Team Composition (Mathieu et al., 2019)
Team composition is conceived in terms of average member characteristics (e.g., Bell 2007, Stewart 2006), various forms of diversity (e.g., Bell et al. 2011), and more complex configurations such as faultlines (see also, Mathieu et al. 2017).”
(Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 25)
- Average Member Attributes
- Diversity
- Surface-level Diversity
- Deep-level Diversity
- Functional Diversity
- Faultlines
Average Member Attributes
Teams should be evaluated based on their composite attributes (average attributes) rather than individual team member’s attributes.
Mean values or summary indexes refer to members’ attributes averaged as a collective.” (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 25)
Compositional Variables
This generally suggests that exploring compositional variables as a summary index is worthwhile to continue as more complex compositional arrangements are also explored as related to team effectiveness.” (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 25)
Composition versus Compilation
Composition
Based on assumptions of isomorphism, describes phenomena that are essentially the same as they emerge upward across levels. (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 16)
Compilation
Based on the assumptions of discontinuity, describes phenomena that comprise a common domain but are distinctively different as they emerge across levels. (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 16)
Diversity
The heterogeneity of team members.
– Surface-level Diversity
– Deep-level Diversity
– Functional Diversity
Surface-level Diversity
Observable demographic characteristics of team members.
Surface-level diversity is defined as ‘overt demographic characteristics’ that are readily apparent to others (Bell 2007). (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 26)
Deep-level Diversity
Psychological characteristics of team members.
Deep-level diversity focuses on ‘psychological characteristics such as personality factors, values, and attitudes’ (Bell 2007). (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 26)
Examples include:
- personality factors
- values
- attitudes
- collectivism
- emotional intelligence
- preference for teamwork
Functional Diversity
Functional backgrounds, knowledge, and experiences of individual team members plus team member’s knowledge of other team members.
Functional diversity refers to a team composed of individuals from different functional areas or backrounds. (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 26)
Calculating Functional Diversity
Team functional diversity has been calculated by “categorizing members a representing one (dominant) functional category.” (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 26)
Faulline
The hidden divisions of group members.
Faultlines are the ‘hypothetical dividing lines that split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes. (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 27)
References
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. _Journal of Applied Psychology_, _92_(3), 595-615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Colaneri, A., & Outland, N. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. _American Psychologist_, _73_(4), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000305 (The Science of Teamwork)
Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. _Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior_, _6_(1), 17-46. https://doi.org/10.1143/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). Jossey-Bass.