HIERARCHY STEEPNESS AND HELPING BEHAVIOR

HIERARCHY STEEPNESS AND HELPING BEHAVIOR

The Moderating role of Psychological Safety and the Mediating role of Social

Identification

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economic and Business

June 21, 2013

HIERARCHY STEEPNEEES AND HELPING BEHAVIOR

The Moderating role of Psychological Safety and the Mediating role of Social Identification

ABSTRACT

The present study focuses on hierarchy steepness within a team and how it will affect the helping behaviour among team members. It is hypothesized that the negative indirect relationship between intra-team hierarchy steepness and helping behavior, as mediated by social identification, is conditional upon psychological safety. The indirect relationship becomes weaker when the psychological safety is higher, rather than lower. Multimethod analyses, obtained from 274 individuals in 31 teams, did not provide support for these hypotheses. The insignificant results are discussed in the theoretical and practical implications.

INTRODUCTION

Management scholars agree with the proposition that teams are the primary unit of performance in any organization (Samson & Daft, 2003). Due to the broader set of perspectives available to members and the cross-fertilization of ideas, working in teams may lead to more novel associations and creative outcomes (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Tesluk, Farr & Klein, 1997). Research emphasized the beneficial impact of cooperative interaction for both team members and organizations, as cooperation will enhance the benefits of team structures and will contribute to the accomplishment of organizational goals (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Stewart & Barrick, 2000).

One key aspect that may be important for the functioning of teams is status, which can be defined as an individual's prominence, respect, and influence in the eyes of others (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001). Status hierarchies emerge around a status organizing process; ‘a process by which differences in cognitions and evaluations of individuals, or social types of them, become the basis of differences in the stable and observable features of social interaction’ (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977, p.3). These evaluations appear in a status hierarchy (Spataro, 2002). Hierarchy steepness is the overall degree of asymmetry in member’s social status, and influence within a team (Anderson & Brown, 2010). This paper focuses on one specific dimension of informal status hierarchies within work teams, which is hierarchy steepness. Steeper status hierarchies within a team imply that the asymmetries in members’ status are large, whereas teams with a more egalitarian status structure can be defined as flatter status hierarchies.

effect of steeper hierarchies or more egalitarian hierarchies within organizational work teams will appear to have different effects on performance in organizational work teams. Although some studies have shown that steeper hierarchies facilitates better team coordination and team performance (e.g., Barnard, 1964; Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch, 1980; Tiedens, Unzuetta & Young, 2007), most studies have shown negative effects of steeper hierarchies, e.g. decreased team performance, lower motivation and satisfaction among members, and breakdowns in inter-member coordination (e.g., Argyris, 1964; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Galbraith, 1973; Hage, 1965). Contingency theories of organizations are consistent with the mixed results of steep hierarchies, as these theories argue that steeper hierarchies are not universally good or bad for organizations, but rather, their effects depend on a host of factors (Anderson & Brown, 2010).

This paper argues that social identification is the key mechanism that explains how hierarchy steepness facilitates helping behavior among team members. Social identification is the sense of oneness that team members feel with certain teams and the degree to which they define themselves as members of those teams (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This feeling of oneness engenders integration with organizational goals, motivates individuals to contribute to those goals and to indulge in behaviors that serve their teams (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008; Simon & Strümer, 2003). Social identification will exist in a higher extent when individuals are similar, also in terms of status. When status is approximately the same among the team members in a certain team, it will affect the identification in a way that members have a feeling of connectedness with each other.

process is also defined as psychological safety; a shared belief, held by team members, that a team is safe for interpersonal risk taking and captures a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up (Edmonson, 1999).

Helping behavior among team members, which is the main variable in this research, facilitates smooth functioning of the organization and contributes significantly to team and organizational performance (e.g., Anderson & Williams, 1996; Boorman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsokoff, McKenzie, PaineBachrach & Bachrach, 2000). Helping behaviors are represented by voluntarily helping fellow team members with work-related tasks and problems, and to create and retain interpersonal relationships in the workplace (e.g., King, George & Hebl., 2005; Mossholder, Richardson & Settoon, 2011; van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Together, people possess more knowledge and ideas which facilitate organizational performance. Members increase efforts to provide help when they have stable and legitimate status relations and they do not feel that their position is threatened (Nadler & Hababi, 2006). The feeling that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking may soften the effects of hierarchy steepness, or increase the feeling of comfortableness within a team which may affect helping behavior.

differences impact the tendency to help each other. Contingency theories of status hierarchies suggest that it is necessary to find potential moderators that demonstrate the conditions under which hierarchy steepness may conduce to better team functioning (Anderson & Brown, 2010). This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on hierarchy steepness and helping behavior by proposing that psychological safety will make the effect of hierarchy steepness on team helping behavior less detrimental. Moreover, in predicting helping behavior, this study highlights the role of social identification as a mediator. The mediating process of social identification is not examined in this context before. The mediating role tries to explain that the effect of steeper hierarchies on helping behavior among team members is interposed by social identification because social identification of team members might lead to more helping behavior.

With the increasing role of teams in organizations, it is important for practitioners to understand the impact of helping behavior among team members. Managers could take into account the extent to which team members feel psychological safe when making status asymmetries salient in teams. This may play a role in social identification and helping behavior which eventually affect the organizational performance.

THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

H

differences, which are the focus of this study, are more organic, emerging naturally, from interaction within the team (e.g., Bales, Strodtbeck, Mills & Roseborough, 1951; Whyte, 1943). Hierarchy steepness exists in virtually all teams and will often result from team members’ differences in knowledge, skills and experience but mostly from differences in each team member individual contribution to the team successes.

Hierarchy steepness that exists in teams may affect how people will assess each other and help each other to accomplish their goals. Some members will identify themselves with other members in terms of status. Status can be considered as a central team characteristic in both theory and research on social identity and inter-team and intra-team relations. Social identification is the part of an individual’s self-concept in which he or she acknowledges and values being part of a team and members share norms and behavior which develop into a sense of cohesion and interdependency (Tajfel, 1981; Wheelan, 1994; Henry, Arrow & Carini, 1999). The development of identification within a team occurs as the team becomes socially tighter (Wheelan, 1994). Socially tighter teams may arise when people feel connected to and comfortable with each other.

will result in less social identification. When there is more equal distribution of status, people will feel more identified with members of that team.

The Moderating effect of Psychological Safety

As previously discussed, contingency theories argue that steeper hierarchies are not universally good or bad for organizations, but their effects depend on a host of factors (Anderson & Brown, 2010). However, it is unclear when steeper hierarchies are beneficial for social identification, and when they are harmful. In this research we propose that psychological safety will be a condition that will moderate the effects of hierarchy steepness on social identification. Team psychological safety refers to a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves (Leroy et al., 2012). Team members may be unwilling to bring up issues that could help the team make subsequent changes because they are concerned about being perceived as incompetent, which allows them to ignore or discount the negative consequences of their silence for team performance. In contrast, the benefits of speaking up, and helping fellow team members are likely to be of more importance when team members respect and feel respected by other members and feel confident that team members will not hold the issue against them (Edmonson, 1999). Research also suggests that team psychological safety is something beyond interpersonal trust. There was evidence of a cohesive interpersonal climate within teams characterized by the absence of trust, where members still respected each other's competences, and cared about each other as people (Edmonson, 1999).

more willing to share their knowledge or help each other when there is a basis of trust and respect for each other’s competence, because they feel confident that colleagues will not punish or judge them for expressing opinions. Psychological safety implies that team members value each other’s skills and talents (Edmondson, 1999), and it allows individuals to express their true self at work. The feeling of intra-team freedom will be enhanced which will contribute to the information sharing and communication processes. Members will become more motivated to collaborate, which in turn will stimulates the feeling of oneness, and the differences between team members will be less detrimental for the team processes and helping behavior. Psychological safety may be important for teams that are diverse because they may influence team members’ comfort in sharing ideas and accepting others’ opinions (Joshi & Roh, 2007; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Psychological safety can set opportunities that minimize the direct effects of work team diversity, or the steepness of the hierarchy, on performance (Joshi & Roh, 2009).

Psychological safety serves as a dynamic that ensures intra-team freedom and facilitates employee identification with the organization (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Ashforth et al. 2008; Stets and Burke 2005). Psychological safety will reduce the negative impact of hierarchy steepness, providing a counteractive force to the otherwise negative influence of hierarchy within a team (Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa & Kim, 2006; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). We propose that hierarchy steepness will be less detrimental for social identification within a team when psychological safety is high. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 will be defined as:

Hierarchy Steepness, Helping Behavior, and Psychological Safety

The success of work units often depends on helping behaviors from employees (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Organ, 1988). This behavior may be defined as team members’ discretionary behaviors intended to assist other members or the team as a whole (Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006). Helping behavior is an unilateral and individual action: one person needs assistance and the other possesses the resources necessary to provide it (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). When team members are jointly responsible for achieving goals, they are inclined to help each other to achieve the best result. The challenge is to work together in an effective manner. A workplace climate where helping behaviors are encouraged among team members is a relational climate. It is defined as ‘shared employee perceptions and appraisals of policies, practices and behaviors affecting interpersonal relationships in a given context’ (Mossholder et al. 2011, p. 36). A given relational climate is characterized by the ‘‘values’’ that an organization upholds and helps in shaping individual behaviors that are desired by organizations (Kolodinsky, Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2008), such as interpersonal helping (Mossholder et al., 2011). Behavior such as assisting others with work-related tasks, offering care and support to coworkers with personal problems and cooperating with peers not only promote beneficial outcomes for the team but also builds and preserves harmony within the team (van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Anderson & Williams, 1996; Kahn, 1998; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002).

Ickovics, 2000). In contrast, low rank comes with social neglect (Chance, 1967; Savin-Williams, 1979), less participation and yet more blame for team failures (Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995), and heightened feelings of fear, shame, and anxiety (Mazur, 1973; Tiedens, 2000). Various studies showed that steeper hierarchies lead to worse team performance and lower motivation and satisfaction among members (For a review, see Anderson & Brown, 2010). In this research, they assumption is made that employees will help each other more often when hierarchy steepness is lower, rather than when the steepness is higher.

expertness (and thus lower status) to feel as comfortable with their team members and express their ideas, and feel more influential in team interactions and. In contrast, when team psychological safety is lower, members with lower expertness (and thus lower status) may be hesitant to take the interpersonal risk of injecting their potentially lower-quality ideas and perspectives into the team’s discussions (Edmondson, 1999). When members express their ideas and injecting their perspectives, they are helping each other in order to benefit the team performance. Therefore, higher psychological safety within a team creates conditions that may help teams to share more effectively their diverse perspectives on a task, thereby benefiting the helping behavior.

Hierarchy steepness will result in less helping behaviour. When there is a steep hierarchy in a team, people will become less willing to help each other. An environment in which employees feel comfortable for speaking up or taking risks will make this negative less detrimental. We propose that the negative relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior is moderated by psychological safety. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 will be defined as:

H2: Psychological safety moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior, such that hierarchy steepness is less negatively related to helping behavior when psychological safety is higher.

The Mediating Role of Social Identification

identity derives partly from the fact that people belong to teams (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which gives them a sense of meaningfulness and provides a basis for their self-esteem (Rink & Ellemers, 2005). Identification is a process which mediates more factors that will influence several team performances. Collective identification has been shown as a powerful mediator of the relationship between positive relational climates of mutual respect and team-serving behaviour (Simon & Strümer 2003). Previous research shows that organizational identification mediates the effect of perceived organizational change and cooperative behaviors at work (Dukerich et al. 2002), and the relationship between organizational justice and turnover intentions is also mediated by organizational identification (Olkkonen & Lipponen 2006).

among team members. The feeling of oneness engenders integration with organizational goals, motivates individuals to contribute to those goals and to indulge in behaviors that serve their teams (Ashforth et al. 2008; Simon & Strümer, 2003).

This study aims to investigate whether hierarchy steepness will have an effect on the helping behaviour among team members. It is argued that hierarchy steepness will be less detrimental for helping behaviour when team members feel psychologically safe. Hierarchy steepness has a negative indirect relationship with helping behaviour, through the mediating effect of social identification when members feel psychologically safe. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 follows as;

H3: The overall moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior is only mediated by social identification at higher levels of psychological safety.

FIGURE 1 The Conceptual Model

METHOD Sample & Procedure

To test the hypotheses data was collected from 43 work teams in 31 organizations in the Netherlands. The criteria for the selection of these teams was that the employees shared resources and information, interacted frequently, and coordinated efforts toward the accomplishment of joint goals (Van der Vegt & Bunderdon, 2005). Furthermore, each team had to consist of at least five employees, excluding the team leader.

Postgraduate MBA students approached the teams via personal contacts with managers about the research project. When managers agreed to participate, they informed the team members and provided the researchers with information including the names of the team members. Two different types of questionnaires were subsequently sent to the team; a supervisor questionnaire and a team member questionnaire. We took measurement in two different periods when collecting our data from the team members. By measuring variables at different periods, artifactual covariation is minimized between study variables, by temporally separating the measurement of the predictor and criterion variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The supervisor questionnaire contained items where the leader rated the individual team members but these items were not used in this research paper. The team member questionnaires contained self-report and round robin items. Members of each team rated one another on status and self-reported their helping behavior, psychological safety and social identification. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed.

Measures

Hierarchy Steepness

In line with the definition of status, i.e., an individual's prominence, respect, and influence in the eyes of others (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001), we asked each team member to rate the other members of the team (peer-rating approach) based on the following items; influence, prominence and respect. We asked team members to indicate “To what extent is person X influential within the team?”; “To what extent is person X prominent within the team?”; and “To what extent do you respect person X within your team?”. For each item, X was replaced by the name of a specific fellow team member. The items were measured on a seven-point response scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). We then averaged the score for each member. Earlier research showed that standard deviation is an effective measurement of steepness especially when looking at the interaction of steepness (Greer & van Kleef, 2010). Therefore, hierarchy steepness was operationalized as the within team standard deviation of member’s level of status. Larger values indicated steeper status hierarchies in teams, whereas smaller values indicted a more egalitarian status hierarchy.

Psychological Safety

Social identification

This variable was measured with six items developed by Meyer, Allen & Gellatly (1990). Some sample items included: “I’m happy with my current team members”; “I would like to continue working with this team”; and “I like the other team members”. These six items were measured on a seven-point response scale (1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These six items formed a reliable representation of social identification, Cronbach’s alpha was .85. We averaged these items to form one score for each individual and then we aggregated these value to the team level.

Helping Behavior

This variable was also measured with six items developed by Settoon & Mossholder (2002). Sample items included: “To what extent do you help team members that have been absent?”; “To what extent are you personally interested in the welfare of your teammates?”; and “To what extent do you help your teammates when they have a high workload?”. These six items were measured on a seven-point response scale (1= to a very small extent, 7 = to a very large extent), and formed a reliable representation of helping behavior. Cronbach’s alpha was .84. We averaged these items to form one score for each individual and then we aggregated these value to the team level.

Control Variables

prominence and respect compared to individuals with lower tenure (Anderson et al., 2001; Christie & Barling, 2010). Finally, we controlled for the mean level of team status in all of our analysis, because it is important to first statistically control for the within-team mean of an attribute in testing a relationship between the disparity of this attribute and other variables (Harrison &Klein, 2007).

RESULTS

Data analysis

We tested our hypothesis at the team level of analysis using moderated ordinary least-square regression. We standardized all variables and computed interaction effects by taking the product of the respective standardized variables (i.e., hierarchy steepness and psychological safety). In series of analysis we regressed helping behavior and social identification on the control variables, hierarchy steepness, psychological safety and the interaction of hierarchy steepness and psychological safety.

Descriptive Statistics

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables

Hypotheses testing

Hypothesis 1 predicted that psychological safety moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and social identification, such that hierarchy steepness will be less negatively related to social identification when psychological safety is higher. In order to test Hypothesis 1, hierarchy steepness was regressed on social identification in which psychological safety was added as a moderator. The results on Hypothesis 1 show a non-significant negative interaction (B= -.05, n.s.), implying that the relationship between hierarch steepness and social identification is not moderated by psychological safety (see Table 2). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. These results are consistent with Figure 2, which shows the regression line. A regression line measures the linear model between the dependent variable (social identification) and the predictor variables (hierarchy steepness and psychological safety). The steepness of the line shows the strength of the interaction. The coefficient of determination (R2 = .59) defines that 59 % of the

variance of social identification is explained by the independent variables. When psychological safety is low, steeper hierarchies will not affect social identification. When psychological safety is high, there relation between hierarchy steepness and social identification is slightly negative. This implies that when psychological safety is high, the effect of steep hierarchies on social identification will be less negative.

Regression Analyses Results and Conditional Indirect Relationships

Team identification Helping Behavior

Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2

B SE B SE B SE Controls Team size .12 .05 -.004 .05 -.01 .05 Team tenure -.10 .05 .04 .05 .05 .05 Mean status -.02 .05 .01 .05 .02 .05 Main effects Hierarchy steepness -.06 .06 -.03 .06 -.02 .06 Psychological safety .27 .05 .17 .05 .15 .07 Two-way interactions Hierarchy Steepness*Psychological safety -.05 .06 -.05 .05 -.05 .06 Mediator Social identification .04 .07 ΔR2 .01 .02 .01 R2 (Adjusted R2) .59 (.52 ) .31 (.19 ) .31 (.18 )

Conditional indirect relationship

Moderator Value 95 % Confidence Interval (BCA)

-1 SD -.08, .05

M -.07, .02

+1 SD -.07, .02

Note. N =43 teams. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented.

Second, Hypotheses 2 predicted that psychological safety moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior, such that the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior is less detrimental when psychological safety is high. In order to test Hypothesis 2, hierarchy steepness was regressed on helping behavior in which psychological safety was added as a moderator. As shown is Table 2, the results of the analysis (B= -.05, n.s. ) indicate that this relationship is slightly negative, and not significant which indicates that hierarchy steepness was unrelated to helping behavior when psychological safety was high or low (see Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that when psychological safety is low, hierarchy steepness is not related to helping behavior. Bur when psychological safety is high, the effect of hierarchy steepness on helping behavior will be more negative. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 also needs to be rejected. The coefficient of determination (R2= .31) determines that 31% of the variance on helping behavior is explained by hierarchy steepness and psychological safety.

FIGURE 3

of psychological safety. The conditions for a mediation effect of social identification are; (1) Hierarchy steepness is significantly associated with helping behavior, (2) Hierarchy steepness is significantly associated with social identification, (3) Social identification is associated with helping behavior (after controlling for hierarchy steepness), (4) the impact of hierarchy steepness on helping behavior is significantly less after controlling for social identification (Holmbeck, 1997). A moderated mediation occurs when the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some variable, or in other words, when mediation relations are contingent on the level of a moderator (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). First, hierarchy steepness was regressed on helping behavior in which psychological safety was added as a moderator. The moderated mediation analysis shows that the indirect effect of hierarchy steepness on helping behavior was not significant (B= -.05, n.s .) regardless of the level of psychological safety. When adding the mediating effect into the model, (B= .04 ,n.s. ), the results remain insignificant.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to examine whether hierarchy steepness will have an effect on the helping behaviour among team members. Using data from a field study, we tested our hypotheses. Below, we will mention the findings and theoretical implications. We further considered several implications for managers and, finally, the strengths, limitations, and directions for further research will be aligned.

Findings and theoretical implications

Using theory and research, the study hypothesized that psychological safety moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and social identification, such that the relationship between hierarchy steepness and social identification is less detrimental when psychological safety is higher (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, psychological safety was expected to moderate the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior, such that hierarchy steepness is less negatively related to helping behavior when psychological safety is higher (Hypothesis 2). When we tested our hypotheses, the results were non-significant and therefore the hypotheses were rejected. As the final hypothesis is based upon the interaction of Hypothesis 1 and 2, and theorized that social identification mediates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and helping behavior, Hypothesis 3 was also rejected. After testing the Hypothesis 3, the results confirmed the assumption that the results were insignificant.

rejection of the expectation. The argument that psychological safety will lessen the effects of steeper hierarchies is supported by previous studies (e.g., Hong & Bohnet, 2007; Cunningham & Platow, 2007; Edmondson, 2003). Furthermore, psychological safety correlated with the dependent variable of our hypotheses, but not with the independent variable hierarchy steepness. Psychological safety and identification are positively correlated which implies that there is a relationship between psychologically safety and social identification and that this relationship is positive. When people feel comfortable to express their opinions it’s more likely that they feel identified with each other. These mixed results suggest there is a need of more research about the role of psychological safety.

It is argued that the stronger the identification with individuals who are categorized the same, or with an equal status individual, the more likely it is that the categorization will guide attitude and behavior within the organization, and that the individual will act in the organization’s best interests (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail,, 1994). This is in line with the behaviors acting in favor of teams. Unfortunately, the proposed relationships did not hold and therefore it is not possible to provide the evidence that was aimed for. To examine the correlation, social identification is positively correlated with the control variable team size. When teams become larger, social identification will be higher. These findings imply that when there are more members within teams, the social identification among team members will be higher. This is not in line with the reasoning that larger teams are less satisfied, participate less, cooperate less than members of smaller teams and the psychological distance between individuals can increase (e.g., Guzzo, Salas, & Associates, 1995). An possible explanation can be that team structures are changing, including flatter hierarchies, decentralized decision making, empowerment of employees self-organizing units, and self-integrating coordination mechanisms (Daft & Lewin, 1993). Because these teams are more self-managing, hierarchies will be less steep and people will work on a more equal basis. This may result in more identification.

to show the hypothesized effects. This implies further investigation in the changing nature of teams and the effects on hierarchy steepness.

This study makes a number of contributions to status hierarchy literature. This research has shown how hierarchy steepness influence helping behavior in general and how social identification influences helping behavior. Most of the research about hierarchy steepness focused on the individual level, emphasizing the antecedents (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001) and psychological consequences of social status (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003). This research has examined mechanisms that underlie the team level of hierarchy steepness on performances of work teams, assessing how hierarchy steepness impacts the entire team. A direction for further research into the investigation of within team hierarchy steepness is provided.

Practical implications

Furthermore, organizations should stimulate helping behavior because this will enhance the performance in organizations (Grant & Patil, 2005). In order to create a psychologically safe environment, steep hierarchies in teams will influence social identification and helping behavior less negatively which will, in turn, increase the performance in organizations.

Strengths, Limitations and further research directions

The major strength of this paper lies in the methodological part. This research is conducted 43 in variable teams across the Netherlands, with a total of 274 team members. Where previous research mostly used student work teams for gathering data (e.g. Van der Vegt et. al., 2006; Anderson), this research is conducted in a real life setting. Considering the amount of teams and individuals and the cross sectional data in real life, the generalizability of the results is high. The response rate of the questionnaires was high (96%), which indicates high credibility of the questionnaires. This research gives a clear picture for the whole business world where individuals work in teams to accomplish goals.

The research about hierarchies, behaviors in teams and organizational performance is increasing (Anderson & Brown, 2010), and despite the rejection of the hypotheses, this research contributes by extending the previous conceptualizations of hierarchy steepness and how this variable will influence the helping behavior among team members. Further research can be conducted to investigate and deepen the relationships between the variables.

A limitation is that the respondents working in the teams, had mostly a vocational education or higher. Only very few respondents had a lower educational background. This was in line with our definition and selection of organizational work teams. However, to further generalize this study to more organizational work teams, the number of applicants with lower educational backgrounds could be added. Also, the sample of this research was conducted in the Netherlands, which could raise questions about the cross-national generalizability of our results. It might be that in other countries or cultures, status is of more or less importance compared to the Netherlands. For example, Hofstede (2001) found that de Dutch culture is less masculine than the U.S. culture, which indicated that the U.S. sympathize more with successful achievers, and Dutch people more to individuals with less expertise (Van der Vegt, Bunderson & Oosterhof, 2006). This finding may affect the hierarchy steepness is different cultures. Further research might investigate hierarchy steepness and helping behavior in other countries.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. 2000. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physical health: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19: 585–591.

Ancona, D.G. & Caldwell, D.F. 1992. Demography and design- Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3: 321–341.

Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research In

Organizational Behavior, 30: 55-89.

Anderson, C., John, O.P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and

social Psychology, 8(1): 116-132.

Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. 1996. Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 282–296.

Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, S. H. 2008. Identification in organizations: An

examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325–374. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety process innovations and firm performance. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 24: 45–68.

Banff, A. & Kistruck, G. 2006. A test of moderated mediation between board size and financial performance in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada: 102-119.

Barnard, C. 1964. Functions and pathology of status systems in formal organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill

Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46: 379–413.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 39: 555–577.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z. & Zelditch, M. Jr. 1977. Status Characteristics and

Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier Scientific.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., 1980. Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479–508.

Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogenity. New York: The Free Press. Boorman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements

of contextual performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. 2009. High quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning

health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 920-934.

Cross, G.A. 2000, Collective form: an exploration of large-group writing, The Journal of

Business Communication, 37(1):77-100.

Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. 2007. On helping lower status out-groups: the nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social

Psychology, 10(4): 258-264.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1993. Where are the theories for the "new" organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4): i-iv.

Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., Hinds, P. 2005. Team diversity and information use. Academic

Management Journal, 48(6): 1107–1123.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 507-533.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.W., 1999. Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European

Journal of social Psychology, 29: 371-389.

Espedal, B., Kvitastein,O., & Gronhaug, K. 2012. When Cooperation is the Norm of Appropriateness: How Does CEO Cooperative Behaviour Affect Organizational Performance?. British Journal of Management, 23(2): 257-271.

Fan, E. T., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 1998. When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdependence and reward interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 20: 45–56.

Fink, M., & Kessler, A. 2010. Cooperartion, Trust and Performance – Empirical results from thee Countries. Britisch Journal of Management. 21: 469- 483.

Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451-495.

Grant, A. M. & Patil, S. V. 2012. Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and Transitions to helping norms in Organizations. Academy of Management Review. 37: 547-568.

Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. 2010. Equality Versus Differentiation: The Effects of Power Dispersion on Group Interaction. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1032-1044. Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E., & Associates. 1995. Team effectiveness and decision-making in

organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hage, J. 1965. An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10: 289– 320.

Henry, K.B., Arrow, H. and Carini, B. 1999, A tripartite model of group identification: theory and measurement, Small Group Research, 30(5): 558-81.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holmbeck, G. N. 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65: 599-610.

Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S.E. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & Ilgen, D. R. 2008. Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups.

Academic Management Journal. 51(6): 1204–1222.

Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D.L., Van Kleef, G. A., & de Dreu, C.K.W. 2007. Bridging Faultlines by Valuing Diversity: Diversity Beliefs, Information Elaboration, and Performance in Diverse Work Groups. Journal of Applied Sciences, 92(5): 1189–1199. Hong K., & Bohnet, I. 2007. Status and distrust: The relevancy of inequality and betrayal

aversion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28: 197-213.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2007. Context matters: A multilevel framework for work team diversity research. Research in personnel and human, 26: 1-48.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 599-627.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

39-76.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110(2): 265-284.

Kerber, K. W., & Buono, A. F. 2004. Intervening in virtual teams: Lessons from practice. In A. F. Buono (Ed.), Creative consulting: Innovative perspectives on management

consulting: 143-163. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

King, E. D., George, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. 2005. Linking personality to helping behaviors at work: An interactional perspective. Journal of Personality, 73: 585–607.

Kolodinsky, R. W., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. 2008. Workplace values and outcomes: Exploring personal, organizational, and interactive workplace spirituality.

Journal of Business Ethics, 81:465–480.

Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J.R.B., Mc Cuaghey, D., Savage, A.T., & Sles, L. 2012. Behavioral Integrity for Safety, prior Safety, Psychological Safety and Patient Safety: A Team-Level Study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 97(6): 1273-1281.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. Academy Of Management Annals, 2: 351-398.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, J. M. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of human spirit at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 11–37.

Mazur, A. 1973. A cross-species comparison of status in small established groups. American

Sociological Review, 38: 513–530.

McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52: 370-379.

Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M. & Kroustalis, C. M. 2007. Assessing common methods bias in organizational research. Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1-10.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 30: 78–102.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, R. 1990. Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 710-720.

Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. 2011. Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36: 33–52.

Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. 2006. Intergroup Helping as Status Relations: Effects of Status Stability, Identification, and Type of Help on Receptivity to High-Status Group's Help. Journal Of

Personality & Social Psychology, 91(1): 97-110.

inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 941–966.

Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. 2006. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 100(2): 202-215.

Organ, D.W. 1988. A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Journal of

Management, 14(4): 547-557.

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. 2001. When power does not corrupt: superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4): 549–565.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. 2005. Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 365–392.

Perry-Smith, J.E., & Shalley, C.E. 2003. The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28: 89-106.

Podsokoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

Podsokoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., PaineBachrach, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513–563. Polzer J. T., Crisp C. B., Jarvenpaa S. L, & Kim J. W. 2006. Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

42(1): 185-227.

Samson, D. & Daft, R. 2003. Fundamentals of Management, Pacific Rim ed., Thomson. Savin-Williams, R. C. 1979. Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child

Development, 50: 923–935.

Settoon, R. P. & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship Quality and Relationship Context as Antecedents of Person- and Task-Focused Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior. Journal

Of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 255-267.

Shaw, M. E. 1964. Communication networks. New York: Academic Press.

Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2005. Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2): 101-122.

Simon, B., & Strümer, S. 2003. Respect for group members: Intragroup determinants of collective identification and group serving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 183–193.

Spataro, S.E. 2002. Not All Differences are the Same: The Role of Informal Status in Predicting Reactions to Demographic Diversity in Organizations. Yale of school Management. 3:1-40.

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 2005. New directions in identity control theory. Advances in Group

Processes, 22: 43–64.

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management

Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. 2006. Do leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of

Management Journal, 49: 1194-1208.

Tajfel, H. 1981, Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.

Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L., & Klein, S.R. 1997. Inflences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. 31: 27-41.

Tiedens, L. Z. 2000. Powerful emotions: The vicious cycle of social status positions and

emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the

work-place: Research, theory and practice 71-81. Westport, CT: Quorum. Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. 2007. An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 402–414.

Thompson, L. 1990. Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 515-532.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J.S. 2005. Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of Collective Team Identification. The Academy of

Management Journal, 48 (3): 532-547.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108–119. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and

group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.

Van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 137–147. Vos, M. & Van der Zeer, K. 2011. Prosocial behavior in diverse workgroups: How relational identity orientation shapes cooperation and helping. Group Processes Intergroup

Relations. 14(3): 363-379.

Weisband, S. E., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. 1995. Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management

Journal, 38: 1124–1151.

Wheelan, S.A. 1994. Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective, Allyn & Bacon, Sydney. Whyte, W. 1943. Street corner Society. Chicago, University of Chicago Press Williams KY and O’Reilly III CA.1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review

of 40 years of research. In: Staw BM and Cummings LL (eds). Research in