Team Faultline Measurement
Team faultline measurement quantifies the hypothetical dividing lines that can split a work group into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on the alignment of several member attributes at once. Dora Lau and Keith Murnighan introduced the faultline concept in 1998, arguing that what matters is not how diverse a group is on any single attribute but how strongly multiple attributes line up to create a clean cleavage — for example, when all the older members are also the men and the engineers, while all the younger members are the women and the marketers. Thatcher, Jehn, and Zanutto operationalized the idea in 2003 with the Fau index of faultline strength and a companion measure of faultline distance, and tested their effects on conflict and performance. Later work by Meyer and Glenz compared the proliferating measures and proposed an average-silhouette-width approach that can handle more than two subgroups. The method turns an intuition about subgroup splits into a reproducible number that can be entered into models of team process and outcomes.
Källpost
Citat kopierade ordagrant från metodens källpost. Ingen verifiering på källnivå härleds från dem.
- Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325-340. · DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.533229
- Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217-241. · DOI 10.1023/A:1023325406946
- Meyer, B., & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures: A computational comparison and a new approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 393-424. · DOI 10.1177/1094428113484970
Kuraterade påståenden
Påståenden lagrade i bevisloggen, var och en med sin egen bedömning.
Denna vy hittar inte på en påståendebedömning när loggen saknar en.
Relaterade metoder
Genererade från metodgrafen och visade som maskinföreslagna relationer – inga bevispåståenden härleds.