Abstract
Individuals are inherently multidimensional, containing bundles of attributes and social relations. As multidimensionality research has evolved independently and in a disconnected fashion, our knowledge of multidimensionality and its outcomes in organizations is fragmented and rarely integrated. By reviewing relevant articles from the intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures, we present a comprehensive overview of each literature, as well as discuss their theoretical foundations, measurement, and current state. Thus, we provide a holistic and synthesized perspective of how multidimensionality is experienced in organizations. We further identify a series of research questions to spur future research on multidimensionality.
Individuals are inherently multidimensional, characterized by their bundles of simultaneously existing attributes and social relations (Blau & Schwartz, 1984; Roberson, Ryan, & Ragins, 2017; Shiplov, Gulati, Kilduff, Li, & Tsai, 2014). To date, research on multidimensionality has been conducted in different literatures and evolved independently. Consequently, we do not have an integrative understanding of multidimensionality and its outcomes for organizations and employees. To pave the way for future theoretical and empirical advancements on multidimensionality research, we review and illuminate linkages across multidimensionality literatures and identify important areas of future research. Our review is guided by the assumption that it is difficult to fully understand the implications associated with multidimensionality without incorporating diverse perspectives from the literatures that investigate this phenomenon.
We view multidimensionality as an umbrella term that encapsulates individuals’ bundles of attributes and social relations. The experience of multidimensionality depends on the meaning tied to an individual’s unique bundle of attributes and social relations. Organizational research on multidimensionality has explored how individuals experience their bundles of demographic and/or psychological attributes at work (e.g., Rodriguez, Holvino, Fletcher, & Nkomo, 2016; Thatcher & Patel, 2012). However, a myopic focus on demographic and/or psychological attributes ignores the complex web of social networks that embeds individuals in their work groups and organizations. In this vein, we focus on three literatures that investigate the coexistence of multiple attributes or social relations: intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity. We do not review literatures that examine multiple attributes or social relations unidimensionally or via simple aggregation, such as the traditional diversity and relational demography literatures.
The intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures examine multidimensionality from different vantage points. Although both the intersectionality and faultlines literatures sit in the broader diversity literature and emphasize the bundling of demographic and/or psychological attributes, they discuss the phenomenon of multidimensionality with different foci and have evolved independently. Intersectionality refers to social identities that emerge from the intersection of multiple attributes (e.g., Black female; Shields, 2008). Organizational research on intersectionality has mainly focused on how bundles of demographic attributes create emergent social identities that relate to positions of advantage/disadvantage (Rodriguez et al., 2016; Styhre & Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2008). Faultlines refer to hypothetical dividing lines that split a group into subgroups based on group members’ bundles of demographic and/or psychological attributes (adapted from Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Organizational research on faultlines has primarily examined the impact of demographic faultlines on group processes and outcomes, such as group conflict and performance (Thatcher & Patel, 2012).
Distinct from the intersectionality and faultlines literatures, research on multiplexity focuses on the bundling of social relations. Multiplexity refers to the overlap of individuals’ multiple social relations with others in a dyadic relationship (Verbrugge, 1979). Organizational research has mainly explored the effects of multiplexity on individuals’ attitudes, behaviors, and performance (e.g., Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998; Claro, Gonzalez, & Claro, 2012) as well as organizational performance (e.g., Bratkovič Kregar & Antončič, 2016). By including multiplexity in our review, we acknowledge that individuals also define themselves through their social relations. This conceptualization enables us to holistically examine how individuals experience multidimensionality in organizations.
Our review contributes to the overall multidimensionality literature in three ways. First, we extend our understanding of multidimensionality by considering both diversity and social network perspectives. Second, we review three relevant literatures (i.e., intersectionality, faultlines, multiplexity) to provide a comprehensive overview of multidimensionality research. In doing so, we illustrate how each literature utilizes the notion of “bundling,” whether in reference to bundles of demographic attributes, psychological attributes, or social relations. Third, we provide a host of promising research ideas to guide future multidimensionality research. Our review sets the stage for integrating multidimensionality literatures in four areas of inquiry: (1) broad integration of multidimensionality research, (2) domains for advancing theoretical perspectives of multidimensionality, (3) measurement of multidimensionality, and (4) promising contexts for examining multidimensionality.
The structure of our review is as follows. We first define the scope of our review. We then review each multidimensionality literature separately. These review sections are organized using the following subsections: overview, theoretical foundations, measurement, and current state of research. Finally, we describe promising directions for future research.
Scope of Review
We limit our review to studies that focus on how multidimensionality is experienced by individuals and groups in organizations. A literature search of relevant journal articles and book chapters published between 1970 and September 2018 revealed 107 articles on intersectionality, 134 articles on faultlines, and 94 articles on multiplexity. We reviewed all 107 articles on intersectionality. As Thatcher and Patel (2012) reviewed faultlines studies conducted between 1995 and May 2011, we focus our review of faultlines research to 61 conceptual and empirical studies published since May 2011. We excluded 57 multiplexity articles that focus on interpersonal networks outside organization settings or interfirm networks, leaving us with 37 articles on multiplexity. The intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity articles included in this review are noted in the reference list by one (*), two (**), and three (***) asterisks, respectively.
An Overview of Multidimensionality
Our review explores the phenomenon of multidimensionality, which we define as the bundling of an individual’s attributes and social relations. It is important to note that “multidimensionality” is distinct from the concept of “multiple identities.” In this review, multidimensionality encapsulates individuals’ bundles of attributes and social relations, some of which may originate from, or are determined by, their identities. In a recent review, Ramarajan (2014) integrated various perspectives on multiple identities (i.e., social psychological, microsociological, psychodynamic/developmental, critical, intersectional) to develop an intrapersonal identity network perspective for discussing multiple identities. However, our conceptualization of multidimensionality is broader and integrates perspectives from a variety of previously disconnected literatures and combines diversity and social network views.
In the three literatures we review, multidimensionality is conceptualized as bundles of demographic attributes, psychological attributes, and social relations. The intersectionality and faultlines literatures focus on the bundling of demographic and/or psychological attributes. Demographic attributes refer to overt characteristics typically reflected in physical features, such as race and gender (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Psychological attributes are latent characteristics that are learned through interactions over time, such as personality, values, and attitudes (Harrison et al., 2002; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995). In contrast, multiplexity research focuses on the bundling of social relations, which refers to overlapping interpersonal relationships (Verbrugge, 1979), such as friendship and work-related relations with a peer (e.g., de Ruijter, van der Lippe, Raub, & Weesie, 2008).
Our review of the three literatures (i.e., intersectionality, faultlines, multiplexity) is structured as follows: we first provide an overview of each literature and discuss the theoretical foundations and measurement approaches of each. We then examine the current state of each literature. Table 1 provides a summary of the three literatures that we review. We refer readers to Table 2 for a complete list of studies describing the current state of multidimensionality research.
Summary of the Review
Current State of Multidimensionality Research
Note: Asterisks indicate that faultlines were tested as a moderator.
Intersectionality
Overview
Intersectionality research showcases the complex lived experiences of marginalized individuals, highlighting their positions of advantage/disadvantage. Intersectionality suggests that individuals carry bundles of demographic attributes that intersect, generating emergent social identities above and beyond what can be understood through a unidimensional lens (Browne & Misra, 2003; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Shields, 2008; Warner & Shields, 2013). Originally established as a means of exploring the marginalized experiences of Black women (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), intersectionality research has evolved to consider attributes beyond race and gender. In doing so, intersectionality provides an alternative to the dominant, unidimensional approach within diversity research of focusing on one attribute (Gopaldas & DeRoy, 2015; Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli, & Bell, 2011; Walby, Armstrong, & Strid, 2012). The value of intersectionality as a theoretical framework, research paradigm, or analytical approach is that it shines a spotlight on “invisible boundaries . . . between visible identity categories” (Atewologun, Sealy, & Vinnicombe, 2016: 238) to expose individuals’ marginalization (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008).
Conceptually and analytically, intersectionality research explores the intersection of two or more demographic attributes, such as race and gender. These intersections create their own subgroup as a referent such that their meaning is contingent upon the bundle of attributes at hand. For example, the experience of a Black woman is qualitatively distinct from the experience of a disabled Black woman. However, because individuals possess a seemingly endless list of demographic attributes (Anthias, 2012), intersectionality research usually focuses on specific bundles of attributes (e.g., disabled Black women) to ensure appropriate specificity.
Theoretical Foundations
Research on intersectionality is grounded in critical race theory (Bell, 1987; Bernal, 2002; Crenshaw, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Yosso, 2006) and feminist theory (Brah & Phoenix, 2004; Carbin & Edenheim, 2013; P. H. Collins, 1990; McCall, 2005). Critical race theory explores the presence of racism within the legal system, suggesting that some laws disproportionately advantage/disadvantage certain racial groups over others. Likewise, feminist theory explores gendered social structures and systems that disproportionately disadvantage women over men. Although scholars have long recognized the importance of considering multiple attributes when discussing inequalities (e.g., Anthias & Yuval-Davis, 1983; Combahee River Collective, 1977/2005; A. J. Cooper, 1892; Hull, Scott, & Smith, 1982), Crenshaw (1989, 1991) is credited with coining the term “intersectionality” as a means of exploring the unique experiences of Black women within the legal landscape. It is important to note that although research on intersectionality inherently touches upon social identity theory, only recently have scholars explicitly integrated intersectionality with concepts from social identity theory (e.g., Atewologun et al., 2016; Paisley & Tayar, 2016).
Measurement
Intersectionality research has employed both qualitative and quantitative measurement approaches. Most intersectionality research uses qualitative approaches, such as interview and observational data (e.g., Atewologun et al., 2016). Methodologically, many intersectionality scholars rely on small samples of detailed life-story narratives to understand the nuances and complexity of individuals’ lived experiences (e.g., disabled working mothers; Skinner & MacGill, 2015). Although less common, quantitative intersectionality research examines the multiplicative effects of multiple attributes (e.g., race, gender) on individual outcomes (e.g., wage premiums; Cheng, 2016; Mitra, 2003). However, multiplicative approaches to studying intersectionality are problematic because conceptually an individual’s experience of intersectionality cannot be fully understood through an equation involving multiple attributes (Bauer, 2014). Furthermore, the origin and meaning tied to each attribute may differentially contribute to the overall experience of intersectionality (Vogel, 2018). Thus, some researchers have advocated for mixed-method approaches (Bowleg, 2008; Burgess-Procter, 2006; Stirratt, Meyer, Ouellette, & Gara, 2008) to capture both the micro- and macrolevel complexities of intersectionality (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Hancock, 2007; Hankivsky & Christoffersen, 2008).
Current State of Intersectionality Research
Historically, research on intersectionality has focused on disadvantages tied to bundles of attributes (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). In this vein, organizational research on intersectionality has broadly investigated how intersectionality disadvantages some individuals by limiting labor market access and generating inequalities within one’s job. However, recent research suggests that outcomes tied to intersectionality vary heavily across situations and are less static than previously thought. Researchers have explored how intersectional awareness and contextual factors (i.e., societal, organizational norms) influence the experience of intersectionality. Recent research has also explored ways that individuals may proactively address disadvantages associated with their intersectionality by emphasizing particular attributes over others, engaging in positive social comparisons, or changing their context. We discuss the current state of intersectionality research in detail below.
Worker marginalization
Organizational research on intersectionality primarily explores individuals’ experiences of work-related marginalization. Most scholars have focused on two outcomes tied to intersectionality: access to jobs within the labor market and inequalities experienced within one’s job. Interestingly, much research exploring the role of intersectionality on individuals’ access to jobs within the labor market has focused on the bundling of migrant status with other attributes (e.g., Al Dabbagh, Bowles, & Thomason, 2016; Diedrich, Eriksson-Zetterquist, & Styhre, 2011; Dyer, McDowell, & Batnitzky, 2010; Ressia, Strachan, & Bailey, 2017). Although some intersectional migrants are sought after for certain roles and experience positive labor market outcomes (e.g., Dyer et al., 2010), preference for certain intersectional migrants perpetuates labor market inequalities for other, less desired intersectional migrants (e.g., Diedrich et al., 2011). Thus, the extent that intersectionality contributes to one’s experience of work-related marginalization depends upon one’s bundle of attributes.
Additionally, research has examined how intersectionality generates inequalities within one’s job. Most research in this space has focused on the impact of one’s intersectionality on wage- and performance-related outcomes (e.g., Cheng, 2016; Mitra, 2003; Torres Stone, Purkayastha, & Berdahl, 2006), career advancement (e.g., Jyrkinen, 2014; Kelan, 2014; Martinez Dy, Marlow, & Martin, 2017; Mooney, Ryan, & Harris, 2017; Skinner & MacGill, 2015; Wright, 2016), and propensity to experience discrimination within organizations (e.g., T. A. Collins, Dumas, & Moyer, 2017; O’Hagan, 2018; Rosette, Koval, Ma, & Livingston, 2016). However, intersectionality can produce positive or negative outcomes for individuals on the basis of one’s bundle of attributes. For example, Cheng (2016) found that following marriage, wages increase at a consistent pace for White and Black men but decline for White women and increase for Black women, reflecting that individuals experience differential wage effects due to marriage on the basis of their bundles of gender and race attributes.
Factors that influence the experience of intersectionality
Intersectional awareness and contextual factors may alter one’s experience of intersectionality. Intersectional awareness (i.e., recognition of inequalities tied to intersectionality) influences the reproduction of inequalities within organizations (e.g., Harnois, 2014, 2017; Love, Booysen, & Essed, 2018; Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, Wong, Marshall, & McKenzie, 2015; Showunmi, Atewologun, & Bebbington, 2016; Śliwa & Johansson, 2014). Other scholars have pointed to contextual factors, such as societal (e.g., Abu-Rabia-Queder, 2017; Munro, 2001; Ozturk, 2011; Paisley & Tayar, 2016; Wells, Gill, & McDonald, 2015) and organizational (e.g., Adamson & Johansson, 2016; Adapa, Rindfleish, & Sheridan, 2016; O’Hagan, 2018; Ruiz Castro & Holvino, 2016; V. Wasserman & Frenkel, 2015) norms that perpetuate inequalities and operate as inequality regimes (Acker, 2006). For instance, Paisley and Tayar (2016) found that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) expatriates experience more difficulty adapting to host countries with cultures discriminatory towards LGBT persons than those characterized by inclusivity. However, they found that a prodiversity organizational climate attenuates this effect, showcasing how various contextual factors may interact to determine one’s experience of intersectionality.
Proactive management of intersectionality
Scholars have also identified proactive activities that individuals may use to counteract disadvantages tied to their intersectionality. These activities include emphasizing particular attributes over others (e.g., Atewologun et al., 2016; Barrett & Vershinina, 2017; Carrim & Nkomo, 2016), engaging in positive social comparison (e.g., Alberti, Holgate, & Tapia, 2013; Knight, 2016; Slutskaya, Simpson, Hughes, Simpson, & Uygur, 2016), and changing one’s context (e.g., Mooney et al., 2017; Moorosi, 2014). For example, Slutskaya et al. (2016) found that individuals in “dirty work” occupations (e.g., street cleaning) restore and protect their disadvantaged bundles of attributes by adhering to traditional displays of masculinity and using positive social comparisons against those with more disadvantaged bundles of attributes (e.g., the unemployed). Thus, outcomes associated with intersectionality are less immutable than previously thought.
Faultlines
Overview
Faultlines refer to hypothetical dividing lines that split a group into subgroups based on bundles of group members’ demographic and/or psychological attributes (adapted from Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Research on faultlines examines dynamics within subgroups created by faultlines (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Thatcher & Patel, 2012). Historically, faultlines have been conceptualized and operationalized using bundles of demographic attributes, such as gender and ethnicity (e.g., Lau & Murnighan, 2005). Scholars have also examined faultlines associated with bundles of psychological attributes, such as personality (e.g., Molleman, 2005).
Faultline strength and faultline activation are two important features of faultlines. Faultline strength is defined as the degree of alignment across group members’ bundles of attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). Strong faultlines exist when there is complete alignment across group members’ attributes. For example, a four-person group consisting of two Asian males and two Caucasian females would have a strong faultline based on race and gender. Conversely, a weak faultline exists when individuals’ attributes are loosely aligned. For instance, a four-person group consisting of one Asian male, one Asian female, one Caucasian male, and one Caucasian female would have a weak faultline based on race and gender. Faultlines can also be described as dormant (e.g., Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2003) or activated (e.g., Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008). Dormant faultlines refer to an objective alignment of demographic and/or psychological attributes and are activated when contextual factors make social categorization based on salient attributes (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Lau & Murnighan, 1998).
Theoretical Foundations
Research on faultlines is rooted in social identity theory (Bartel, 2001; Brewer, 2001; Tajfel, 1978), self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971). These theories suggest that people tend to classify and interact with others who have similar attributes such that individuals in groups with strong faultlines are more likely to identify with their subgroup than with their entire group. Additionally, researchers have relied on the categorization-elaboration model (CEM; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) to explain the impact of faultlines on group processes and outcomes. CEM suggests that the salience of social categorization depends on comparative fit (i.e., the extent that categorization maximizes similarity within subgroups and differences across subgroups), normative fit (i.e., the extent that categorization is meaningful), and cognitive accessibility (i.e., how easily individuals perceive a categorization). As strong faultlines reflect high comparative fit, CEM explains why strong faultlines disrupt information elaboration in groups, which in turn influences group outcomes.
Measurement
Faultlines researchers have employed both quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches. However, most faultlines studies rely on quantitative approaches to assess the strength of dormant and activated faultlines (e.g., Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Meyer, Glenz, Antino, Rico, & González-Romá, 2014). Dormant faultline strength is primarily measured using data on group members’ demographic attributes. The most widely used quantitative measure of dormant faultline strength is Fau, which uses a multivariate clustering approach to detect the configuration of two subgroups (Thatcher et al., 2003). However, Fau is not suitable for assessing dormant faultline strength when more than two subgroups exist. To capture dormant faultline strength within multiple subgroups, scholars have used other measurement approaches, such as average silhouette width faultline clustering (Meyer & Glenz, 2013) and latent class cluster analysis (Barkema & Shvyrkov, 2007; Lawrence & Zyphur, 2011). Additional approaches for assessing dormant faultline strength include subgroup strength (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003), faultline strength (Shaw, 2004), factional faultlines (Li & Hambrick, 2005), index of polarized multidimensional diversity (Trezzini, 2008, 2013), faultline distances (Bezrukova, Jehn, Zanutto, & Thatcher, 2009; Zanutto, Bezrukova, & Jehn, 2011), multiple linear regressions (van Knippenberg, Dawson, West, & Homan, 2011), and subgroup algorithm (Carton & Cummings, 2013). A more detailed review of the current measurement approaches for dormant faultline strength can be found in Meyer et al. (2014).
Activated faultline strength is measured by assessing group members’ perceptions of faultlines (e.g., Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010). Studies of activated faultlines rely on quantitative data gathered through surveys whereby individuals indicate subgroup divisions within their group. Although used less frequently, scholars have also employed qualitative measures, such as interviews and observations of work teams (e.g., Hinds et al., 2014; Kulkarni, 2015), to assess activated faultline strength.
Current State of Faultlines Research
Generally, scholars have found that strong faultlines negatively influence group processes and outcomes (e.g., cohesion, performance; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010; Molleman, 2005). Since Thatcher and Patel’s (2012) review, scholars have continued to explore the impact of faultlines on group outcomes (e.g., performance, decision-making; Bezrukova, Spell, Caldwell, & Burger, 2016; Spoelma & Ellis, 2017), group processes (e.g., cohesion, conflict; Chiu & Staples, 2013; Schölmerich, Schermuly, & Deller, 2016), perceptions (e.g., climate perception; Beus, Jarrett, Bergman, & Payne, 2012), and behaviors (e.g., knowledge exchange; Lim, Busenitz, & Chidambaram, 2013). Although most faultlines research focuses on the effects of faultlines on groups, some recent studies have investigated how faultlines affect individuals and organizations (e.g., employees’ loyal behavior, organizational performance; Bezrukova et al., 2016; Chung, Liao, Jackson, Subramony, Colakoglu, & Jiang, 2015). In addition, scholars have examined factors that moderate the effects of faultlines on outcomes, such as individual factors (e.g., social competence; Meyer, Schermuly, & Kauffeld, 2016), task factors (e.g., task stereotypicality; Stanciu, 2017), group factors (e.g., the number of subgroups; Xie, Wang, & Qi, 2015), and external factors (e.g., type of organization; Kulkarni, 2015). We now discuss the current state of faultlines research in more detail.
Group outcomes
Recent faultlines research has continued to find support for the negative effects of faultlines on group outcomes. In particular, strong faultlines are consistently negatively associated with group performance (e.g., Bezrukova et al., 2016; Crucke & Knockaert, 2016; Ellis, Mai, & Christian, 2013; Meyer & Schermuly, 2012). Recent studies have also demonstrated a negative relationship between strong faultlines and other group outcomes, such as decision-making (Spoelma & Ellis, 2017). Additionally, some scholars have investigated the moderating effect of faultlines to better understand how faultlines affect group outcomes. For example, scholars have explored how faultlines influence the curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity (Mo, Ling, & Xie, in press).
Although scholars continue to find negative group outcomes associated with faultlines, some studies have found positive (e.g., Ellis et al., 2013) or nonsignificant (e.g., Ren, Gray, & Harrison, 2015) effects of faultlines on group outcomes. Furthermore, recent research paints a more nuanced picture of the relationship between faultlines and group outcomes. For example, Chen, Wang, Zhou, Chen, and Wu (2017) found an inverted U-shaped relationship between faultlines and team performance, suggesting that teams may benefit most from moderate faultlines.
Group processes, perceptions, and behaviors
Recent studies have continued to support the negative effects of strong faultlines on key group processes such that strong faultlines have been shown to reduce group cohesion (Schölmerich et al., 2016) and increase conflict within groups (e.g., Chiu & Staples, 2013; Crucke & Knockaert, 2016). Scholars have suggested that strong faultlines generate differences in group members’ perceptions of group climate (Beus et al., 2012) and influence group behaviors such that they hamper knowledge exchange (Lim et al., 2013).
Effects of faultlines on individuals and organizations
Recent studies have found negative effects of faultlines on individuals (e.g., employees’ loyal behavior; Chung et al., 2015) and organizations (e.g., organizational performance; Bezrukova et al., 2016). Other studies have explored the moderating effect of faultlines on individual and organizational outcomes. For example, strong faultlines mitigate the positive relationship between the humility of executives and middle managers’ job satisfaction (Ou, Seo, Choi, & Hom, 2017). Moreover, strong faultlines in top management teams (TMTs) have been shown to negatively influence the effect of firm product diversification on firm profitability (Hutzschenreuter & Horstkotte, 2013).
Factors that influence the effects of faultlines
Since Thatcher and Patel’s (2012) review, there has been much scholarly interest in understanding different factors that influence the effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes. In this vein, researchers have investigated the role of various types of factors, such as individual, task, group, and external factors (e.g., Bezrukova et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2016; Stanciu, 2017; Xie et al., 2015). For instance, Meyer et al. (2016) found that social loafing behaviors are most common among individuals who have low levels of social competence and belong to large subgroups in teams with strong faultlines. Although less studied, task factors (i.e., properties of the work conducted by group members) have also been shown to moderate the impact of faultlines. For example, Stanciu (2017) examined the role of task stereotypicality (e.g., artistic tasks are for females) on the relationship between faultlines and out-group derogation (i.e., a form of intersubgroup bias that is directed at the out-group). He found that stereotypical tasks aggravate the positive relationship between strong faultlines and out-group derogation.
Recent studies also show that the effects of faultlines can be influenced by group factors, such as leadership position within a group (Meyer, Shemla, Li, & Wegge, 2015) and the number and balance of subgroups (e.g., Xie et al., 2015). The inclusion of the leader in a subgroup mitigates the negative effect of faultlines on individual performance during crises. However, the impact of group factors is more ambiguous (Xie et al., 2015). Within the TMT context, when large numbers of subgroups and balanced subgroups (i.e., subgroups of equal size) exist, strong faultlines enhance short-term firm performance; whereas when large numbers of subgroups and unbalanced subgroups (i.e., subgroups of unequal sizes) exist, strong faultlines increase firm innovation (Xie et al., 2015).
Lastly, factors outside group boundaries, such as type of organization (Kulkarni, 2015), external conflict (Bezrukova et al., 2016), and environmental contexts (D. Cooper, Patel, & Thatcher, 2014), influence the effects of faultlines on outcomes. For example, external conflict alleviates the negative impact of faultlines on group performance (Bezrukova et al., 2016). In addition, under various industry contexts (e.g., low environmental dynamism, high environmental complexity, high environmental munificence), TMT faultlines enhance firm performance (D. Cooper et al., 2014).
Multiplexity
Overview
The multiplexity literature suggests that individuals can be defined by their bundles of social relations with others in their groups or organizations (e.g., Cai, Wang, Cui, & Stanley, 2018; Newbert, Tornikoski, & Quigley, 2013; Verbrugge, 1979). Multiplexity is a structural property of the social network between two individuals (S. Wasserman & Faust, 1994) that describes the content and purpose of one’s social relations (Holschuh & Segal, 2002). Multiplexity is related to other network structural properties, such as strength of social ties and homophily (Brass, 1992; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Stoller, Miller, & Guo, 2001; Tichy, 1981), and individual attributes, such as gender and career orientation (Ibarra, 1992; Tschopp, Unger, & Grote, 2016). In organizational research, multiplexity refers to the bundling of different types of work-related relations (Cotton, Shen, & Livne-Tarandach, 2011; Lee & Lee, 2015; Tschopp et al., 2016) or work-related and non-work-related relations within a dyad (Claro et al., 2012; Ibarra, 1992). For example, when an individual has friendship relations with a coworker, he or she has a bundle of work-related and non-work-related relations with that person. Similar to the intersectionality and faultlines literatures, multiplexity research emphasizes that the bundling of social relations results in more complexity than the simple aggregation of social relations.
Theoretical Foundations
Research on multiplexity derives from social network theory. Social network theory focuses on the relationships between individuals and emphasizes the importance of network structure, including dyadic properties (e.g., strength of social relations; Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). Bundled social relations are considered strong because they contain multiple types of social relations (Granovetter, 1983) and generate interpersonal interdependence (Lee & Monge, 2011). Thus, social network theory explains how bundles of social relations embed individuals in their social networks (Beckman & Hauschild, 2002; C. R. Simpson, 2015).
Additionally, social network theory argues that the purpose of a relationship determines the type of interaction (e.g., friendship or work related), as well as the information and resources channeled through that relationship (Erikson, 2013). A core assumption of social network theory is that the pattern of relationships between individuals provides individuals with both opportunities and constraints on their behaviors (Brass et al., 1998; S. Wasserman & Galaskiewicz, 1994; Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988). On the basis of this assumption, social network theory suggests that multiplexity can be both beneficial and costly for individuals and organizations.
Measurement
Unlike the intersectionality and faultlines literatures, the multiplexity literature has solely relied upon quantitative measures. Multiplexity is typically assessed via self-reported information on the number of different social relations within dyads contained in an individual’s social network (e.g., Claro et al., 2012; Ibarra, 1992; C. M. Smith & Papachristos, 2016). Multiplexity measures, like any social network measure, may be susceptible to bias from self-response and self-desirability (Monaghan, Lavelle, & Gunnigle, 2017).
Current State of Multiplexity Research
The multiplexity literature mainly focuses on the effects of multiplexity on individuals and organizations. For example, multiplexity has been shown to affect individuals’ work-related outcomes (e.g., job performance; Claro et al., 2012), attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction; Kramer, 1996), affect (e.g., stress; Kramer, 1996), perceptions (e.g., organizational identification; Bullis & Bach, 1991), and behaviors (e.g., task communication; Kramer, 1996). Multiplexity has also been shown to influence organizational processes and outcomes, such as knowledge transfer and firm performance (e.g., Aalbers, Dolfsma, & Koppius, 2014; Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007). Although many scholars point to positive effects of multiplexity for individuals and organizations (e.g., Claro et al., 2012), others have found negative effects of multiplexity on individuals’ affect and career success and mixed effects of multiplexity on job performance (e.g., Cotton et al., 2011; Kramer, 1996; Methot, Lepine, Podsakoff, & Christian, 2016). We now further discuss the current state of multiplexity research.
Work-related outcomes
Multiplexity has been shown to positively influence individuals’ work-related outcomes, such as job performance (e.g., Cai et al., 2018; Claro et al., 2012), career achievement (Cotton et al., 2011), and entrepreneurial success (Newbert et al., 2013; Newbert & Tornikoski, 2012). To illustrate, Claro et al. (2012) found that multiplexity of intrafirm social relations between salespeople improves job performance by motivating knowledge sharing between salespeople and opening up enhanced sales and margin opportunities. However, multiplexity may not always be beneficial. On the basis of an analysis of 62 National Baseball Hall of Fame induction speeches, Cotton et al. (2011) found that multiplexity with a small number of mentors is risky for baseball players because the loss of a single mentor could have destructive effects on one’s career. Although multiplexity enhances job performance by establishing trust, multiplexity has also been shown to hinder job performance, primarily due to challenges in maintaining the dyadic relationship (Methot et al., 2016; Parikh Shah, Parker, & Waldstrøm, 2017). Thus, multiplexity provides individuals with beneficial information and resources but can also be harmful as a result of high costs associated with losing or maintaining such relations.
Work-related attitudes, affect, perceptions, and behaviors
Scholars have shown that multiplexity positively influences attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Kramer, 1996). Furthermore, multiplexity enhances perceptions, such as organizational identification (Bullis & Bach, 1991) and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality (Zagenczyk, Purvis, Shoss, Scott, & Cruz, 2015), and promotes work-related behaviors, such as cooperation (Lazega & Pattison, 1999) and advice seeking (Marineau, Hood, & Labianca, 2018; Siciliano, 2015). However, researchers have also found that multiplexity increases negative affect as individuals adjust to new jobs (Kramer, 1996). Thus, multiplexity psychologically burdens individuals in some situations.
Organizational processes and outcomes
Recent studies have begun to investigate how multiplexity affects organizational processes and outcomes. In general, multiplexity facilitates critical organizational processes, such as knowledge transfer (Aalbers et al., 2014) and knowledge sharing (Mäkelä, 2007), and enhances desirable organizational outcomes, such as firm performance (Bratkovič Kregar & Antončič, 2016) and organizational social capital (Arregle et al., 2007). Thus, multiplexity enriches relationships that promote key organizational processes and produce beneficial organizational outcomes.
In summary, we have provided a cross-disciplinary review of literatures that investigate multidimensionality. Despite their shared focus on the bundling of attributes and social relations, the intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures stem from unique theoretical foundations, employ distinct methodological approaches, and have different research foci. Differences and similarities across these three literatures provide a rich foundation for future research on multidimensionality. In the following section, we provide a host of promising research ideas to guide future research on multidimensionality.
Future Research Directions
In this section, we set the stage for future researchers to integrate knowledge across the intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures and address important research questions concerning multidimensionality in organizations. We organize this section around four topics: (1) broad integration of multidimensionality research, (2) domains for advancing theoretical perspectives of multidimensionality, (3) measurement of multidimensionality, and (4) promising contexts for examining multidimensionality.
Broad Integration of Multidimensionality Research
To date, multidimensionality research has been conducted in silos with little examination for how different literatures may inform each other. It is critical for researchers to consider multidimensionality from an integrative perspective and examine the effects of multidimensionality on outcomes at various levels. We explore three areas of inquiry that we believe are promising for scholars of multidimensionality research.
First, we urge scholars to explore how individuals’ intersectionality influences the effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes, as well as the joint impact of intersectionality and faultlines on the multiplexity of group members’ relations. The intersectionality literature suggests that one’s bundle of attributes determines one’s position of advantage/disadvantage relative to others (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Rodriguez et al., 2016; Styhre & Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2008). However, such differences in advantage/disadvantage across group members have been overlooked in faultlines research. For example, suppose a group has a strong faultline based on gender and race. Studies conducted in western cultures (e.g., Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009; Thomas-Hunt & Phillips, 2004) suggest that the intersection of gender and race may affect individuals’ status within the group (e.g., White males have higher status than Black females). Furthermore, the faultlines literature would suggest that Black female group members will identify with each other, as will White male group members, leading to two subgroups with intersubgroup bias. However, because the social identity approach suggests that individuals identify with groups that are high in status (e.g., Chattopadhyay, Tluchowska, & George, 2004), we expect that the Black females may identify with the group as a whole (i.e., the superordinate group) in order to obtain higher status. As a result, the Black females may not categorize themselves as the Black female subgroup or behave in a way that reflects bias against the White male subgroup. Thus, theoretical explanations of subgroup categorization and out-subgroup bias that have historically been used to explain the negative effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes (Thatcher & Patel, 2012) may be incomplete. Future researchers could explore whether differences in advantage/disadvantage due to group members’ intersectionality influence the impact of faultlines on group information processing, conflict, and performance.
Building on this idea, future research could further explore the joint effect of intersectionality and faultlines on the multiplexity of group members’ relations. The extant faultlines literature implies that individuals in groups with strong faultlines have more multiplex relations with in-subgroup members than out-subgroup members. However, social identity research (e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; Turner, 1999) suggests that individuals with low-status attributes (e.g., Black females) may seek work-related relations with out-subgroup members who have higher status (e.g., White males) to enhance their self-esteem. By associating with higher status, out-subgroup members, individuals may overcome disadvantages caused by their intersectionality. Thus, integrating intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity perspectives could refine our understanding of the interaction patterns within and across subgroups caused by faultlines.
Second, scholars could examine how individuals’ intersectionality affects the multiplexity of their relations. Prior research suggests that gender influences the multiplexity of individuals’ relations in their organization (Ibarra, 1992) but that race has no effect (Ibarra, 1995). Instead of examining attributes unidimensionally, scholars could explore whether the intersection of gender and race influences the development and effects of multiplexity at work beyond the effect of any single attribute. Ibarra (1992) found that male employees often have multiplex relations with each other, whereas female employees do not. We expect that these findings may be altered when applying an intersectional lens that considers gender and race together. For instance, Black male employees may have friendship relations with other Black male employees but proactively seek work-related relations with White males to overcome disadvantages tied to their intersectionality. Thus, the advantage/disadvantage afforded to individuals as a result of their intersectionality may influence one’s current and desired multiplex relations with others.
Third, future research could investigate whether multiplexity of group members’ relations influences the extent that they perceive activated faultlines in their group. Prior studies have identified factors that activate faultlines, such as task content (Halevy, 2008; Pearsall et al., 2008) and team entitlement configuration (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010), under the assumption that group members uniformly perceive the existence of subgroups. However, individuals’ multiplex relations with other group members may influence their perceptions of activated faultlines. For example, group members who have both friendship and work-related relations with in-subgroup members may be more likely to perceive activated faultlines than those who have only work-related relations with others in their subgroup. It is also possible that group members who have multiplex relations with out-subgroup members may be less likely to perceive activated faultlines than those who have only work-related or friendship relations with out-subgroup members. Future research could extend faultlines research by exploring the extent that multiplexity relates to variance in perceptions of activated faultlines across group members.
Domains for Advancing Theoretical Perspectives of Multidimensionality
In this section, we identify four research domains to advance our theoretical understanding of multidimensionality: (1) salience of multidimensionality, (2) role of time, (3) proactive management of multidimensionality, and (4) leadership. Each of the multidimensionality literatures that we review differentially addresses these research domains. By integrating and expanding theoretical perspectives within these domains, we can move towards a more comprehensive understanding of multidimensionality in organizations.
Salience of Multidimensionality
The salience of multidimensionality plays an important role in how multidimensionality is experienced. Multidimensionality research exploring salience has historically sat within the intersectionality and faultlines literatures, albeit discussed from different theoretical perspectives. Intersectionality scholars examine the salience of attributes within a bundle (Atewologun et al., 2016) or the extent that attributes within a bundle are deemed personally important and/or situationally relevant (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001). In contrast, faultlines researchers focus on the salience of social categorization based on a bundle of attributes (Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, van Knippenberg, Ilgen, & van Kleef, 2008; Meyer, Shemla, & Schermuly, 2011), emphasizing differences between subgroups (i.e., us-vs.-them distinctions; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). However, multiplexity scholars rarely examine the salience of social relations. By exploring the interrelatedness of the salience of bundled attributes, social categorization, and social relations, future research could enrich our theoretical understanding of (1) interpersonal relationships among individuals in groups with faultlines, and (2) ways that individuals and groups can overcome the negative effects of intersectionality and faultlines.
First, future scholars could investigate how social categorization salience relates to multiplexity of individuals’ relations, particularly those with out-subgroup members in groups with faultlines. Faultlines become activated and lead to intersubgroup bias when social categorization based on a bundle of attributes is salient (Pearsall et al., 2008). In groups with strong faultlines, social categorization salience may affect the multiplexity of individuals’ relations with in- and out-subgroup members. Specifically, social categorization salience may increase the multiplexity of an individual’s relations with in-subgroup members but decrease the multiplexity of his or her relations with out-subgroup members.
Researchers could also investigate factors that moderate the relationship between social categorization salience and multiplexity of individuals’ relations, such as social identity complexity. Social identity complexity refers to the extent that people view their multiple identities as bundled or unidimensional in nature (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Miller, Brewer, & Arbuckle, 2009; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Research has demonstrated that individuals who perceive their multiple attributes as bundled (i.e., low social identity complexity) have more intersubgroup bias and negative attitudes toward out-subgroup members than those who perceive multiple attributes unidimensionally (i.e., high social identity complexity; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Schmid, Hewstone, & Ramiah, 2013; Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2009). As a result, social identity complexity may moderate the impact of social categorization salience on the multiplexity of individuals’ relations with out-subgroup members such that individuals with low social identity complexity likely have fewer multiplex relations with out-subgroup members than those with high social identity complexity. By examining how social categorization salience relates to multiplexity, scholars could refine our understanding of group members’ relations with out-subgroup members in strong faultline groups.
Second, future research could explore how multiplexity of individuals’ relations influences the salience of their bundled attributes and social categorization salience in groups. In the multiplexity literature, Newbert and Tornikoski (2012) found that nascent entrepreneurs who have multiplex relations with supporters are better able to access critical, early-stage resources for their businesses. To that end, multiplexity may enable individuals to overcome potential disadvantages tied to their intersectionality by reducing the salience of their bundled attributes (e.g., Black female). Scholars could also study how multiplexity of individuals’ relations influences social categorization salience in groups with faultlines. For example, multiplexity of relations with out-subgroup members may weaken social categorization salience and thereby mitigate the effects of faultlines on group process and outcomes beyond the impact of one social relation (e.g., friendship relation; Ren et al., 2015). Thus, multiplexity may counteract negative outcomes associated with intersectionality and faultlines.
Role of Time
Amid calls to incorporate the role of time in more organizational research (e.g., Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001), we urge scholars to further explore how multidimensionality unfolds over time. The intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures have separately tackled the topic of time, albeit in different ways. Studies that examine age intersected with other attributes provide some insights into how the experience of intersectionality changes over time (Jyrkinen, 2014; Kelan, 2014; Mooney et al., 2017). For example, perceptions of sexism at work tend to decrease as women age (Kelan, 2014). Additionally, a simulation study investigating faultlines found that crosscutting team members who share similarities with members in multiple subgroups enable teams to overcome subgroup polarization caused by strong faultlines over time (Mäs, Flache, Takács, & Jehn, 2013). Lastly, multiplexity of individuals’ relations tends to increase over time (Lomi & Pattison, 2006). Integrating these findings could enrich theories around (1) the dynamism of multidimensionality, and (2) the relationship between multidimensionality and relevant group outcomes.
Future research could explore how individuals’ intersectionality influences the multiplexity of their relations and the effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes over time. For example, based on Kelan’s (2014) finding, individuals’ intersectionality may influence the salience of gender categorization, thereby activating faultlines based on gender. Over time, female group members may gradually form multiplex relations with males and bridge the two subgroups based on gender. Consequently, individuals’ intersectionality may weaken the effects of faultlines on group processes and outcomes by increasing the multiplexity of one’s relations with out-subgroup members over time.
Additionally, as groups evolve (e.g., Chang, Bordia, & Duck, 2003; Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), individuals’ accumulated experiences may alter the effects of intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity on group performance. We expect that the salience of individuals’ attributes and multiplexity of relations change across group development stages. In addition, faultlines and the structural characteristics of multiplex networks within a group (Crawford & LePine, 2013) may evolve together and become more aligned over time. As a result, group performance may dynamically change in a nonlinear fashion depending upon the interaction between group members’ multidimensionality and the group’s developmental stage.
Proactive Management of Multidimensionality
The proactive management of multidimensionality presents another avenue for extending our theoretical understanding of multidimensionality in organizations. Although scholars have considered ways that individuals proactively manage their intersectionality and social relations in organizations, faultlines researchers have not considered that group members may wear their attributes differently and largely assume that group members are helpless in managing subgroup divisions based on faultlines. We suggest that scholars incorporate theoretical perspectives on proactive management of multidimensionality to shed light on (1) the role of multiplexity in overcoming negative outcomes, and (2) contextual factors that affect individuals’ ability to proactively manage their multidimensionality.
One interesting research question would be to examine ways that individuals manage their bundles of attributes and social relations to enhance their experience of multidimensionality. We expect that individuals who are more successful at managing the salience of their attributes across contexts are more capable of building multiplex relations with others. Drawing on the concept of identity work (i.e., proactive efforts to create, repair, or revise components of one’s identity; Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Snow & Anderson, 1987; Watson, 2008), Atewologun et al. (2016) found that British Asian and Black females engage in “intersectional identity work” by differentially emphasizing their gender, ethnicity, and seniority attributes across interpersonal encounters to manage their positions of advantage/disadvantage. Because individuals may emphasize different attributes in order to access beneficial resources (e.g., Essers & Benschop, 2009; Rospenda, Richman, & Nawyn, 1998; Sang, Al-Dajani, & Özbilgin, 2013), it is possible that they may also build multiplex relations to overcome disadvantages tied to their intersectionality. Researchers could enrich our knowledge of how individuals manage their positions of advantage/disadvantage by exploring the role of intersectional identity work in the formation of multiplex relations.
Examining the interaction between faultline strength and intersectional identity work is another promising area of research that opens up interesting competing hypotheses. On one hand, individuals in groups with strong faultlines may be demotivated from proactively managing their bundles of attributes as a result of perceptions of psychological safety and belongingness associated with strong faultlines (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). On the other hand, strong faultlines may motivate individuals to engage in intersectional identity work in an attempt to overcome negative attributions tied to their subgroups. By exploring the relationship between faultline strength and intersectional identity work, future research could explore further how faultlines and individual identities interact.
Leadership
The topic of leadership is nascent within the multidimensionality literature and presents several promising avenues for future research. The intersectionality literature has examined ways that leaders may experience and overcome disadvantages tied to their bundles of attributes. For example, because middle-class, White males tend to be the referent point for soft skills, such as leadership ability (Acker, 2006; Ruiz Castro & Holvino, 2016), individuals who do not fit these characteristics can proactively manage disadvantages associated with their intersectionality to progress as leaders. For example, Moorosi (2014) showed that African women from rural contexts are more likely to benefit from leadership development programs than women of other races (Indian, colored, White) and all males. Thus, by engaging in leadership development programs and thereby changing one’s context, African women from rural contexts are able to gain the resources necessary to overcome professional disadvantages. In the faultlines literature, researchers found that CEOs’ presence in nomination committees influences the demographic faultlines in boards (Kaczmarek, Kimino, & Pye, 2012a). Researchers have also found that a leader’s membership within a subgroup influences the relationship between faultlines and subordinate performance during crises (Meyer et al., 2015). Lastly, research on the effects of leaders’ multiplexity on group or organizational outcomes has been relatively absent in the multiplexity literature. Building on the above findings, future research could expand our understanding of (1) how leaders manage the negative effects of faultlines through their multiplex relations, and (2) how leaders affect subordinates’ multidimensionality.
Future scholarship could explore how leaders’ multiplex relations with subordinates enable them to overcome the negative effects of faultlines. The extant faultlines literature suggests that although strong faultlines impair individual performance during crises, this effect is mitigated when an individual’s subgroup includes the team leader (Meyer et al., 2015). Building on this, consider a leader who belongs to a subgroup based on his or her bundled attributes and has both friendship and work-related relations with several out-subgroup members. In this case, the leader’s multiplex relations with out-subgroup members may enable him or her to function as a bridge between subgroups, leading to decreased activated faultlines. Because the leader has more resources that are beneficial for individual group members and the group as a whole (Meyer et al., 2015), his or her multiplex relations with out-subgroup members may be powerful in mitigating the negative effects of faultlines on individual and group performance.
Furthermore, scholars could examine the influence of a leader’s intersectionality on the meaning of subordinates’ intersectionality and their ability to develop multiplex relations with others. Drawing on intersectional identity work (Atewologun et al., 2016), subordinates may emphasize attributes that align with their leader’s attributes in order to enhance the quality of LMX. Improved LMX quality may allow subordinates to access more beneficial multiplex relations with others. Future research on the relationship among a leader’s intersectionality, subordinates’ intersectionality, and subordinates’ multiplex relations could extend our knowledge of how multidimensionality is experienced in organizations.
Measurement of Multidimensionality
Each of the three literatures we review utilizes different measurement approaches for exploring the phenomenon of multidimensionality. However, reliance on certain approaches has prevented these literatures from fully capturing the complexity of multidimensionality. We suggest that future researchers integrate measurement approaches used across the three literatures to improve our overall understanding of multidimensionality in groups and organizations. For example, qualitative accounts of individuals’ lived experiences, as utilized in the intersectionality literature, can enable scholars to better understand the formation of multiplex relations and activated faultlines in groups. Additionally, detailed interviews and observations of group members’ behaviors and interactions may provide valuable information about group member dynamics and enable scholars to elaborate upon quantitative measures of multiplexity and activated faultline strength. By incorporating more qualitative and mixed-methods approaches into the faultlines and multiplexity literatures, scholars can develop a more nuanced understanding of how faultlines and multiplexity operate in organizations.
Scholars could also utilize measures of individuals’ ego networks from the multiplexity literature to better understand findings from the intersectionality and faultlines literatures. For example, because ego network measures enable researchers to explore the type and strength of one’s relations with others, as well as characteristics of social networks within a group (e.g., the centralization of multiplex relations across group members; Crawford & LePine, 2013), scholars can map out how an individual’s intersectionality relates to his or her social network and how shifting one’s intersectionality across contexts may alter the composition of one’s multiplex relations. Furthermore, scholars could apply ego network measures to map the perceived subgroup configurations of each group member in order to understand whether perceptions of activated faultlines vary across group members. Researchers could also test whether different activated faultlines exist across a group’s various social networks (e.g., friendship network, work-related network) to expand our understanding of how faultlines affect group processes and outcomes. For example, faultlines within a group’s friendship network may relate to relational conflict, whereas faultlines within the same group’s work-related network may relate to task conflict. We encourage future research to explore how various measures can be applied across different multidimensionality literatures to enhance our understanding of multidimensionality in organizations.
Promising Contexts for Examining Multidimensionality
Changing Contexts in Organizations
The multidimensionality literatures that we review tend to overlook how critical events in organizations, like turnover events and strategic changes, alter the context for how multidimensionality is experienced. This is surprising, given that the intersectionality literature suggests that individuals differentially express their multidimensionality based upon their context. Future scholars could examine how group member turnover changes the meaning associated with one’s intersectionality, producing downstream effects on one’s multiplex relations and group processes and outcomes. As turnover events alter referents that individuals use to derive their positions of advantage/disadvantage, group member turnover may influence one’s multiplex relations and alter faultline strength. To illustrate, consider a group consisting of five White males and three Black females where one of the females is the supervisor. The nonsupervisor Black females may develop multiplex relations with the White male group members as a function of their relationship with the supervisor, whereby their intersectionality provides them with access to beneficial social relations. However, the departure of the Black female supervisor may result in the dissolution of those multiplex relations because the nonsupervisor Black females are no longer in a subgroup with someone of status.
Another promising avenue for future research is to explore how strategic changes (e.g., mergers and acquisitions, organizational spin-offs) affect the advantage/disadvantage tied to individuals’ intersectionality and the relationship between organization-level faultline strength and organizational outcomes. For example, a minority female who works for an organization that is merging with another organization owned by a minority female may experience a position of advantage following the merger because her in-group holds higher status in the dominant organization. Furthermore, because the organization is owned by a minority female, social categorization based on gender and race may become salient, activating organization-level faultlines based on gender and race. Thus, the organizational merger may aggravate the negative effects of organization-level faultlines on organizational performance.
Virtual Teams
As virtual teams continue to become commonplace in organizations (Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015), our understanding of multidimensionality in organizations would be improved by taking into account the unique contextual features of virtual environments. Extant multidimensionality research suggests that linguistic profiling and dispersion of temporal and geographic boundaries can disadvantage individuals by making certain attributes salient (Cheong & Gray, 2011; Gray, 2012; van der Kamp, Tjemkes, & Jehn, 2015). To that end, teams may suffer from increased conflict and decreased trust as a result of faultline activation in virtual contexts (Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). Furthermore, given that virtual communications tend to damage social relationships (Mesch & Talmud, 2006), the availability of different communication mediums may influence the multiplexity of individuals’ relations (Haythornthwaite, 2001). As a result, virtual contexts may replicate or exacerbate the downsides of multidimensionality associated with face-to-face teams.
Future research could explore factors that attenuate the potentially negative impacts of multidimensionality in virtual teams. For example, scholars could investigate how individuals proactively manage their intersectionality in virtual teams. We expect that reduced media richness within virtual communications, as compared to face-to-face interactions, hampers individuals’ ability to engage in intersectional identity work (Atewologun et al., 2016). That is, attempts to emphasize certain attributes over others may be missed or misunderstood by other team members when expressed in a virtual context. Future research could also explore how virtuality influences outcomes of faultlines. Virtuality may decrease the social categorization salience associated with bundled attributes such that virtual team members may have less intersubgroup bias and more multiplex relations with out-subgroup members, mitigating the effects of faultlines on team processes and outcomes. We encourage future research to examine the myriad ways that virtuality affects the experiences of multidimensionality. In closing, we invite researchers to join us in discovering new insights about multidimensionality in organizations.
Conclusion
Our integrative review examines the intersectionality, faultlines, and multiplexity literatures to provide an overview and comprehensive description of the theoretical foundations, measurement, and current state of multidimensionality research. We provide a novel perspective to multidimensionality research by emphasizing that individuals are defined by bundles of attributes and social relations. We further identify topics that integrate theoretical perspectives across the three literatures and provide promising directions for future multidimensionality research. Our proposed future research directions indicate that there is no shortage of topics to be investigated. From integrating the three previously siloed literatures to exploring multidimensionality in new contexts and across different literatures, we have only begun to understand the complexity associated with multidimensionality in organizations.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank associate editor Eden King and two anonymous reviewers for an extremely constructive review process. We also thank Elizabeth Ravlin, Mark Maltarich, and Patrick Flynn for their constructive feedback on an earlier draft of the paper.