Group faultlines are defined as hypothetical dividing lines that split a team into subgroups based on the alignment of team members' attributes. Prior faultline research has almost exclusively focused on the implications of between-subgroup relationships assuming that "team members form homophilous ties on either side of a faultline by associating with others in the team who have similar demographic attributes" (Ren et al., 2015, p. 390). However, this important assumption has not been tested. Drawing from social comparison theory and its "similarity hypothesis," I argue that homogeneous, faultline-based subgroups may serve as a hotbed for social comparisons, and comparisons on social power can engender conflict under certain circumstances, triggering within-subgroup conflict. More specifically, consistent with the emerging research that recognizes different types of group faultlines, I outlined a) different dimensions that different faultline-based subgroups are more likely to compare and b) the downstream effects of these comparisons. Hypotheses were tested using multi-wave, round-robin data from multiple intact work teams of full-time employees. Results largely supported my predictions regarding knowledge-based subgroups but not so much for identity-based subgroups or resource-based subgroups. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Read
