Reducing Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams

Abstract

Faultlines have the potential to significantly disrupt team performance due to the creation of intergroup bias. In geographically dispersed teams, given the combination of dispersed locations and other diversity characteristics, faultlines are potentially a major issue that needs to be more fully understood. This study examines the impact of faultlines on geographically dispersed teams and how problems caused by faultlines can be resolved. An experimental study of 40, four-person student teams finds that perceived faultlines heighten conflict and impair decision process quality. The findings also suggest that self-disclosure via weblogs and task elaboration can repair damage caused by faultlines. However, self-disclosure does not have a direct effect on reducing faultlines; the relationship is moderated by social attraction. That is, as team members disclose personal information to out-group members and out-group members are attracted to such disclosure, perceived faultlines are diminished. This study also finds that even in teams with strong perceived faultlines, team members are still able to exchange and integrate perspectives if they have a better understanding of their out-group members via self-disclosure. The negative consequence of faultlines therefore is eased when task elaboration occurs during task execution. Implications of these coping mechanisms for teams with faultlines in organizations are discussed.

Multidimensionality: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Integration

“…Generally, scholars have found that strong faultlines negatively influence group processes and outcomes (e.g., cohesion, performance; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Molleman, 2005). Since Thatcher and Patel’s (2012) review, scholars have continued to explore the impact of faultlines on group outcomes (e.g., performance, decision-making; Bezrukova, Spell, Caldwell, & Burger, 2016; Spoelma & Ellis, 2017), group processes (e.g., cohesion, conflict; Chiu & Staples, 2013; Schölmerich, Schermuly, & Deller, 2016), perceptions (e.g., climate perception; Beus, Jarrett, Bergman, & Payne, 2012), and behaviors (e.g., knowledge exchange; Lim, Busenitz, & Chidambaram, 2013). Although most faultlines research focuses on the effects of faultlines on groups, some recent studies have investigated how faultlines affect individuals and organizations (e.g., employees’ loyal behavior, organizational performance; Bezrukova et al, 2016; Chung, Liao, Jackson, Subramony, Colakoglu, & Jiang, 2015).…”

Faultlines as the “Earth’s Crust”: The Role of Team Identification, Communication Climate, and Subjective Perceptions of Subgroups for Global Team Satisfaction and Innovation

“…Examining both the perception of subgroups and processes alleviating the effects of faultlines is necessary for understanding the mechanisms and consequences of subgroups in global teams. Research on faultlines and subgroups is frequently conducted in the lab (e.g., Chiu & Staples, 2013; Yilmaz & Peña, 2014) and although this contribution is very important, subgroups should also be examined in field studies.…”

Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research ThroughSmall Group Research

“…To this point, the first takeaway from this period is that focus on the Virtual Teams cluster (Cluster 2) intensified in line with the increased use of CMC and virtual teams throughout organizations and broader society (Tannenbaum et al, 2012). For example, in line with the broad applicability of the phenomenon, work on virtual teams further expanded into that on decision-making (McLeod, 2013), group diversity (Martins & Shalley, 2011), cultural diversity (Han & Beyerlein, 2016), training (Gilson et al, 2013), faultlines (Chiu & Staples, 2013), and group dynamics (Handke et al, 2019). This integration signals the promise and peril of virtual teams.…”