Buffering against the detrimental effects of demographic Faultlines: The Curious case
of intragroup conflict in small work groups.
Group fault lines: hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group intro subgroup
based on one or more attributes.
Subgroup formation can hinder group performance through increased intragroup
competition and decreased communication, information sharing, and motivation to
contribute. However, researchers have uncovered several internal mechanisms that
can bridge Faultline subgroups, lessening their negative impact on group process and
performance, including team identification, goal structure, shared objectives, and
cultural alignment.
Categorization-elaboration model (CEM): this model combines social identity with
information processing theories to predict that categorization pressures and negative
effects of faultlines can be avoided when groups capitalize on their diverse knowledge
and perspectives through information elaboration.
o In other words when groups exchange and discuss information and
communicate across subgroups, the negative effects of demographic faultlines
can be diminished.
This article’s author suggest that based on CEM and conflict theory, they suggest that
team conflict will moderate the effect of faultlines, buffering the negative effects of
strong demographic faultlines on group performance.
Theory development
Demographic faultlines and group performance
Faultlines theory explains the formation of subgroups in teams based on alignment of
demographic or other shared characteristics (e.g., attitudes, seniority, or information).
Faultlines emerge through processes of self-categorization, social identification, and
similarity-attraction whereby individuals within teams notice and identify with others
who are similar.
The literature has generally shown that faultlines impede group performance as the
emergence of subgroups can lead to ingroup-outgroup competition, restricted
communication, and decreased information sharing.
They develop the arguments for conflict as a moderation focusing on research about
bridging faultlines or lessening negative effects on group performance.
The general idea behind this theory is that because faultlines undermine groups
processes and performance due to poor communication and competition between
subgroups, bridging faultlines requires inducing a superordinate team identity and/or
effective cross group interaction. Thus, negative faultlines-performance relationship is
attenuated when groups have strong team identity.
The categorization–elaboration model (CEM) explains that effective performance in
diverse groups depends on taking advantage of diverse knowledge and perspectives, a
process that can be disrupted by the emergence of subgroups that generate conflict
and limit communication.
Faultlines and group conflict
Research has defined three types of conflict:
o Task conflict involves disagreements over work-related issues.
, o Relationship conflict includes disagreements about interpersonal issues.
o Process conflict refers to disagreements over how work gets done.
What they want to prove here is that conflict in faultlines theory remains worthy of
additional theorizing and investigation.
They expected that relationship, task, and process conflict will buffer the negative
association between groups faultlines and group performance such that negative
association is weaker when conflict is high (hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c)
no-faultline groups may be more likely to perform at high levels prior to conflict, and
once conflict erupts, they may experience decrements in performance. Thus, we
expected that intragroup conflict (vs. no conflict) buffers the negative effect of
faultlines (vs. no faultlines) on group performance such that group performance will
be higher for faultline teams in the conflict condition compared to the no-conflict
condition, but group performance will lower for no-faultline groups in the conflict
condition compared to the noconflict condition (Hypothesis 2)
Study 1 method
188 students from different identities (east Asian, white, south Asian, other)
Form groups and after some weeks they would assess them with a intragroup conflict
questionnaire.
The team debrief assignment was a five page analysis of the team experience, we used
this group to grade as a measure of group performance.
Study 1 discussion
The results of study 1 show that all three types of conflict (relationship, task and
process conflict) buffer the negative effect of demographic faultlines on group
performance.
of intragroup conflict in small work groups.
Group fault lines: hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group intro subgroup
based on one or more attributes.
Subgroup formation can hinder group performance through increased intragroup
competition and decreased communication, information sharing, and motivation to
contribute. However, researchers have uncovered several internal mechanisms that
can bridge Faultline subgroups, lessening their negative impact on group process and
performance, including team identification, goal structure, shared objectives, and
cultural alignment.
Categorization-elaboration model (CEM): this model combines social identity with
information processing theories to predict that categorization pressures and negative
effects of faultlines can be avoided when groups capitalize on their diverse knowledge
and perspectives through information elaboration.
o In other words when groups exchange and discuss information and
communicate across subgroups, the negative effects of demographic faultlines
can be diminished.
This article’s author suggest that based on CEM and conflict theory, they suggest that
team conflict will moderate the effect of faultlines, buffering the negative effects of
strong demographic faultlines on group performance.
Theory development
Demographic faultlines and group performance
Faultlines theory explains the formation of subgroups in teams based on alignment of
demographic or other shared characteristics (e.g., attitudes, seniority, or information).
Faultlines emerge through processes of self-categorization, social identification, and
similarity-attraction whereby individuals within teams notice and identify with others
who are similar.
The literature has generally shown that faultlines impede group performance as the
emergence of subgroups can lead to ingroup-outgroup competition, restricted
communication, and decreased information sharing.
They develop the arguments for conflict as a moderation focusing on research about
bridging faultlines or lessening negative effects on group performance.
The general idea behind this theory is that because faultlines undermine groups
processes and performance due to poor communication and competition between
subgroups, bridging faultlines requires inducing a superordinate team identity and/or
effective cross group interaction. Thus, negative faultlines-performance relationship is
attenuated when groups have strong team identity.
The categorization–elaboration model (CEM) explains that effective performance in
diverse groups depends on taking advantage of diverse knowledge and perspectives, a
process that can be disrupted by the emergence of subgroups that generate conflict
and limit communication.
Faultlines and group conflict
Research has defined three types of conflict:
o Task conflict involves disagreements over work-related issues.
, o Relationship conflict includes disagreements about interpersonal issues.
o Process conflict refers to disagreements over how work gets done.
What they want to prove here is that conflict in faultlines theory remains worthy of
additional theorizing and investigation.
They expected that relationship, task, and process conflict will buffer the negative
association between groups faultlines and group performance such that negative
association is weaker when conflict is high (hypothesis 1a, 1b, 1c)
no-faultline groups may be more likely to perform at high levels prior to conflict, and
once conflict erupts, they may experience decrements in performance. Thus, we
expected that intragroup conflict (vs. no conflict) buffers the negative effect of
faultlines (vs. no faultlines) on group performance such that group performance will
be higher for faultline teams in the conflict condition compared to the no-conflict
condition, but group performance will lower for no-faultline groups in the conflict
condition compared to the noconflict condition (Hypothesis 2)
Study 1 method
188 students from different identities (east Asian, white, south Asian, other)
Form groups and after some weeks they would assess them with a intragroup conflict
questionnaire.
The team debrief assignment was a five page analysis of the team experience, we used
this group to grade as a measure of group performance.
Study 1 discussion
The results of study 1 show that all three types of conflict (relationship, task and
process conflict) buffer the negative effect of demographic faultlines on group
performance.
