Faultline Deactivation: Dealing with Activated Faultlines and Conflicts in Global Teams

Abstract

Many organizations rely on teams made up of people of different nationalities, so-called global teams. While recent studies have identified that the outcomes of global teams are often hampered by team conflicts, few effective ways to prevent conflicts have been proposed. One of the main causes of conflicts in global teams are team faultlines, which are hypothetical dividing lines that can split a team into subgroups based on the team members’ demographic alignment along multiple characteristics. The model proposed herein builds on the notion that it is possible to prevent conflicts resulting from team faultlines. We explain how the notion of faultline deactivation—that is, the process of minimizing the salience of faultlines in teams—is crucial for preventing conflict in global teams. We develop a typology of faultline deactivators and explain the crucial roles that diversity training, superordinate team identity, direct channels for knowledge sharing, task reflexivity, centralized leadership, and collective trust play in deactivating faultlines and preventing conflicts in global teams. We provide extensive guidance on how to prepare for and implement these faultline deactivators in the managerial reality of global teams and discuss the implications of the model for future research.

Appendix: Measurement of Faultline Deactivators

Deactivator	Measurement
Superordinate team identity	Superordinate Team Identity (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010)
	– When someone criticizes the team, it feels like a personal insult
	– I am very interested in what others think about the team
	– When I talk about this team, I usually say “we” rather than “they”
	– This team’s successes are my successes
	– When someone praises this team, it feels like a personal compliment
	– If a story in the media criticized the team, I would feel embarrassed
Diversity training	Diversity Training Outcomes (Bezrukova, 2012)
	Cognitive learning: Have team members acquired knowledge?
	Affective learning: Have team members changed diversity attitudes and self-efficacy? Behavioral learning: Are team members able to apply the acquired knowledge and skills?
Task reflexivity	Task reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2007)
	– In our team we talk about different ways in which we can reach our objectives
	– In our team we work out what we can learn from past activities
	– We check whether our teams’ activities produced the expected results
	– In this team the results of actions are evaluated
	– The team often reviews its objectives
	– The methods used by the team to get the job done are discussed frequently
	– We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively
	– The team often reviews whether it’s getting the job done
Direct channels for knowledge sharing	Technology support (Kirkman et al., 2006)
	– The team members have adequate technology to work together effectively
	– The team’s performance would greatly improve if members had better technology (R)
	– The team members are sufficiently trained to use the technology to its full potential
	Behavioral Integration (Li & Hambrick, 2005)
	– When major decisions are made affecting our work, team members collectively exchange their points of view
	– In my team, team members frequently share their experience and expertise
	– All the team members have a voice in major decisions affecting our work
Collective trust	Intrateam Trust (Kirkman et al., 2006)
	– My team members have a high degree of trust in each other
	– My team members believe that others in the team will follow through on their commitments
	– My team members always do what they say they will do
	– My team members trust each other to contribute worthwhile ideas
Centralized leadership	Concern for Opportunism (Murtha et al., 2011)
	I am concerned about my team members…
	– Exaggerating their needs to get what they desire
	– Taking undue credit for achievements of other team members
	– Altering the facts to get what they want
	– Trying to make me a scapegoat for problems within this team
	– Hiding important information from me
	Intergroup Competition (Mael & Ashforth, 1992)
	– There is a rivalry between groups in my team
	– Team members are constantly comparing and rating the groups
	– Team members point out reasons why their team is the best
	– People in our team see each other as competitors based on their group membership