Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Diversity in Demographic Characteristics, Abilities and Personality Traits: Do Faultlines Affect Team Functioning?

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact of faultlines within teams on cohesion and conflicts. Faultlines concern the attributes of several team members simultaneously and mirror the structure of diversity within a team. The strength of a faultline indicates the level of similarity within potential subgroups and its width the extent of dissimilarity between them. The faultlines addressed in this study are based upon the demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits of team members. We also address the interaction of team autonomy on the effects of faultlines. Data for this study were collected by means of questionnaires administered to 99 teams of undergraduate students. The results indicate that demographic faultlines directly impair the functioning of a team. Team autonomy conditioned both the relationship between the strength of the ability faultline and team cohesion and the relationship between the depth of the personality faultline and intra-team conflict. In other words, these faultlines are more detrimental to team functioning when team autonomy is high. Ability faultlines seem to emphasize similarities within subgroups, while personality faultlines accentuate dissimilarities between subgroups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. and S. Freedman. (1976). “Equity Theory Revisited: Comments and Annotated Bibliography,” in L. Berkowitz and E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 9. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkema, A. and E. Molleman. (1999). “Barriers in the Development of Self-Organizing Teams,” The Journal of Managerial Psychology 14, 134–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount. (1991). “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Personnel Psychology 44, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., G. L. Stewart, M. J. Neubert and M. K. Mount. (1998). “Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness,” Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. and G. L. Stewart. (1997). “Composition, Process, and Performance in Selfmanaged Groups: The Role of Personality,” Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 62–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., S. J. Rosenholtz and M. Zelditch. (1980). “Status Organizing Processes,” Annual Review of Sociology 6, 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezrukova, K., K. A. Jehn and E. Zanutto. (2002). A Field Study of Group Faultlines, Team Identity Conflict, and Performance in Diverse Groups, Working paper. Wharton: University of Pennsylvania.

  • Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and Composition: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J., Z. Qiu and Y. Li. (1994). “Robust Tolerance for Ambiguity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaugh, J. A. (1985). “The Measurement of Work Autonomy,” Human Relations 38, 551–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusco, M. J. and T. R. Johns. (1998). “Staffing a Multiskilled Workforce With Varying Levels of Productivity: An Analysis of Cross-Training Policies,” Decision Sciences 29, 499–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, G. M. (1999). “Cross-Utilization of Workers Whose Capabilities Differ,” Management Science 45, 722–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., G. J. Medsker and A. C. Higgs. (1993). “Relations Between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups,” Personnel Psychology 46, 823–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., E. M. Papper and G. J. Medsker. (1996). “Relations Between Work Team Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extension,” Personnel Psychology 49, 429–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castore, C. H. and J. A. DeNinno. (1977). “Investigations in the Social Comparison of Attitutdes,” in J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives.Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

  • Chan, D. (1998). “Functional Relations Among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models,” Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., G. E. Ledford and G. M. Spreitzer. (1996). “A Predictive Model of Selfmanaging Work Team Effectiveness,” Human Relations 49, 643–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Gilder, D. and H. A. M. Wilke. (1994). “Expectation States Theory and the Motivational Determinants of Social Influence,” European Review of Social Psychology 5, 243–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreachslin, J. L., P. L. Hunt and E. Sprainer. (2000). “Workforce Diversity: Implications for the Effectiveness of Health Care Delivery Teams,” Social Science & Medicine 50, 1403–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., R. Hogan and E. Sales. (1988). “Personality and Group Performance,” Review of Personality and Social Psychology 14, 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy, D. and B. Bryant. (1996). “Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance?” Human Relations 49, 677–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebelling, A. C. and C. Y. Lee. (1994). “Cross-Training Effectiveness and Profitability,” International Journal of Production Research 32, 2843–2859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. K. and D. G. Fischer. (1992). “A Hierarchical Model of Participatory Decisionmaking, Job Autonomy, and Perceived Control,” Human Relations 45, 1169–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, T. D., H. V. Kher and M. K. Malhotra. (1995). “Managing Worker Flexibility and Attrition, in Dual Resource Constrained Job Shops,” International Journal of Production Research 33, 2136–2179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L. and J. Dovidio. (2000). “From Superordinate Goals to Decatogorization, Recategorization, and Mutual Differentiation,” International Journal of Psychology 35, 193–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Managing Diversity in Organizations. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A. and G. P. Shea. (1992). “Group Performance and Intergroup Relations in Organizations,” in M. D. Dunette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). “The Design of Work Teams,” in J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, C. (1998). Social Change and Innovation in the Labour Market. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price, J. H. Gavin and A. T. Florey. (2002). “Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning,” Academy of Management Journal 45, 1029–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price and M. P. Bell. (1998). “Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion,” Academy of Management Journal 41, 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, A. A. (1997). The Construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPl), Dissertation. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.

  • Heslin, R. (1964). “Predicting Group Task Effectiveness From Member Characteristics,” Psychological Bulletin 62, 248–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., K. M. Carley, D. Krackhardt and D. Wholey (2000). “Choosing Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity. Competence, and Familiarity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81, 226–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. and D. J. Terry. (2000). “Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts,” Academy of Management Review 25, 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iles, P. and P. K. Hayers. (1997). “Managing Diversity in Transnational Project Teams,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 12, 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. (1996). “The Consequences of Diversity in Multidisciplinary Work Teams,” in M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1995). “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 245–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1997). “Affective and Cognitive Conflict in Work Groups: Increasing Performance Through Value-Based Intragroup Conflict,” in C. de Dreu and E. van der Vliert (Eds.), Using Conflict in Organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellison, J. and R. Arkin. (1977). “Social Comparison of Abilities: A Self-Presentation Approach to Decision Making in Groups,” in J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, pp. 235–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, W. C. and S. C. Graves. (1995). “Principles on the Benefits of Manufacturing Process Flexibility,” Management Science 41, 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J. and S. W. J. Kozlowski. (2000). “From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research,” Organizational Research Methods 3, 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T., K. Bezrukova, R. Ely, S. Jackson, A. Joshi, K. Jehn, J. Leonard, D. Levine and Thomas, D. (2003). “The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report of the Diversity Research Network,” Human Resource Management 42, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2000). “Work-Group Design and Autonomy: A Field Study of the Interaction Between Task Interdependence and Group Autonomy,” Small Croup Research 31, 54–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C. and J. K. Murnighan. (1998). “Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Organizational Groups,” The Academy of Management Review 23, 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne and L. K. Bradway. (1997). “Task Interdependence as a Moderator of the Relation Between Group Control and Performance,” Human Relations 50, 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, M. K. and L. P. Ritzman. (1990). “Resource Flexibility Issues in Multistage Manufacturing,” Decision Science 21, 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C. (1992). “Self-Leading Work Teams: Moving Beyond Self-Management Myths,” Human Relations 45, 1119–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims. (1987). “Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 32, 106–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. L. and J. M. Suls. (1977). “Affiliation Preference as a Function of Attitude and Ability Similarity,” in J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J. and L. L. Martins. (1996). “Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups,” Academy of Management Review 21, 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. K. and G. M. Spreitzer. (1998). “Explaining How Survivors Respond to Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign,” Academy of Management Review 23, 567–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. (1998). “Variety and the Requisite of Self-Organization,” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 6, 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. (2000). “The Modalities of Self-Management: The ‘Must’, ‘May’, ‘Can’ and ‘Will’ of Local Decision Making,” The International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20, 889–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. and M. Broekhuis. (2001). “Socio-Technical Systems: Towards an Organizational Learning Approach,” The Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 18, 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. and J. Slomp. (1999). “Functional Flexibility and Team Performance,” International Journal of Production Research 37, 1837–1858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. G. (1967). “Measurement Problems in Cluster Analysis,” Management Science 13, 775–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E. (1989). “Group Cohesiveness and Productivity: A Closer Look,” Human Relations 9, 771–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B. and C. Copper. (1994). “The Relation Between Group Cohesiveness and Performance: An Integration,” Psychological Bulletin 115, 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niepce, W. and E. Molleman. (1998). “Work Design Issues in Lean Production From a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective; Neo-Taylorism or the Next Step in Sociotechnical Design,” Human Relations 51, 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, G. A., S. H. Wagner and N. D. Christiansen. (1999). “The Relationship Between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams,” Group & Organization Management 24, 28–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., D. F. Caldwell and W. P. Barnett. (1989). “Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover,” Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H. (1996). “Relational Demography and Perceptions of Group Conflict and Performance: A Field Investigation,” The International Journal of Conflict Management 7, 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., T. D. Wall and J. L. Cordery. (2001). “Future Work Design Research and Practice: Towards an Elaborated Model of Work Design,” Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology 74, 413–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt and K. R. Xin. (1999). “Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance,” Administration Science Quarterly 44, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., P. C. Barley and L. Vandyne. (1993). “Complex Interdependence in Taskperformaing Groups,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprigg, C. A., P. R. Jackson and S. K. Parker. (2000). “Production Teamworking: The Importance of Interdependence and Autonomy for Employee Strain and Satisfaction,” Human Relations 53, 1519–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L. and M. R. Barrick. (2000). “Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type,” Academy of Management Journal 43, 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, J. P. (1983). “Components of Group Cohesion: Intermember Attraction, Instrumental Value, and Risk Taking,” Small Group Behavior 14, 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner. (1986). “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. M., K. A. Jehn and E. Zanutto. (2003). “Cracks in Diversity Research: The Effects of Faultlines on Conflict and Performance,” Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoms, P., K. S. Moore and K. S. Scott. (1996). “The Relationship Between Self-Efficacy for Participating in Self-Managed Work Groups and the Big Five Personality Dimensions,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1997). “Conflict Within Interdependence: Its Value for Productivity and Individuality,” in C. de Dreu and E. van der Vliert (Eds.), Using Conflict in Organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschan, F. and M. Von Cranach. (1996). “Group Task Structure, Processes and Outcome,” in M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., T. D. Egan and C. A. O’Reilly. (1992). “Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment,” Administrative Science Quarterly 37, 549–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Beukel, A. L. and E. Molleman. (1998). “Multifunctionality: The Driving and Constraining Forces,” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 8, 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S. and O. Janssen. (2003). “Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation,” Journal of Management 29, 729–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vianen, A. E. M. and C. K. W. De Dreu. (2001). “Personality in Teams: Its Relationship to Social Cohesion, Task Cohesion, and Team Performance,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10, 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpe, C. E., J. A. Cannon-Bowers, E. Sales and P. E. Spector. (1996). “The Impact of Cross-Training on Team Functioning: an Empirical Investigation,” Human Factors 38, 87–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 145–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, J. L., C. A. Bowers, E. Sales and, J. A. Cannon-Bowers. (1997). “Motivation in Teams,” in M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson and S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., C. S. Borill and K. L. Unsworth. (1998). “Team Effectiveness in Organizations,” in C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chichester: Wiley, Volume 13, pp. 1–48.

  • Wilke, H. A. M. and R. W. Meertens. (1994). Group Performance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y. and C. A. O’Reilly. (1998). “Demography and Diversity in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrzesniewski, A. and J. E. Dutton. (2001). “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Grafters of Their Work,” Academy of Management Review 26, 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management and Organization, P.O. Box 800, 9700, AV, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Eric Molleman

Authors
  1. Eric Molleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Molleman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Molleman, E. Diversity in Demographic Characteristics, Abilities and Personality Traits: Do Faultlines Affect Team Functioning?. Group Decis Negot 14, 173–193 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-6490-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-6490-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy