Keywords

Many organizations rely on global teams to realize their objectives. Such teams are comprised of men and women who often have a range of nationalities and ages and represent multiple functions from different organizations. They come together in these diverse teams to perform highly complex tasks. Examples of global teams include international joint venture management teams, global virtual teams, and offshore outsourcing teams. While diversity has been found to benefit global teams (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), other studies have shown that these teams are particularly prone to conflicts (Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). For example, subgroup formation based on nationality, organization, or expertise has been identified as a major cause of conflict in these teams (Li & Hambrick, 2005). The faultline framework stipulates that team outcomes are hampered by conflicts as a result of activated faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Activated faultlines are perceived subgroups based on team faultlines; that is, hypothetical dividing lines that can split a team into subgroups based on one or more team member attributes. Therefore, identifying mechanisms to deal with activated faultlines in global teams could be a fruitful approach to better understand how conflicts in global teams can be prevented (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Li & Hambrick, 2005).

While extant studies have shown that activated faultlines consistently lead to team conflicts (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008), some more recent studies have outlined ways to prevent the negative adversities of activated faultlines (cf. Thatcher & Patel, 2011). These studies, which investigate what we have termed faultline deactivation, suggest that team contextual elements such as team goal setting (van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, & Homan, 2011), leadership styles (Gratton, Voigt, & Erickson, 2007; Kunze & Bruch, 2010), and reward structures (Homan et al., 2008; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Antino, & Lau, 2012) might mitigate the positive effect of activated faultlines on team conflicts. For example, Rico et al. (2012) found that teams with activated faultlines performed better when they have a superordinate goal than when they have a subgroup goal. While these studies indicate singular faultline deactivators, an integrated framework for faultline deactivation has not yet been developed.

While conflict and conflict management have been addressed as critical processes in global teams (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001), it is somewhat surprising that most studies on global teams have neglected team conflict, conflict management, and its impact on team outcomes. Global team research is dominated by communication, leadership, location, time, and culture (Harvey & Griffith, 2007; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kayworth & Leidner, 2001; McDonough, Kahnb, & Barczaka, 2001). Nevertheless, some studies have identified collective team trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), communication structures (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2006), and diversity training (Brandl & Neyer, 2009) as important means to improve global team processes and outcomes. These means might prove to be effective faultline deactivators when approached using the team faultline framework. Thus, research on global teams provides interesting leads to develop the faultline framework with regard to faultline deactivation and extend it into the field of global teams.

Several studies have attempted to better understand the antecedents and consequences of conflicts in global teams by reconciling the faultline framework with work on global teams (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Polzer et al., 2006). For example, Li and Hambrick (2005) empirically demonstrated that international joint venture teams have a very strong preexisting faultline that constitutes an important source of conflict and behavioral disintegration between subgroups. Polzer et al. (2006) showed that the global distribution of team members emphasizes faultlines in teams, which heightens conflict and reduces trust between subgroups. Although these studies have demonstrated the applicability of the faultline framework in global teams, faultline deactivation has not been an integral part of that reconciliation.

The present chapter aims to further reconcile research on team faultlines and global teams by developing a conceptual model that specifies how activated faultlines in global teams can be deactivated in order to prevent conflicts in these teams. In doing so, we suggest taking the crucial role of faultline deactivation into account and explaining how different elements in the teams’ task context can trigger this deactivation process. By reconciling this logic with insights from the global team literature, we develop propositions regarding a set of faultline deactivators that are specifically suitable to deactivate faultlines in global teams. Finally, we translate our propositions into theoretical and managerial implications in order to stimulate progress in research and practice.

We aim to contribute to the faultline literature by suggesting that faultline deactivation can prevent conflicts that arise from activated faultlines. We also contribute by introducing a typology for faultline deactivators and noting that different types of conflicts are more responsive to certain deactivators than others. This chapter contributes to the literature on global teams by showing that the faultline framework provides a coherent explanation for conflicts in these teams. We specifically address the crucial roles of diversity training, superordinate team identity, direct channels for knowledge sharing, reflexivity, centralized leadership, and collective trust in deactivating faultlines and preventing conflicts in global teams. For each of these, we provide extensive managerial directions on the required preparation and implementation in global teams. The theory put forward in this chapter also leads to future research directions.

The Faultline Framework

A faultline is a hypothetical division between team members that, in itself, does not necessarily result in team conflicts. We need to make a distinction between dormant faultlines and activated faultlines in order to understand the effects of team faultlines on team conflict. A dormant faultline is the alignment of diversity attributes across members that may (or may not) divide a team into subgroups and is thus not necessarily perceived by team members (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Pearsall et al., 2008). Activated faultlines exist when members actually perceive separate subgroups based on dormant faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). In the example of a team with two male Dutch marketers and two female Indian software engineers, this team has a strong dormant faultline on nationality, gender, and expertise. However, these faultlines may not be activated until these team members discuss how to approach their task and discover their different approaches due to their different expertise.

Faultlines are activated as team members identify with a subgroup based on social identification and social categorization processes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Social identity theory stipulates that the membership of a social group determines a person’s identity and provides that person with safety and self-esteem. In addition, social categorization theory explains that people classify themselves with others based on perceived similarities and identify with these people as their in-group, motivated by the need for self-esteem and safety (Hogg & Terry, 2000); thus, people are drawn to form subgroups with similar others. For example, Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, and Thatcher (2009) showed that subgroups may provide a safe environment in which people can deal better with stress because other subgroup members who are alike boost their confidence by “lending an ear” and helping to make an employee feel better. Furthermore, subgroups reduce the social complexity of team relationships when team members in a subgroup think along the same lines (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Therefore, faultline activation is the process that makes team members aware of subgroups based on demographic characteristics.

We make a distinction between different types of conflicts, as each has different origins and therefore requires different approaches to their prevention. Team conflict has been defined as “perceived incompatibilities or perceptions by the parties involved that they hold discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities” (Jehn, 1997) and can be divided into three types: task, relationship, and process conflicts (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Task conflicts are different ideas and opinions among team members regarding the task at hand (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Relationship conflicts are disagreements and incompatibilities in terms of team members’ personal issues that are unrelated to their tasks, such as social events and rumors (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Process conflicts are disagreements about how a task should be accomplished; for example, who should do what or how resources should be used (Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). These distinctions are salient because the types of conflict are prone to different conflict management processes (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008).

Recent studies suggest that conflicts resulting from activated faultlines can be alleviated. Research on team goal setting (van Knippenberg et al., 2011), leadership styles (Gratton et al., 2007; Kunze & Bruch, 2010), and reward structures (Homan et al., 2008) suggests that the adversities of faultlines on team processes and outcomes can be overcome and, therefore, can be deactivated. For example, Homan et al. (2007) found that when team members had strong pro-diversity beliefs, they were able to overcome the negative effects of strong faultlines because they were convinced of the value that diversity could bring to their team in terms of task performance. While these studies provide evidence that faultlines can be deactivated, an integrated typology of faultline deactivation is yet to be developed.

While activated faultlines have been identified as a major factor in team conflicts, recent studies have suggested that the negative effects of team faultlines can be prevented. Below, we apply the faultline framework to global teams in order to identify how faultlines manifest themselves in these teams.

Team Faultlines and Conflict in Global Teams

Global teams are teams whose team members live in or originate from different countries and are culturally diverse (McDonough et al., 2001). Global teams bring together members who can contribute unique resources or knowledge in terms of the team’s task (Carton & Cummings, 2012), who can represent different organizations (Li & Hambrick, 2005), and may speak different languages (McDonough et al., 2001). These diversity characteristics determine the teams’ dormant faultlines and which type of conflicts are most likely to occur. The demographic and cultural profiles of the team members reflect fundamentally different values and sets of social institutions, including education systems and labor markets, which increases the likelihood of subgroups and conflicts forming between team members (Salk & Shenkar, 2001). In global teams, these differences often form a strong faultline along geographical, organizational, or functional boundaries (Li & Hambrick, 2005). For example, Doucet and Jehn (1997) described how cultural conflict between American and Chinese team members is the main hindrance to the success of Sino-American joint ventures.

These strong faultlines are easily activated in global teams, which often work across different time zones, are globally dispersed, span organizational boundaries, and use computer-mediated communication and collaboration systems (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Polzer et al., 2006). These contextual elements make it difficult for people with different backgrounds to connect to each other and understand each other’s backgrounds and expertise, and they also emphasize the differences between potential subgroups on either side of the faultline. Accordingly, it is easy for social categorization to occur along these lines, which will result in in-group and out-group divisions (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Global teams often contain team members from different companies that may have, for example, different reward systems and different objectives that emphasize differences between subgroups and are used by team members to set themselves apart from team members on the other side of the faultline (Homan et al., 2008; Li & Hambrick, 2005).

Therefore, team faultlines have a strong presence in global teams. The team task and work context often point to the differences between the groups on either side of the faultline, which brings activated faultlines to these teams. Therefore, we suggest that team faultlines are likely to be a main cause of conflicts in global teams. The next section addresses the measures that can be taken to effectively deal with these faultlines and prevent conflict resulting from team faultlines.

Faultline Deactivation in Global Teams

Here, we introduce the notion of faultline deactivation and define it as the process of minimizing the salience of activated faultlines in teams. Deactivation processes are triggered by faultline deactivators, which are events, behaviors, or circumstances within a team or a team’s organizational workplace that shift attention away from demographically aligned and perceived subgroups (activated faultlines). Team members use salient demographics to implicitly categorize themselves into subgroups (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). As these attributes lose their salience, subgroup categorizations based on the alignment of these characteristics (faultline strength) will lose their impact (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010), which will result in lower levels of conflict. Reducing the salience of attributes related to subgroup categorization will lessen the likelihood of team conflict and enable faultline teams to enjoy the benefits related to diversity in teams (van Knippenberg & De Dreu, 2004). For example, studies have shown that promoting a strong team identification (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010) and stimulating pro-diversity beliefs (Homan et al., 2007) can reduce the effect of team faultlines on team conflict and can therefore be seen as faultline deactivators. In the following section, we introduce a typology of faultline deactivators and then apply it to global teams.

A Typology of Faultline Deactivators

We divide faultline deactivators into structural and motivational deactivators (see Table 12.1). Structural deactivators are the structural (or tangible, physical) characteristics of a social system (such as the organization, the team, the task, and their interfaces) that define and describe the system’s purpose, form, functioning, states, and future states (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Structural deactivators set the parameters and boundary conditions for the team, teamwork, and task, and decrease uncertainty and complexity for team members by making the team structural context more predictable, comprehensible, and less threatening (Brewer, 2004; Stevens & Fiske, 1995). These structural characteristics of the social system in which the team operates exist independently of the individual team members. These “hard” observable characteristics can often be willfully adapted or worked around. For example, a strong common goal set by an organization’s management can unify team members to collaborate and overcome activated faultlines.

Table 12.1 Structural and motivational deactivators in global teams
Full size table

Motivational deactivators are characteristics of the team’s social (or relational) environment (for example, expectations of team member behaviors; feelings of group identity, trust, self-efficacy) that direct the attitudes, behaviors, and social cognitive processes that affect team member motivation and define the interaction between team members and their willingness to cooperate (see Table 12.1; Brewer, 2004). Motivational deactivators strengthen the shared beliefs, values, norms, identities, or assumptions of the whole team and decrease these within the perceived subgroups (Randolph-Seng, Casa De Calvo, Zacchilli, & Cottle, 2010); this is beneficial for cross-understanding, an essential element for high-performing teams (Huber & Lewis, 2010). The characteristics of the social environment in which the team operates depend entirely on the individual team members and their interactions. It is often difficult to pinpoint these “soft” social processes and motivations and discuss them within a team. They are relatively subjective and hard to change. For example, consider how showing understanding and giving compliments across faultlines can help to bridge a faultline on national culture.

It is useful to make the distinction between structural and motivational deactivators because these deactivators provide alternative ways to deactivate a faultline. In some cases, the team structural characteristics are a given. Examples are global dispersion and virtual team work, which are structural elements that are often embedded in global teams and difficult to work around. In other cases, the team social characteristics are a given. In the example of a team that has been working together in a department for over a decade, their team processes, norms, and values are well established and team members will have internalized them to the point that they are no longer aware of them. In this way, distinguishing between structural and motivational deactivators enables team managers to tailor deactivation strategies or use one type of deactivator in situations where it is difficult to implement another.

Below, we present a model and propositions that depict how different deactivators are suitable for deactivating activated faultlines and preventing task, process, and relationship conflicts in global teams. The propositions can be captured into one integrated faultline deactivation model for global teams (see Fig. 12.1). This model offers one common platform with which to explain, assess, and prevent three types of conflicts in global teams. We specifically outline why collective trust, reflexivity, and superordinate team identity as motivational deactivators, and diversity training, direct channels for knowledge sharing, and centralized leadership as structural deactivators can prevent conflict in global teams with activated faultlines. To help prevent conflicts in global teams, we also provide global team leaders with faultline deactivation guidelines on preparing and implementing each of these deactivators (see Table 12.2).

Fig. 12.1
figure 1

Faultline deactivation in global teams

Full size image
Table 12.2 Faultline deactivation, implications for managers
Full size table

Preventing Relationship Conflicts from Activated Faultlines

The different cultural, organizational, and personal backgrounds of global team members can lead to diverse values, beliefs, and attitudes. The collision of these differences can often lead to relationship conflicts (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Consider the example of a software development team that includes members from a Dutch bank and an Indian software development firm; the Dutch team members connect relatively easily with their fellow Dutch team members because they have similar values, beliefs, and attitudes. They simplify the social context, provide social support, and provide a sense of belonging (Brewer, 2004; Stevens & Fiske, 1995). The same applies to the Indian team members. A sense of belonging and feelings of safety based on shared values, beliefs, and attitudes provide a strong basis for activated faultlines (Carton & Cummings, 2012). Other team members who have different values, beliefs, and attitudes may become a source of frustration, anxiety, and hostility for team members who are in a subgroup that tries to safeguard their subgroup identity, and this can lead to relationship conflicts in the team (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Relationship conflict originates from projected frustration and anxiety with interpersonal relationships and interpersonal incompatibilities that are not task related, such as social relationships, friendships, and different values (Jehn, 1997). Here, we introduce superordinate team identity (motivational) and diversity training (structural) as deactivators that prevent relationship conflicts from activated faultlines in global teams.

Superordinate team identity in global teams. The presence of a superordinate team identity may act as a motivational deactivator of activated faultlines, preventing relationship conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Superordinate team identity is the extent to which team members identify with the team as a social identity (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Kane, 2010). Superordinate team identity enables team members to see the value of other team members’ values, beliefs, and attitudes (Kane, 2010) and also reduces bias and stereotyping between subgroups by leading team members to focus on what they have in common (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Rink & Jehn, 2010). A strong focus on the overall team increases social cohesion and makes team members more willing to deal with different values, beliefs, and attitudes, even with intact subgroups in place; this, in turn, reduces the positive relationship between activated faultlines and conflicts (Rink & Jehn, 2010). With regard to teams with perceived subgroups, Jehn and Bezrukova (2010) found that superordinate team identity lessens the likelihood of conflicts and coalition formation. Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 1: In global teams, superordinate team identity moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on relationship conflict, such that a stronger superordinate team identity weakens the positive relationship between activated faultlines and relationship conflicts.

Preparing and implementing a superordinate team identity. Introducing a superordinate team identity in global teams involves developing shared norms, values, and beliefs about what the team is and what it does (see Table 12.2; Kane, 2010). In teams that have very strong activated faultlines, such as global teams, team members often strongly identify with their subgroup identities, which makes it necessary to think how subgroup identities might fit into the superordinate team identity (Crisp, Stone, & Hall, 2006). Shared rewards structures and team challenges can be used to instigate a superordinate team identity. It can be challenging to structure financial rewards given that team members are often paid in different currencies and through different organizations, and pay levels vary between countries. Other types of rewards, such as performance recognition, satisfying work, responsibilities, promotions, or learning opportunities might be more appropriate. Rewarding team performance as opposed to individual or subgroup performance can help stimulate superordinate team identity. Examples of team challenges that can help a team to forge a superordinate identity include organizational competition, interteam competition, and challenging tasks (van Knippenberg et al., 2011).

When implementing a superordinate team identity, it is essential to introduce the team members with regard to their expertise, resources, values, beliefs, attitudes, and their role vis-à-vis the team objective (see Table 12.2; Homan et al., 2008), especially in cases where team members are globally dispersed. Team norms, values, beliefs, a team name, logos, and other team artifacts and symbols all embody a team’s identity and affirming and sharing them will strengthen the team identity (Randolph-Seng et al., 2010). For example, a team’s name supports its identity, as seen for example when a football team’s fans chant the team’s name. Managers should give subgroups space to present their viewpoint and work separately on some parts of the task, but should emphasize that the subgroups are expected to collaborate on some aspect of the team task in order to foster subgroup identities within the superordinate team identity (Crisp et al., 2006). Finally, team social events and team (milestone) celebrations are a great opportunity to experience shared success and exchange social information.

Diversity training in global teams. Diversity training functions as a structural deactivator of activated faultlines, which prevents relationship conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Diversity training has been defined as a program that aims to facilitate positive intergroup interactions; to reduce prejudice and discrimination; and to enhance the skills, knowledge, and motivation of people to interact with diverse others (Pendry, Driscoll, & Field, 2007). Primarily, diversity training socializes team members, aligns team members’ expectations toward each other and the team’s goals and values, and helps them recognize the importance of diversity (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). Diversity training also encourages team members to reduce stereotyping, discrimination, and intergroup bias among team members with different values, beliefs, and attitudes (Bezrukova, Jehn, & Spell, 2012). Diversity training also identifies the barriers between subgroups and provides ways to overcome them (Pendry et al., 2007), while creating pro-diversity beliefs that have been shown to reduce conflicts as a result of team faultlines (Homan et al., 2007). In order for such training to be effective in the long term, it should be accompanied by needs assessments, diversity skill training (such as communication and decision making), and the correct circumstances in which to transfer learnings into the work field (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). Therefore, once global team members have learned about the values, interests, and beliefs of the other subgroups, understood them, and have been provided with the skills and circumstances to transfer learnings to the work field, they will be able to deactivate faultlines and prevent relationship conflicts. This leads to proposition 2 below:

Proposition 2: In global teams, diversity training moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on relationship conflict, such that diversity training weakens the positive relationship between activated faultlines and relationship conflicts.

Preparing and implementing diversity training. During the preparation phase, extensive knowledge and experience of different cultures, prejudices, and stereotypes is indispensable (see Table 12.2; Pendry et al., 2007). The practical knowledge of consultants and the theoretical and methodological support from academics is invaluable, whether they are heavily involved or merely asked for a review of an already existing training (Bezrukova et al., 2012). Stand-alone diversity training can have adverse effects in terms of highlighting faultlines between subgroups; therefore, a broad systematic approach to diversity training is generally preferable (Bezrukova et al., 2012). As part of such an approach, an effective first step is often a needs assessment to identify the major differences in a global team, where different national cultures, organizational cultures, and personalities are involved. The next step is to determine how all these differences could affect the daily functioning of the team. For successful training, it is crucial to relate the training to the daily practical reality and practice using role-plays and other forms of experiential learning. From a cost perspective, especially in globally distributed teams, it is worthwhile considering how the training will be conducted (online, in person, or a perhaps a combination of methods).

People from different cultures and different fields of expertise may be accustomed to different instruction methods, ranging from instructive to more participative. Global teams often need a facilitator who can accommodate and bring the different learning styles together and create a shared understanding of diversity in the team (see Table 12.2). Moreover, facilitators can relate diversity training to past “real-life” incidents, previous experiences, and apply them to future team challenges and expected incidents. A safe, trusting learning environment facilitates the best team learning (Edmondson, 1999). A facilitator stimulates such an environment by asking thoughtful questions; acknowledging other beliefs, values, and attitudes; and showing awareness of his or her own shortcomings (Edmondson, 2012). The international audience of a global team is best served with materials that present simple and focused messages. Trainings should include time for informal socialization (such as regular breaks and after-training drinks) to stimulate interpersonal connections between team members.

Preventing Task Conflicts from Activated Faultlines

Team members are often in a global team because they have specific knowledge and experience related to the team’s task (McDonough et al., 2001). Consider the above-mentioned example of the software development team that includes team members from the Dutch bank and the Indian software development firm. In this team, the Dutch are marketing experts and understand the requirements of their customers, whereas the Indians have technical knowledge about building websites. People with similar knowledge and expertise find it easier to relate to each other as they share similar work interests, and their knowledge has more meaning to others with similar knowledge, which means they are better valued than team members who do not have that knowledge (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Team members with different knowledge and experience often have different views of the task and how to approach it, and also often speak different technical languages, which makes it difficult to relate to team members with different expertise (Carton & Cummings, 2012). These different “thought worlds” can be hard to integrate and have shown to be a main cause of task conflicts (Choi & Sy, 2010). Task conflicts originate from disagreements regarding the task and include different viewpoints, ideas, and opinions about the task (Jehn, 1997). We introduce task reflexivity (motivational) and direct channels for sharing knowledge (structural) as key deactivators that prevent task conflicts from activated faultlines in global teams.

Task reflexivity in global teams. Task reflexivity acts as a motivational deactivator of activated faultlines and prevents task conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Task reflexivity is the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon the team’s task objectives and task strategies (for example, task approach) and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances (West, Garrod, & Carletta, 1997). While task reflexivity is certainly not a panacea for improving team performance (Moreland & McMinn, 2010), in the context of global teams it can enable the integration of different “thought worlds” of team members with different fields of expertise as they compare different approaches to a task, lines of thought, and goals (Nederveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2011; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009). Reflexivity helps overcome intergroup biases by creating shared insights and understanding when team members evaluate a task together and integrate these insights in plans for the future (Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007). Reflexivity also helps project the lessons learned into actions to bridge knowledge gaps (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & van Knippenberg, 2008). Given that reflexivity helps teams to integrate knowledge and with that bridge activated faultlines, we offer the following proposition:

Proposition 3: In global teams, task reflexivity moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on task conflicts, such that higher levels of reflexivity weaken the positive relationship between activated faultlines and task conflicts.

Preparing and implementing task reflexivity. When preparing to establish reflexivity as a practice in a global team, the first step should be to separate the time used for reflexivity from time used to focus on the task (see Table 12.2; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002); this will enable the team members to truly focus on reflection and see it as a separate task. Global teams that work across different time zones and locations must decide when reflection will take place. Some teams will start each day with a short reflection period, while others prefer to stick to milestone moments depending on the task characteristics. For example, many software development teams rely on continuous communication and feedback supported by software tools. Global teams often think about what to reflect on and through which medium. For example, software tools can be used on a daily basis, while this is not always the case for face-to-face meetings. It is better to reflect on major strategic decisions and conflicts in person (Bradley, 2008). Reflection on tasks should not be combined with reflections on personal relationships, so as to prevent “bitching sessions” and negativity. Finally, it is crucial to strategize on implementing the outcomes of the reflection, as this is ultimately what reflexivity is all about.

Reflecting is as much a skill as a practice (see Table 12.2; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2011). In order to stimulate this skill, team members can be trained in practices such as giving and receiving feedback, brainstorming, questioning, taking perspectives, and sharing information to combine ideas and create new solutions (Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu, 2003). Team members must remain critical of one another, but do so with respect, patience, and understanding as they enquire with curiosity and stimulate team members to think further than they would by themselves. Team members together can establish rules and procedures for reflection based on the learned skills (that is, what will be on the agenda for reflection, who will keep track of the lessons learned, and how will these lessons be used for future teams). Transparency, benevolence, and open debates all contribute to constructive dialogs and are easily stimulated by exemplar behavior.

Direct channels for sharing knowledge in global teams. Direct channels for sharing knowledge act as structural deactivators of activated faultlines, preventing task conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Direct channels for sharing knowledge are structured means of communication that facilitate direct exchange of information and knowledge between team members. Geographical, technical, temporal, and language barriers mean that communication in global teams is not always straightforward. Communication structures such as shared coffee breaks for colocated global teams, online communication, access to databases, and face-to-face meetings all support the sharing of knowledge that is required to agree on a common language and successfully integrate each other’s knowledge into the task (Kirkman et al., 2006; Rockmann, Pratt, & Northcraft, 2007; Wilkesmann, Wilkesmann, & Virgillito, 2009). These channels facilitate constructive discussions and prevent misunderstandings that lead to negative task conflicts. The more directly these channels create interaction between team members, the more often constructive knowledge will be shared (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003; Wilkesmann et al., 2009). For example, sharing a database or communicating through e-mail is less direct than a video-call or an in-person meeting. Direct channels for sharing knowledge offer insight into the knowledge, language, and cues of the other subgroup that would otherwise remain fuzzy and lead to task conflicts (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 4: In global teams, the use of direct channels for sharing knowledge moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on task conflicts, such that teams with more use of direct channels for knowledge sharing have less task conflict as a result of activated faultlines.

Preparing and implementing direct channels for sharing knowledge. A good first step in preparing direct channels for sharing knowledge is to identify which knowledge is to be exchanged, and to what extent, in order to complete different elements of the teams’ task (see Table 12.2). The task complexity, work flow, and technical infrastructure are key determinants in selecting the knowledge sharing channels. Complex tasks require large amounts of knowledge exchange, coordination, and reciprocal communication, and therefore more synchronous technologies, than simple tasks (for a detailed discussion and available technologies and when to apply them see: Bradley, 2008; Riopelle et al., 2003). For example, the presence of electricity and network infrastructure will impact which media is available for use (Riopelle et al., 2003). Miscommunications and misunderstandings can be prevented by linking specific media to specific content so that conversations remain synchronized between the appropriate parties (King & Majchrzak, 2003). For example, milestone decisions are always made face to face with the whole team. Communication protocols, procedures, and templates help ensure the quality, timeliness, and directness of knowledge sharing by streamlining and structuring communication flows (Oshri, Van Fenema, & Kotlarsky, 2008).

Different time zones, cultures, languages, and the creation of shared understanding are all hurdles to be overcome when implementing direct channels for knowledge sharing in global teams. Working across different time zones often involves working outside traditional office hours. Team members must be able to use the relevant communication media (such as teleconferences, e-mail) and have access to office buildings and other facilities (security settings, parking facilities, etc.) (see Table 12.2; Riopelle et al., 2003). Team members from different cultures will have preferences for different communication media based on their national norms and values (Riopelle et al., 2003). A cultural communication assessment can help identify how different cultures deal with the exchange of knowledge. Furthermore, team members may speak different languages and use jargon that varies based on their technical backgrounds (Carton & Cummings, 2012). To overcome these technical barriers, it is important to realize that not all team members need to possess all knowledge. While knowing which knowledge needs to be shared by everyone will help disseminate the knowledge to everyone (Randolph-Seng et al., 2010), having a shared understanding of the expertise of other team members and knowing how to tap into that expertise is the key to its application and integration (Oshri et al., 2008).

Preventing Process Conflicts from Activated Faultlines

In global teams, power, and resources are often divided over multiple locations or groups of team members, and integrating these resources often leads to process conflicts (Polzer et al., 2006). Team members derive power and status from resources such as their team role, seniority, or decision making power. In the example of the Dutch–Indian software development team, the Dutch represent a bank and the Indians represent a software development firm. The vendor–buyer difference here forms a primary demarcation in the teams’ resource and power distribution, which activates faultlines between team members representing the vendor and those representing the buyer (Li & Hambrick, 2005). The division of resources and power forms a basis for activated faultlines and affects team members’ desire for social inequality and competition between subgroups (Carton & Cummings, 2012). The integration of resources and the (re)distribution of power, which is needed to complete the task, often leads to process conflicts (Greer, Caruso, & Jehn, 2011). Process conflicts originate from disagreements regarding how to complete a task and involve allocating responsibilities; utilizing human resources; and delegating duties, power, and resources (Jehn, 1997). We introduce collective trust (motivational) and centralized leadership (structural) as key deactivators that prevent process conflicts from activated faultlines in global teams.

Collective trust in global teams. Collective trust acts as a motivational deactivator of activated faultlines and helps prevent process conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Collective trust has been defined as a common belief within a team that other team members make a good-faith effort to behave benevolently and honestly and do not take excessive advantage of another, even when presented with the opportunity to do so (Kirkman et al., 2006; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Simons and Peterson (2000) found that collective trust reduces team conflicts. Collective trust removes the uncertainty and ambiguity that members of global teams have regarding the allocation and use of team resources and power in global teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). In addition, collective trust facilitates collaboration and communication as team members become more perceptive to other team members’ differences and more willing to adopt new perspectives about these (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Therefore, we propose that once members of global teams are convinced that other subgroups are benevolent, honest, and will not take excessive advantage of the resources or power they possess, they can deactivate faultlines and prevent the process conflicts that they might otherwise perceive (Polzer et al., 2006).

Proposition 5: In global teams, collective trust moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on process conflicts, such that stronger collective trust weakens the positive relationship between activated faultlines and process conflicts.

Preparing and developing collective trust. Decisions regarding team location, team selection, and team interaction create the conditions for growing trust in teams (see Table 12.2). Studies have shown that colocated teams develop trust more easily than dispersed teams, although dispersed teams develop trust more easily when team members are spread across multiple locations as opposed to just two locations (Polzer et al., 2006). Team members who have previously worked well together, or have previous experience of working in trusting teams, will import these experiences in order to quickly develop trust in the early phases of their global teamwork (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Early introduction of team members to one another, frequent interaction, and the development of routines for inclusive interaction (for example, fixing meeting times, agendas, and upcoming holidays of all team members) help reduce uncertainty and complexity and promote inclusion and, as such, develop trust in the team (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). A strong team mission and clear division of tasks further reduce uncertainty and promote trust.

Trust is best maintained by managing uncertainty, complexity, and expectations (see Table 12.2). The countries that team members come from affect perceptions of their trustworthiness (Ertug, Cuypers, Noorderhaven, & Bensaou, 2013). Previous experience working in global teams, maintaining a long time horizon for collaboration, and including national stereotypes in diversity training can help import previous trust experiences from other teams, deal with national stereotypes, and develop a long-term future vision. Trust can be built with the right attitude. A “highly active, proactive, enthusiastic, generative style of action” (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996, p. 180) fosters trust because it creates a belief in team progress and reduces (social) uncertainty, as does the exchange of social information such as family details, hobbies, or shared interests, both in early and later team phases (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Team members looking out for each other, taking initiative, and having swift and reliable communication also strengthen trust in global teams.

Centralized leadership in global teams. Centralized leadership can act as a structural deactivator of activated faultlines, preventing process conflicts in global teams (see Fig. 12.1). Centralized leadership occurs when a team has one leader (or a leading group comprised of people who represent different subgroups) that provides direction and facilitates the team (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Hogg, Van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012). A central leader can prevent process conflicts by coordinating the teamwork process and acting as a facilitator between subgroups by pointing out the need and complementarity of different resources and their use to the overall task of the team (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). Furthermore, a central leader can create a psychologically safe environment for all team members by showing appreciation and by inviting lower status team members to join in the task (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). A constructive negotiation process and a safe team climate makes the outcomes for subgroups more predictable and increases the team members’ willingness to break down subgroup barriers and prevent process conflicts (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Centralized leaders facilitate and soothe intergroup processes (Hogg et al., 2012). Together this leads us to propose the following:

Proposition 6: In global teams, centralized team leadership moderates the positive effect of activated faultlines on process conflicts, such that stronger centralized team leadership weakens the positive relationship between activated faultlines and process conflicts.

Preparing and implementing centralized leadership. When considering centralized leadership, the first question to answer is who will be leading the team (see Table 12.2). Whether the answer is one particular person or multiple people, and whether they are already part of or new to the team, there will be specific challenges (for a review see: Hogg et al., 2012). The team leaders will have to develop the team strategy by setting a strong purpose and a clear statement on how different organizations, people, locations, and resources must work together to realize this purpose. Such a strategy prepares for a smooth team process (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). Team leaders should also develop a work order and time planning of activities, together with a communication plan for the team members, in order to provide structure and help team members deal with uncertainty (DeChurch & Marks, 2006). The communication plan and other team narratives (such as speeches and presentations) should emphasize the qualities and complementarities of team members and why the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Hogg et al., 2012). Team members will then not only know why they need to collaborate, but also how.

As the team starts to work, the role of the leader transitions from strategy to team coordination. In this stage, the leader should primarily act as a role model of the desired collaborative behavior between team members (see Table 12.2; Hogg et al., 2012). As part of the coordination activities (DeChurch & Marks, 2006), the team leader can distribute and redistribute resources and update the team on the status and demands of all others; for example, across different locations or different fields of expertise. Most importantly, the leader acts as a facilitator and coach, with a main purpose of integrating and combining resources toward task completion (Hogg et al., 2012). Other tasks involve updating the team on future events, managing uncertainty in the team’s external environment, and setting the sequence and timing of events. While on the task, experienced leaders can introduce their previous experiences of good global team collaborative practices and extend these to the current team (Hogg et al., 2012).

Overall, the theoretical model presented here advances the faultline framework to a faultline model that can be applied to deactivate faultlines in global teams. At a fundamental level, the model generates insights into how and why different conflicts in teams arise as a result of team faultlines and the contextual elements that render faultlines salient in teams. Next, we discuss the theoretical and overall managerial implications of the presented model.

Discussion and Conclusion

The concept of activated faultlines is important when explaining conflicts in global teams. Such conflicts have been largely associated with the occurrence of team faultlines (Thatcher & Patel, 2011). While exploration of activated faultlines is not new, prior studies have largely neglected the fact that team faultlines can be deactivated and that team conflicts as a result of activated faultlines can be prevented. Furthermore, studies have largely overlooked how conflicts in global teams can be effectively prevented. The model presented here advances the team faultline literature by offering a model that deals with the dynamics of faultline deactivation and conflict prevention in global teams. Our model of faultline deactivation has implications for theory, practice, and future research, each of which we discuss below.

Theoretical Implications

Overall, we show that conflicts as a result of activated faultlines in global teams can be prevented. We have introduced a typology of faultline deactivators and specifically explained that different types of conflicts have different origins, which means that they require different faultline deactivators. We have also shown that activated faultlines and faultline deactivators provide a systematic framework with which to explain conflicts and the prevention thereof in the applied context of global teams.

These theoretical developments have implications for research into team faultlines and global teams. The proposed model challenges the underlying assumption found in much of the extant research that faultlines will mostly lead to team conflicts. Studies have found that team faultlines have numerous negative effects (c.f. Thatcher & Patel, 2011), whereas other studies have found faultlines to have beneficial results, such as increased team learning (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003) and safety perceptions (Bezrukova et al., 2009). Our faultline model suggests that applying a faultline deactivator is one way to effectively deal with faultlines. We suggest that the right deactivator can be selected based on the team’s activated faultlines and the team’s structural and social context. Deactivating faultlines reduces team conflicts and makes them more productive.

Our model refines the view on the team’s task context by distinguishing structural and motivational deactivators. The team’s task context strongly influences faultlines and their consequences (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Pearsall et al., 2008). However, the concept of the team’s task context remains rather vague in the team literature. In the present chapter we have described the structural and motivational context as two distinct elements that directly affect team faultlines. This distinction enables researchers to search for more specific deactivators of team faultlines and detail the theory on faultline deactivation. Further scrutiny of the teams’ structural and social context for activators and deactivators could point to elements that have previously remained unidentified and can now be established as faultline activators and deactivators.

We related activated faultlines to different types of team conflicts and showed that different faultline deactivators facilitate the prevention of specific relationship, task, or process conflicts. Task conflicts, for example, originate from having different views on a task, which often result from different technical backgrounds, experiences, or education. Direct communication systems help to overcome activated faultlines on these characteristics by facilitating knowledge exchanges between groups. These insights can be used to assess activated faultlines and determine which deactivators will be most effective in preventing relationship, task, and process conflicts.

Global teams are characterized by strong faultlines caused by differences in values, beliefs, and attitudes resulting from the presence of multiple nationalities in the teams. Furthermore, team members are often in these teams because of their specific knowledge or experience and their access to different resources. Given that global team members represent different companies, are globally dispersed, and use virtual means to connect, it is no surprise that these faultlines are often activated. Our model primarily guides the assessment of the structural and motivational environment of the team in order to explore different faultline deactivators. Specifically, we suggested that superordinate team identity and diversity training are structural and motivational deactivators to prevent relationship conflict; task reflexivity and direct channels for knowledge sharing to prevent task conflicts; and collective team trust and centralized leadership to prevent process conflicts.

Managerial Implications

This chapter has discussed how the various faultline deactivators can be prepared for and implemented into the daily practice of global teams. Each of these deactivators can support the prevention of team conflicts. However, it is the combination of these deactivators as a complete package, along with team member selection, that will enable effective conflict management in global teams. It is essential to conduct a cost–benefit analysis to decide which of the deactivators to implement. While it is, of course, possible to implement the whole package, close consideration of the team’s activated faultlines, structural, and motivational context will help when making decisions about which measures to take, as each of these factors will have associated costs. Decisions on structural deactivators can be made in the early team phase and fine-tuned once the team is up and running, together with the implementation of motivational deactivators. Complete, reliable, and timely information about team faultlines, deactivators, team processes, and outcomes are essential for preventing conflicts in current and future global teams.

We provide measures of the introduced motivational deactivators (see Appendix); superordinate team identity (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2007), and collective trust (Kirkman et al., 2006). The outcomes of structural deactivators (see Appendix) can be assessed through cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning for diversity training (for an overview and measures see: Bezrukova et al., 2012). Technology support (Kirkman et al., 2006) and behavioral integration (Li & Hambrick, 2005) can help quantify direct channels for knowledge sharing. Measuring the concern for opportunism (Murtha, Challagalla, & Kohli, 2011) and intergroup competition (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) can help to identify the need and direction for centralized leadership. Prior studies have also provided reliable measures for team faultlines (Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003), activated faultlines (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010), and team conflicts (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008). These measures assist in decision making on changes in team composition, adjusting or adding faultline deactivators.

Future Research

Research on global teams distinguishes between virtual teams, globally dispersed teams, and colocated teams (McDonough et al., 2001). In the present chapter, we have essentially dealt with teams consisting of global team members, but have only dealt indirectly with the effects of virtual team work, global dispersion, and interorganizational teams. Faultlines and their effects have been studied in international joint venture management teams and student teams that are globally dispersed; however, faultline deactivators have not been part of that (Li & Hambrick, 2005; Polzer et al., 2006). Future research could extend the work on faultline deactivation in global teams to the specific contexts of teams that are globally dispersed or work together in a virtual environment. The structural and motivational environment of these teams differs greatly across these types of teams; understanding their effects on team faultlines would create further understanding of team conflicts and, ultimately, team performance in global teams.

A particularly interesting avenue for future research is the effect of team faultlines and faultline deactivation over time. We have shown how a faultline deactivator can change the effect of faultlines on team conflict, while previous work on team faultlines has shown that faultlines can also be easily activated (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Pearsall et al., 2008). For example, Pearsall et al. (2008) found that a gender-related task, such as working on a male razor-blade advertising campaign can easily trigger gender-based faultlines in teams. In addition, identification with subgroups can be very temporary because it is so context specific (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Therefore, future studies could focus on the interplay between faultline activation and deactivation, and determine the difficulty of activating and deactivating faultlines. We consider it likely that the presented deactivators might also work to prevent activated faultlines. Therefore, studies that determine which deactivators work most effectively with activated faultlines are also encouraged.

Although we have made a first step by introducing a set of faultline deactivators, we suggest that future research would benefit from testing the propositions articulated in this article and investigating the different faultline deactivators over various applied contexts. We have presented a set of six faultline deactivators that relate directly to the characteristics of activated faultlines and the mechanisms that turns these into relationship, task, and process conflicts in global teams. Future research could trace the origins of these types of conflicts for teams in different applied settings in order to provide a deeper understanding of faultline deactivation and identify faultline deactivators tailored to that setting. Also, within the setting of global teams, there are likely to be other faultline deactivators that relate to task, process, and relationship conflict, or even a combination of these that future studies could reveal.

Conclusion

Despite recent advances in the literature on global teams and team faultlines, the ways in which the negative effects of team faultlines in global teams can be prevented remain largely unclear. By developing a conceptual model of faultline deactivation that relates to activated faultlines and different types of conflicts, the present chapter has identified how faultline deactivators are essential for preventing conflicts in global teams. We have set the stage for a structured approach to team faultlines and faultline deactivation in global teams for both researchers and practitioners. Ultimately, we hope to increase the effectiveness of teams in organizations and the pleasures of teamwork by providing a better understanding of conflict management in global teams.