A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams

By Andrew M. Carton, Jonathon N. Cummings. 2012

402 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa127104e1415818480533fe07752aef8f3a01c9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity (2016, background): “They argued that multimodal or highly skewed distributions of climate perceptions indicate the formation of identity-based subgroups (Carton & Cummings, 2012) that may impede group communication and performance.”
Global organizational communities of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community performance (2013, background): “Carton and Cummings (2012) theorized that as the number of identity-based subgroups increases, identity fragmentation increases, which also enhances social categorization effects while reducing any positive potential from the information/decision-making perspective.”
Microdynamics in diverse teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures (2017, methodology): “This relatively new field of research is based on subgroup theory (Carton & Cummings, 2012), which proposes that a team can be split into subgroups based on faultlines, hypothetical dividing lines splitting a team into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on multiple member attributes (Lau &…”
Virtual Teams Research (2015, background): “Subgroups can affect team success and failure and have received a great deal of attention in the broader team literature (e.g., Carton & Cummings, 2012).”
Team Faultline Measures (2013, methodology): “Due to the potential differences in team dynamics in the presence of more than two subgroups (Carton & Cummings, 2012), we believe that it is important that a given method of determining faultlines can detect the correct number of subgroups with the strongest split between them.”
Diversity is strategy: the effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance (2017, neutral): “…with members of other subgroups (Nemeth and Goncalo, 2005); such exchanges encourage creativity and healthy debate (Bezrukova et al., 2009, Carton and Cummings, 2012, Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003), promoting team learning and performance (Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003, van Knippenberg et al.,…”
Top management team faultlines and firm performance: Examining the CEO-TMT interface (2017, neutral): “Studies in this area have defined knowledge-based faultlines as the alignment of team members along multiple experience-related characteristics (e.g., Carton & Cummings, 2012; van Knippenberg et al., 2011).”
The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams (2016, background): “Collaboration in a distributed team may “sometimes amount to a fragile link spanning powerful nested local communications” (Cramton and Hinds, 2014, p. 1076), as the existence of subgroups should not be underestimated (Carton and Cummings, 2012; O'Leary and Mortensen, 2010; Cramton and Hinds, 2005).”
Emotional contagion in organizational life (2018, background): “This work has powerful implications for the biological processes and psychological mechanisms underlying the formation of cliques (Tichy, 1973), identity-based subgroups (Carton & Cummings, 2012), and conflict in organizations (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).”
Cracking but not Breaking: Joint Effects of Faultline Strength and Diversity Climate on Loyal Behavior (2015, methodology): “…as relationship-related attributes that are likely to be associated with distinct socio-cultural values and perspectives, and consider tenure and function as task-related attributes associated with distinct of experiences and knowledge structures (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Carton & Cummings, 2012).”
A Tale of Two Factions: Why and When Factional Demographic Faultlines Hurt Board Performance (2015, background): “…faultline setting, feelings of mistrust and animosity between factions are more likely to develop (Li & Hambrick, 2005), which are likely to hamper the board’s ability to effectively perform its tasks as a uniﬁed group (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2010).”