and relationship- than teams with faultline coalitional-splits. This is based on past research which has shown that in certain situations, solo members tend to conform rather than express their opinion in the face of a unified majority (Asch, 1952; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇, 1981; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1984). Asch’s (1952; 1956) classic work on conformity demonstrated the extreme power a majority can exert over a minority member, causing minority members to conform to the majority opinion and discard their own opinion, even if they believed it to be true. In faultline situations, where the solo member is dissimilar from the other group members on multiple characteristics, these effects could be expected to be even stronger, implying that teams with faultline solo-splits will have markedly lower levels of conflict than teams with faultline coalitional-splits. A possible explanation for this is that people who express dissenting opinions risk social disapproval from others (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1951; ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Buscene, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1994), and solo members may consciously recognize that expression of their views may result in the majority subgroup members liking them less if they express a different perspective (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1955). Therefore, solo-split groups may be likely to have low levels of all types of conflict within their group as solo members may not wish to engage the majority subgroup members in debate. In contrast, when a faultline coalitional-split (where each subgroup has two or more members) exists within a team, neither coalition should have trouble expressing their opinion because of increased feelings of social support (▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). As seen in the Asch experiments (1952; 1956) and confirmed in later work (e.g., ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 1972), the presence of just a single additional dissenting minority member dramatically increases the ability of dissenting members to hold to their beliefs and avoid conforming to the majority. This occurs because of feelings of social support (c.f. ▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998) and increased feelings of psychological safety (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1999). In these situations, conflicts of all types become more open confrontations as both sides express their views of each other –over both interpersonal and work-related problems. This willingness to engage in conflict is likely to be even further exacerbated by the higher levels of competition likely to be present in teams with different subgroups. In coalitional-split groups, subgroup members’ support for subgroup interests can lead to competition between different subgroups (Insko & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1987; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Insko, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2002), as subgroup members work to favorably influence their own outcomes even at the expense of members of other subgroups (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). In such situations, conflicts are more likely than in solo-split teams, where the solo-members are unable to challenge the dominant subgroup because of a lack of social support. We therefore propose:
Appears in 2 contracts
Sources: Doctoral Thesis, Doctoral Thesis