What is in a group? Organizations seek to manage the
workplace where encampment, us versus them, and self-seeking group formation does
not limit the overall functioning of the organization. Such groups can limit
the ability to see outside of one’s own perspectives and further encourage poor
choice making based upon this limited perspective. Research by Carton &
Cummings (2013) discusses the nature of identity-based subgroups and
knowledge-based subgroups and how their identities influence the operation of
the workplace.
Work teams are more popular than ever. Over 80% of Fortune
1,000, companies are using work teams to maintain productivity (Garvey, 2002). In an effort to improve, overall functioning of
teams there has been a level of effort to understand how subgroups and group
member interaction impact the overall process. When team members function well together,
they are more likely to be productive in their approaches.
Subgroups can form based upon fault lines that are
based on differing characteristics of the group (Bezrukova, et. al., 2012).
Those characteristics could be age, race, ideology, religion or any number of
other factors. Each subgroup has their own way of viewing problems and manners
of interacting with other groups.
A team with
more fault lines may be better than a group with only two. Two large groups can
make decisions ineffective as they protect their turf through in-group and
out-group dynamics while a number of different fault lines could improve
effectiveness by offering a rounded perspective but ineffective turf protection.
Think of three people making a decision
and creating a natural tiebreaker versus two people with completely different
vantage points.
There are two broad categories of sub-groups:
Identity-Based
Subgroup: A group
based upon a person’s characteristics or other social defining categorization (Hogg
& Terry, 2000). These groups see themselves as similar based on social
characteristics and will generally disparage the identities of others. You may view religion, race or age as a
difference that may create a sense of shared identity.
Knowledge-Base
Subgroups: A group
based on how people view and process information (Galbraith, 1974). This group
could view and see information through an educational or occupational
background and define information based upon this vantage point. For example,
engineers and social workers will naturally view information different and therefore
break into groups based upon these vantage points.
The Carton & Cummings (2013) study used teams selected
from a multinational firm in the food processing business. Three hundred twenty
six teams were formed throughout a number of different locations. Teams were
engaged in a tournament that determined how their output met the needs of the
organization. They may work in
operational improvement, customer service, or product development.
The researchers were able to integrate subgroup type
with subgroup configuration. Teams should be designed so that identity based
teams would be imbalanced and knowledge based teams would be balanced. Rifts in identity-based groups should be
mended by relation development, positive norms, and respect for other
subgroups. Knowledge-based rifts can be improved through boundary expanding and
finding value in decision-making through acknowledging different perspectives. Knowledge-based groups outperformed identity
based groups in the samples.
The study encourages executives to think about how
subgroups are developed and to make better design of group formation. They can
encourage imbalance to foster decision-making by not allowing dominance of a
single group, encouragement of balanced in-out group mentality, and integrating
those who are more identity with those who are more knowledge based. This
research seems to indicate that knowledge-base subgroups are ideal performers when
compared to identity-based subgroups.
Bezrukova, K., et. al. (2012). The effects of
alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 77–92.
Carton, A. & Cummings, J. (2013). The impact of
subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, doi: 10.1037/a0033593
Garvey, C. (2002, May). Steer teams with
the right pay: Team-based pay is a success when it fits corporate goals and
culture, and rewards the right behavior. HR
Magazine, 34 (5), 33–36.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An
information processing view. Interfaces,
4 (3)
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social
identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
