中文摘要：

群体断层概念近些年来在理论和实证研究方面都取得了重要的进展,但有关断层强度的测量却始终呈现出滞后的态势。已有的文献表明只有FLS,Fau和PMD三个指标对群体断层强度进行了系统而完整的测量,且三个指标都表现出相当的稳健性。尽管如此,三大指标却都没有能够反映断层宽度这个重要维度。本研究在以往文献的基础上构建了整合群体断层强度测量指标,很好地解决了这一问题。整合群体断层强度指标具体表现为亚群体内部一致性、亚群体间差异性和断层宽度的乘积。我们从以往研究中提炼了10个准则对新构建的指标进行了检验,结果显示,整合群体断层强度指标要显著优于以往的测度,10个准则全部能够很好地拟合。本研究最后讨论了基于主观感知的断层强度的测量问题,并提出了采用回归系数作为衡量亚群体间距离的PMD改进算法。

英文摘要：

As a notable advance compared with traditional diversity research, Lau and Murnighan （1998） proposed the ＂group faultlines＂ concept to capture aligned effects of multi-dimensional characteristics and their interrelationships. Much progress has been gained in terms of theoretical development and empirical analysis about faultline research, but an examination of previous literature has shown little further work on how to quantitatively measure faultline strength. To the best of our knowledge, only Thatcher, Jehn and Zanutto （2003） Fau-Index, Shaw （2004） FLS-Index along with Trezzini （2008） PMD-Index have provided systematic and rigor measurement of faultline strength. Each of these indices has its robustness. In nature, Fau can be interpreted as amount of total variance accounted for by intergroup heterogeneity, while FLS is more like a mixed product of subgroup internal alignment and cross-subgroup alignment. PMD, if we scrutinize, will find it a special case of class of polarization measures introduced by Esteban and Ray （1994）. Be that as it may, all the indices mentioned above have ignored the faultline width, which is a critical dimension concerning that an identical array of attributes will have different dynamics if distances that exist between subgroups diverge. The fact that faultline width may play a unique role on behaviour was not reflected in any of the three indices. This study aims to resolve this problem by constructing a new integrated metric based on simultaneously measuring subgroup internal alignment （IA）, the degree of dispersion between subgroups （Fau） and subgroup distance （D）. The resulting metric, namely Integrated-Group-Faultline-Strength （IGFS） was represented in the following form： IGFS=IA×Fau×D. A total of 21 well-designed groups were selected to test the validity of our new metric. These groups all came from published articles. We did this because we wanted to present all sorts of teams that could be typically imagined. The benefit of doing s