consistency matters! the multilevel effects of group and division cultures on the faultline-outcomes...

Consistency Matters! The Multilevel Effects of Group and Division Cultures on the

Faultline-Outcomes Link

Katerina Bezrukova (Rutgers University)

Sherry Thatcher (University of Arizona)and Etty Jehn (Leiden University)

Motivation

• What happens when employees receive consistent (or, mixed!) messages about their work environment?

• Human Behavior = f (P,E)• P: diverse workgroups• E: organizational context (culture/climate)• P,E: multilevel phenomena

RQ: How does consistency between different elements of context affect employee behavior in diverse groups?

Past Diversity Research

focuses primarily on testing the main effects of diversity on performance

does not consider the compositional dynamics of multiple demographic attributes

1. Developing more comprehensive theory & measures(Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992)

2. Testing the effects of possible mediating & moderating variables (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998)

Limitations & Suggestions

Where We Stand

Purported Costs:less effectivenessless integration and more conflict

Purported Benefits:increased informational resourcesbroader networks

• Consistent Findings: faultlines have stronger effects on processes and outcomes than diversity variables (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005)

Advancements in Diversity Research: An alignment approach

• Inconsistent Findings:faultlines produce mixed directional effects:– decreased performance (e.g.,

Dyck & Starke, 1999; Phillips et al., 2004)

– increased learning & satisfaction (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Lau & Murnighan, 2005)

Faultlines are based on alignment rather then dispersion of members’ attributes.

Research on Context and Consistency

• Context: situational opportunities and constrains (e.g., Johns, 2006).

• Culture: shared beliefs (e.g., O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).

• Climate: members’ perceptions (e.g., Schneider, 1990).

• Consistency:– P-O fit (e.g., Chatman, 1990; Caldwell et al, 2005)– Value congruence (e.g., Liedtka, 1989)

What’s missing?

1. Mixed findings in the literature on group faultlines:- reconcile this controversy by specifying the conditions under

which faultlines can be beneficial- extend org culture (and climate) research

2. Underestimation of the “E” component in the literature on groups:

- consider the different types of content-specific cultures/climates - extend group diversity research

3. Uncertainty around the concept of “culture/climate strength:”

- take into account the alignment of similar cultures/climates across diff. levels

- extend multilevel research

Research Model and Hypotheses

Informational Faultlines Outcomes

Consistency b/w Group & Division Cultures

(+)

Social Category Faultlines Outcomes

(--)

(+)

Consistency b/w Group & Division Cultures

(+)

Method

• Methodology: – a multimethod archival field study

• Research Site:– a Fortune 500 Company (Ng=109,

Nind = 671)

• Data:– multiple sources (quantitative and

qualitative)

Measures

• Group Faultlines (IVs) based on 6 characteristics:– clustering algorithm based on Euclidean distance (Thatcher,

Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003; Bezrukova, Jehn & Zanutto, 2003).• Culture (Moderators):

– group: content-analyzed textual data (supervisor’s reports that capture group cultures)

– division: content-analyzed textual data (company’s questionnaire)

• Outcomes (DVs): – archival file data (team-based bonuses, individual

performance ratings, termination)• Controls:

– individual demographics, salary, group size, heterogeneity, group culture strength

Measures: Group CulturesExamples of Behaviors• CAREER-FOCUSED (r=.94):

– Creates work environment supportive of development– Provides challenging assignments to facilitate individual

development– Shows interest in employees’ career

• DIVERSITY-FOCUSED (r=.93): – Creates an environment in which people from diverse backgrounds

feel comfortable– Helps people from diverse cultures, backgrounds, lifestyles

succeed• INNOVATION-FOCUSED (r=.62):

– Encourages others to think of new ways of doing things – Encourages others to identify value-add opportunities

• COMMUNICATION-FOCUSED (r=.86):– Shares information in a way that encourages open dialogue – Modifies communication approach depending on audience and

message

Measures: Division CulturesCAREER-FOCUSED:

“In the last 3 years I have experienced several positive opportunities. Much of which as to do with people I reported to (name), for example, is a great manager/mentor. Additionally, this is carried over in the [name of the department] which I am now a part of.”

DIVERSITY-FOCUSED: “I feel my division is more diverse than others. We celebrate different ethnic backgrounds during the course of a year. …”

INNOVATION-FOCUSED:

“We are allowed and encouraged to think outside the box and offer up suggestions...”

COMMUNICATION-FOCUSED:“It is valued in my division the openness of communication among employees.”

Summary of the HLM3 Results

• Main Effects Results:– social category faultlines (supported) – members had

lower levels of group and individual performance and higher rates of turnover

– information-based faultlines (unexpected) – members had higher rates of turnover

• Moderated Results:– social category faultlines (supported): diversity - and

career – focused group cultures had positive effects (higher levels of individual performance)

– information-based faultlines (supported): diversity -, innovation -, and communication – focused cultures had positive effects (higher group performance and lower termination rates)

Summary of the HLM3 Results: Cont’d

• Consistency Results:social category faultlines:1. (unexpected) strong diversity–focused culture had a

negative effect: lower individual performance and higher rates of termination.

information-based faultlines:1. strong diversity–focused culture had a positive effect:

higher levels of individual performance and lower rates of termination.

2. strong communication–focused culture had a positive effect: higher group performance

3. (unexpected) strong innovation–focused culture had a negative effect: higher rates of termination

Conclusion & Future Directions

• Consistency matters! and it “matters” differently – why?

• Different results for social category and informational faultlines – why?

Future Directions:

• other group and organizational level variables (e.g., success, leadership, security, etc.)