Katerina Bezrukova ( Rutgers University) Sherry Thatcher ( University of Arizona )

1. 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)

2. 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?

3. Past Diversity Research Where We Stand Purported Costs: less effectiveness less integration and more conflict Purported Benefits: increased informational resources broader networks Limitations & Suggestions • Developing more comprehensive theory & measures(Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992) does not consider the compositional dynamics of multiple demographic attributes • Testing the effects of possible mediating & moderating variables (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) focuses primarily on testing the main effects of diversity on performance

4. Consistent Findings:faultlines have stronger effects on processes and outcomes than diversity variables (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005) 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) Advancements in Diversity Research: An alignment approach Faultlines are based on alignment rather then dispersion of members’ attributes.

5. 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)

6. What’s missing? • 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 • Underestimation of the “E” component in the literature on groups: • consider the different types of content-specific cultures/climates • extend group diversity research • Uncertainty around the concept of “culture/climate strength:” • take into account the alignment of similar cultures/climates across diff. levels • extend multilevel research

7. Research Model and Hypotheses Consistency b/w Group & Division Cultures (+) Informational Faultlines Outcomes (+) Consistency b/w Group & Division Cultures (+) Social Category Faultlines Outcomes (--)

8. Method • Methodology: • a multimethod archival field study • Research Site: • a Fortune 500 Company (Ng=109, Nind = 671) • Data: • multiple sources (quantitative and qualitative)

9. 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

10. Measures: Group Cultures Examples 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

11. Measures: Division Cultures CAREER-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.”

12. 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)

13. 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: • strongdiversity–focused culture had a positive effect: higher levels of individual performance and lower rates of termination. • strongcommunication–focused culture had a positive effect: higher group performance • (unexpected) strong innovation–focused culture had a negative effect: higher rates of termination

14. 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.)