Summary: Bridging faultlines in diverse teams – Gratton, Voigt & Erickson
All companies employ large and diverse teams to attack some of their most challenging tasks: tasks
across boundaries, functions and geographies that no single department can accomplish. Those teams
are formed precisely: they have to bring a range of experiences and attitudes that will ensure an
innovative end-product. This create challenges.
There are two roots of failures:
1. Failure of collaboration, in which team members did not develop trust and goodwill among
themselves.
2. Failure of knowledge sharing, in which team members withheld their individual knowledge from
other team members or from other teams.
Close examination of team demographics revealed that mostly the failures in collaboration are the
result from faultlines: subgroups that emerge naturally within teams, typically along various
demographic lines. These faultlines split the team into subgroups, and those subgroups rarely
collaborated with each other. They only shard knowledge within their own group. However, faultlines
are not always a problem: when the leader is able to reduce the problems associated with diverse teams
and to enhance the performance. Faultlines are often stronger when they are based upon the
combination of multiple dimensions.
Those faultlines leads to in-groups (people like us) and out-groups (those across the boundary of the
faultline, people not like us).
Those subgroups share information together, but the combination of knowledge across subgroups is
essential.
When complex teams develop over time, a deeper layer of faultlines becomes visible: not based on
surface-level attributes, but on subtler, deep-level attributes, such as personal values, dispositions and
attitudes. Then a fautline emerges between the members with cooperative values and a subgroup of
people with more competitive values.
The most important factor in determining whether destructive faultlines emerged, was the style of the
leader. There are 4 paths for the leader to follow:
1. Task orientation: the leader uses a strong and consistent task-oriented leadership style during
the entire project. The leader creates a detailed project plan, tight schedules and emphasize
high, but realistic performance goals. The leaders are accessible all time, and see their role as
providing the team with technical and specialist assistance critical to the task.
2. Relationship orientation: this leader places emphasis team’s culture, and on the extent and
depth of relationships among members. Leaders use kindness, respect, encourage a climate of
trust and cooperation, and provide recognition and appreciation for accomplishments.
3. Task orientation, switching to relationship orientation: the leader begins by task-oriented
style, through setting targets and scheduling work. When the project progresses, the leader
encourages team members to collaborate and to increase trust and goodwill within the team.
4. Relationship orientation, switching to task orientation: the leader begins by creating a feeling
of trust within the team, through socializing and meetings. Afterwards, he moves to a more
task-oriented approach by setting clear goals and standards.
All companies employ large and diverse teams to attack some of their most challenging tasks: tasks
across boundaries, functions and geographies that no single department can accomplish. Those teams
are formed precisely: they have to bring a range of experiences and attitudes that will ensure an
innovative end-product. This create challenges.
There are two roots of failures:
1. Failure of collaboration, in which team members did not develop trust and goodwill among
themselves.
2. Failure of knowledge sharing, in which team members withheld their individual knowledge from
other team members or from other teams.
Close examination of team demographics revealed that mostly the failures in collaboration are the
result from faultlines: subgroups that emerge naturally within teams, typically along various
demographic lines. These faultlines split the team into subgroups, and those subgroups rarely
collaborated with each other. They only shard knowledge within their own group. However, faultlines
are not always a problem: when the leader is able to reduce the problems associated with diverse teams
and to enhance the performance. Faultlines are often stronger when they are based upon the
combination of multiple dimensions.
Those faultlines leads to in-groups (people like us) and out-groups (those across the boundary of the
faultline, people not like us).
Those subgroups share information together, but the combination of knowledge across subgroups is
essential.
When complex teams develop over time, a deeper layer of faultlines becomes visible: not based on
surface-level attributes, but on subtler, deep-level attributes, such as personal values, dispositions and
attitudes. Then a fautline emerges between the members with cooperative values and a subgroup of
people with more competitive values.
The most important factor in determining whether destructive faultlines emerged, was the style of the
leader. There are 4 paths for the leader to follow:
1. Task orientation: the leader uses a strong and consistent task-oriented leadership style during
the entire project. The leader creates a detailed project plan, tight schedules and emphasize
high, but realistic performance goals. The leaders are accessible all time, and see their role as
providing the team with technical and specialist assistance critical to the task.
2. Relationship orientation: this leader places emphasis team’s culture, and on the extent and
depth of relationships among members. Leaders use kindness, respect, encourage a climate of
trust and cooperation, and provide recognition and appreciation for accomplishments.
3. Task orientation, switching to relationship orientation: the leader begins by task-oriented
style, through setting targets and scheduling work. When the project progresses, the leader
encourages team members to collaborate and to increase trust and goodwill within the team.
4. Relationship orientation, switching to task orientation: the leader begins by creating a feeling
of trust within the team, through socializing and meetings. Afterwards, he moves to a more
task-oriented approach by setting clear goals and standards.
