What If the Storm Ends? How Conflict in Self-Managing Teams Shapes Informal Hierarchy
Marloes Sangers
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Master’s Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
June 15, 2014 Supervisor: J. Oedzes
Correspondence concerning this study should be addressed to: Marloes Sangers
Student number: s2397609 Flora Bilderbeekstraat 65
8017 DT Zwolle
Abstract
Today, organizations are increasingly searching for ways to reduce formal hierarchy in order to increase flexibility and performance, for example through forming self-managing teams. However, decreasing formal hierarchy does not necessarily result in less hierarchy overall. This study shows that the effect of level of formal hierarchy on informal hierarchy linearity is moderated by conflict. To obtain the necessary data, 41 groups participated in 10-minute group interactions which were video-taped. Following, the interactions were transcribed and coded. This study found strong support for the relationship between formal and informal hierarchy, such that when formal hierarchy decreases, informal hierarchy linearity increases. Moreover, this study found that informal hierarchy was only strong in groups without formal hierarchy experiencing low levels, instead of high levels, of conflict.
Keywords: hierarchy, formal hierarchy, informal hierarchy, self-managing teams, linearity,
What If the Storm Ends? How Conflict in Self-Managing Teams Shapes Informal Hierarchy
As organizations require more flexibility to respond effectively to enhanced (global) competition, they have been increasingly trying to reduce hierarchy overall by using more flexible organizational structures, such as hybrid and network organizations, and by using self-managing teams (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). Self-managing teams have been defined as “groups of interdependent individuals that can self-regulate their behavior on relatively whole tasks” (Cohen & Ledford, 1994, p. 13). They are characterized by face-to-face interaction, interrelated tasks, and employee discretion over task-related decisions (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). Self-managing teams have been related to increased flexibility and adaptability, and increased effectiveness through higher levels of job satisfaction, group functioning and performance (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Langfred, 2007).
Self-managing teams may promote shared leadership, which is defined as “an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members” (Carson, Tesluk & Marrone, 2007, p. 1218). Formal hierarchy is absent, and all group members have equal levels of influence. Carson et al. (2007) suggest that group structures without formal hierarchy such as self-managing teams might encourage equal levels of influence, but does not undoubtedly result in the latter as it also depends on other factors. In accordance, previous research theorized that decreasing formal hierarchy does not necessarily mean that hierarchy indeed declines. Even when formal hierarchy in self-managing teams is deliberately suppressed, it is expected to emerge in an informal, unconscious, natural, and inevitable way (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Gould, 2002; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Tiedens, Unzueta & Young, 2007). However, no research to date has investigated how this actually works.
lowest-ranked individual (Dugatkin & Druen, 2004). When conflict is low, this mechanism is not expected to occur.
The current study tries to explain how informal hierarchy is present even when it is formally suppressed, by exploring the role of conflict. Thus, it is expected that informal hierarchy will strongly develop only in groups without formal hierarchy experiencing high levels of conflict. In groups in which formal hierarchy is present, and groups without formal hierarchy which experience low levels of conflict, informal hierarchy is expected to remain weak. This study tests these assumptions by the behavioral coding of 41 10-minute group interactions, which were videotaped during a laboratory experiment. In total, 164 participants successfully participated in this study.
This study has several contributions. First, it tries to confirm the statements made in previous research (e.g. Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008) by empirically testing the relationship between the level of formal hierarchy and the strength of informal hierarchy. Second, previous research has focused merely on individual differences influencing the formation of informal hierarchy, such as personality traits (e.g. Taggar, Hackett & Saha, 1999) and demographic differences (e.g. Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999). This study specifically focuses on social processes, by researching the moderating role of conflict. Therefore, it provides a more complete understanding of the relationship between formal and informal hierarchy as “it is essential to clarify the conditions under which formal and informal elements interact” (McEvily, Soda & Tortoriello, 2014, p. 333). Third, it tries to break grounds by exploring this moderation model through a procedure that has not been used before in this context, namely behavioral coding of videotaped group interactions. This study uses the interaction process analysis developed by Bales (1950), an “effective method to observe team interaction directly” (Nam, Lyons, Hwang & Kim, 2009, p. 772). This method, which focuses on micro-level social interaction, provides an objective approach to research the influence of conflict on the formation of informal hierarchy, and real-time evidence for conflict in groups (Ronay, Greeneaway, Anicich & Galinsky, 2012). Furthermore, this study tries to extend the understanding of organizations of the possible consequences of adopting group structures with or without formal hierarchy, and the conditions that prevent or permit informal hierarchy from arising.
Theory & Hypotheses
Hierarchy
According to Magee & Galinsky (2008), hierarchy is “an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension” (p. 354). The high-ranked possesses more of this valued social dimension than lower-high-ranked individuals or groups. Examples of this social dimension include competence, power, status or deference from followers, control over resources, and personality characteristics (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Similarly, Aghion & Tirole (1997) suggest that hierarchy, or a structure of authority, results from an implicit or explicit contract which gives a person the right to make decisions (Blau, 1968). Thus, hierarchical differentiation can result in explicit formal hierarchy and/or implicit informal hierarchy.
Formal hierarchy. Diefenbach & Sillince (2011) refer to formal hierarchy as a formal system in which clearly defined official roles and positions are linked via top-down lines, and social relationships are legitimized and institutionalized. This is supported by Thompson (1961), who argues that a person’s position in the formal hierarchy is determined by definition. The presence of formal hierarchy has been related to increased coordination, cooperation, clarification of roles, cohesion, and lower levels of intra-group conflict (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy, Chou & Galinsky, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), especially for high levels of interdependence among group members (Ronay et al., 2012). The presence of formal hierarchy facilitates clear division of labor, and supports efficient interaction among group members by simplifying these interactions (Halevy et al., 2011). When a formal hierarchy in a group is absent, hierarchy is not formally defined, and all group members are assumed to be equally influential. However, hierarchy may still exist through informal hierarchy.
According to Anderson & Kilduff (2009), an informal hierarchy is formed through inequality of a group member’s ability to influence other group members. They combine valued social dimensions, such as competence, dominance, power, and status (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), into one variable, arguing that whether an informal hierarchy is based on one or more of these dimensions, inequality to influence other group members is always present. They refer to influence as a process in which a group member modifies “others’ behaviors, thoughts, and feelings” (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009, p. 491). In accordance with Anderson & Kilduff (2009), this study uses the term ‘influence’ to integrate these different dimensions of informal hierarchy. Thus, an informal hierarchy is formed through inequality between the ability of group members to influence the behavior of other group members.
Linearity. Informal hierarchy is organized in a chain: an individual is subsidiary to at least one other individual (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Thompson, 1961). Informal hierarchy is linear when individual A dominates individual B, B dominates C, A also dominates C, and so forth. The last, most subsidiary individual, eventually dominates no one. Table 1 presents a dominance matrix retrieved from Chase (1980), which represents complete informal hierarchy linearity.
An informal hierarchy is completely non-linear when every individual dominates the same number of individuals (Chase, 1980; 1982): all group members exhibit equal levels of influence. This study uses linearity to measure the strength of informal hierarchy, such that
Table 1
Dominance Matrix: Linear Informal Hierarchy (Chase, 1980)
Dominant group member
when informal hierarchy linearity is high, the informal hierarchy is perceived as strong; and when informal hierarchy linearity is low, the informal hierarchy is perceived as weak.
Hierarchy is always present: it does not only exist when it is favored and encouraged, but also when it is actively suppressed (Gould, 2002; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Tiedens et al., 2007). Diefenbach & Sillince (2011) suggest that “whenever formal hierarchy decreases, informal hierarchy increases” (p. 1530). This also suggests that when formal hierarchy increases, informal hierarchy decreases. Diefenbach & Sillince (2011) reviewed that in organizations in which formal hierarchy is dominant, such as bureaucratic organizations, there is little room for informal hierarchy which has merely a role of supporting formal hierarchy. This is supported by Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve & Tsai (2004), who suggest that formal hierarchy shapes informal social networks within the organization, such that it has merely a supportive function. They reviewed that in mechanistic, bureaucratic organizations there is much restricted and static interaction among members, while in organic organizations interactions are more unrestricted and flexible. Thus, there is less social, face-to-face interactions that give rise to informal hierarchy. Consequently, formal hierarchy sets limits upon the pattern of social interactions (McEvily et al., 2014; Whyte, 1949): members are restricted to communicating with others in accordance with the formal hierarchy. In contrast with the bureaucratic organization, another example is the network organization, which is an organic organizational form in which the goal is to operate without formal hierarchy and formalization. Values such as trust, cooperation, and empowerment are important. However, informal hierarchy eventually will dominate such organizations, although unintended (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Tichy, Tushman & Fombrun, 1979).
Shelly & Troyer (2001) found that groups without formal hierarchy still developed informal hierarchy: influence inequalities emerged, and an informal hierarchy was formed. Hence, they implicate that efforts to reduce formal hierarchy may eventually result in strong informal hierarchy. In groups with formal hierarchy, they found that the leader was more active and influential during the group interaction, which results from the leader receiving more opportunities to make contributions to the group (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Thus, the level of formal hierarchy predicts the presence of informal hierarchy in groups.
as less dominant. Also, the less dominant the individual perceived himself or herself, the more dominant he or she perceived the other individual. Thus, people have an unconscious desire and tendency for building hierarchy in a relationship. When a formal hierarchy is present, it can be expected that people have less need for building informal hierarchy in the relationship, as hierarchy already exists.
According to Carson et al. (2007), self-managing teams might encourage equal levels of influence but it is likely that it will not occur. Other factors, such as coaching by an external individual, a shared purpose, voice, and social support, are also important predictors of the emergence of influence equality. Thus, merely adopting a group structure in which formal hierarchy is absent is not sufficient enough to prevent influence inequality or informal hierarchy from arising.
Following these arguments, it is expected that the level of formal hierarchy in groups is negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity, such that when hierarchy is present, informal hierarchy is weak, and when hierarchy is absent, informal hierarchy is strong.
Hypothesis 1: The level of formal hierarchy is negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity.
The Moderating Effect of Conflict
Jehn & Mannix (2001) define conflict as “an awareness on the part of the parties involved of discrepancies, incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires” (p. 238). It is the process between group members that results from the tension because of these discrepancies (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Jehn (1995, 1997) differentiates between three different types of conflict: relationship conflict, task conflict, and process conflict.
Relationship conflict. This type includes the awareness and existence of interpersonal incompatibilities. It typically includes feelings such as tension, annoyance, friction, frustration and irritation, and differences between personal issues such as personal values and opinions regarding non-task issues (e.g. religion and politics) (De Dreu & Weingart. 2003; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). As this study focuses merely on task-related disagreements between group members, relationship conflict is perceived as less relevant in this study. Therefore, it focuses particularly on the two other types of conflict: task and process conflict.When we refer to conflict, we thus refer to task and process conflict.
Task conflict exists when group members disagree about the content of the tasks. Conflict is focused on the task to be performed, and often referred to as ‘work disagreements’ (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
Process conflict. This type of conflict is defined as “conflict about how task accomplishment should proceed in the work unit, who's responsible for what, and how things should be delegated” (Jehn, 1997, p. 540). It is the awareness of controversies around these topics (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). While task-conflict is about the content of a task, process conflict refers to disagreement on the means to accomplish this task.
Conflict is expected to have different moderating effects on the relationship between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity. Therefore, four different situations are explained: the relationship between the presence of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy moderated by low and high conflict; and the relationship between the absence of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy, also moderated by low and high conflict. Presence of formal hierarchy. Formal hierarchy has been found to be related to lower levels of intragroup-conflict (e.g. Anderson & Brown, 2010). In a formal hierarchy, leaders are more likely to confidently express their opinions than subordinates during a group discussion (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn & Otten, 2008; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In accordance, in groups with formal hierarchy, participation rates and voice behaviors have been found to be lower than in self-managing teams without formal hierarchy (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson & Jundt, 2005; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Not only do subordinates speak out less, but they are also inclined to agree with the preferences of the leader (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010; Lammers et al., 2008; Shelly & Troyer, 2001). However, conflict still may occur as group members disagree with each other. For example, this may happen because of lack of group value consensus (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer & Ilgen, 2007; Jehn & Mannix, 2005), perceived formal hierarchy illegitimacy (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010; Lammers et al., 2008; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Thompson, 1961), low levels of familiarity between group members (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams & Neale, 1996; Jehn & Mannix, 2005), the existence of incompatible goals between group members (Schmidt & Kochan, 1972), or high levels of demographic diversity (e.g. Pelled et al., 1999).
preferred by the leader (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010), which implies high levels of agreement, thus low conflict, within the group. The subordinate may comply with the leader because of appropriateness (by recognizing the formal hierarchy and his or her subordinate role), and/or by the leader’s control over resources (Halevy et al., 2011; Weber, Kopelman & Messick, 2004). Halevy et al. (2011) suggest that when the subordinate agrees with the leader, the chance to receive a reward or gain access to the desired resources are greater. Thus, the subordinate is dependent upon the leader, while the leader is less dependent on the subordinate (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
When groups with formal hierarchy experience low levels of conflict, informal hierarchy is expected to remain weak. Because conflict is low, subordinate compliance with the leader is expected to be high. There will be no changes with regard to the division of labor: because of such high levels of compliance, the leader will remain to have high levels of influence and decision-making power, and the subordinates remain dependent on the leader. In this way, the leader is able to maintain control over the group discussion and over the resources desired by the subordinates. Thus, formal hierarchy is self-reinforcing (Magee & Galinsky, 2008): there will be no room for informal hierarchy as there will be no change in the unequal distribution of influence dictated by the formal hierarchy.
room for informal hierarchy to develop, as the formal hierarchy, also in this situation, provides the leader with high levels of influence and decision-making power.
Absence of formal hierarchy. Self-managing teams are characterized by shared power, and local and autonomous decision making (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Molleman, 2000). Hence, there is no clear division of labor in groups without formal hierarchy; there is no leader who has the responsibility of making decisions. All members have the same level of power, and therefore are expected to display equal levels of influence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Carson et al., 2007). Alper et al. (2000) suggest that in groups without formal hierarchy, all group members are responsible for resolving conflict. There are no formal guidelines on who is responsible for conflict resolution (i.e. making the decisions during conflict). Hence, the group members themselves have to figure out how to deal with conflict. Therefore, conflict can play an important role in the establishment of informal hierarchy in self-managing teams.
Self-managing teams are characterized by higher levels of voice behavior and participation during group interactions (Carson et al., 2007; Ilgen et al., 2005; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). When group members are equal in terms of position, they feel more free to disagree (Yang & Mossholder, 2004). In accordance, Carson et al. (2007) suggest that “high levels of voice in a team should create an environment in where people engage in [..] challenging each other in pursuit of group goals” (p. 1222). Thus, it is expected that higher levels of disagreement (i.e. conflict) will occur in groups without formal hierarchy (O’Connor, Gruenfeld & McGrath, 1993). However, conflict still may be low, for example because of high levels of trust and cohesiveness between group members (Jehn & Mannix, 2001), a strong, positive group identity (Yang & Mossholder, 2004), or the presence of strong group value consensus (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Humphrey et al., 2007).
High conflict. In self-managing teams with high levels of conflict, individuals tend to use the conflict management styles ‘asserting’ or ‘avoiding’ (Barki & Hartwick, 2001). For a leader to emerge in self-managing teams, a group member should exhibit higher levels of influence than the others (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Littlepage, Schmidt, Whisler & Frost, 1995; Taggar et al., 1999). Thus, informal hierarchy may arise when initially equal group members demonstrate assertive behavior in response to high levels of conflict.
proven him- or herself to be right, and the loser to be wrong (McKenna & Richardson, 1995). The likeliness that someone wins or loses is influenced by previous interactions. Several studies suggest that when an individual first wins (or loses) a contest, it is more likely he or she wins (or loses) the next contest as well (e.g. Chase, 1982; Chase, Bartolomeo & Dugatkin, 1994; Goessmann, Hemelrijk & Huber, 2000; Hsu & Wolf, 1999). Such dyadic relationships, in which there is a winner and loser, can form a linear informal hierarchy (Goessmann et al., 2000). In accordance, Dugatkin & Druen (2004) argue that the winner and loser effect has important implications for informal hierarchy formation. They found that, even when all individuals in the group were equal, a group informally differentiated itself by the winner loser effect. In their research with green swordtail fish, winners were more likely to emerge as the high-ranked individual in the informal hierarchy, while the losers were likely to assume a low-ranked position.
Thus, it is expected that, when formal hierarchy is absent, high conflict will influence the establishment of a linear informal hierarchy through the winner loser effect. Group members will participate in a conflict until there is a winner and loser. The winner will arise as the highest-ranked individual, and will be able to set informal rules and guidelines, provide direction to the group, and make decisions during conflict situations. The loser will be ranked lowest, and is expected to solely comply with the higher-ranked group members. Thus, through the winner loser effect, an informal division of labor is established.
Low conflict. When conflict is low, consensus between members is expected to be high (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Group members might take a more cooperative approach, in which the perspectives of all members are integrated (Barki & Hartwick, 2001). This suggests that all members are equally influential, and do not try to become more influential than another group member. Thus, group members are less likely to engage in competitions that result in the winner loser effect and influence inequality. So, in groups without formal hierarchy, there is less opportunity to identify winners and losers because group members are less likely to participate in contests, resulting in the group members remaining equally influential. Hence, informal hierarchy is expected to remain weak in self-managing teams experiencing low levels of conflict.
Hypothesis 2: Conflict moderates between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity, such that informal hierarchy linearity only increases in groups without
formal hierarchy experiencing high levels of conflict.
Figure 1 summarizes the hypothesized relationship between level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity, and the hypothesized moderation of conflict.
Figure 1. The Conceptual Model
Methods
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in the research lab of the University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business. Students either participated for money or research points. Upon entering the lab, students signed a consent form in which they consented to participate in the experiment and to being video-taped during the group interaction. Following, participants separately finished a pre-task questionnaire (which contained questions concerning e.g. age, nationality, and their studies), and individually completed the “Lost on the Moon” task, designed by NASA. The participants were asked to imagine that they were part of a group of astronauts crashed on the moon, which needed to reach the mother ship, 200 miles away. The assignment contained a list of 15 items which were retrieved from the wreck, and the participants ranked them according to survival value. The participants had 5 minutes to complete this task independently. After completing the assignment individually, each group member was informed of his or her role during the group interaction: leader or subordinate (in condition 2), or a group member equal to all others (condition 1). The group was formed randomly and the participants ranked the items again collectively for 10 minutes. After the group interaction, the participants individually and separately finished a post-task questionnaire, in which each participant was asked to compare each dyad, and indicate which
Level of formal hierarchy
Conflict
individual they thought as most influential. Also, they indicated the level of relationship, task, and process conflict they experienced during the group interaction, and the level of familiarity, liking, and friendship with and of every other group member. After finishing the post-task questionnaire, the participants were informed of the goal of the study, were thanked for their participation, and, if participating for money, received compensation.
For each group, the video-taped group interaction was transcribed, broken down into interaction units, and coded following Bales’ (1950) interaction process analysis by four different persons. Each unit was assigned to a specific category, based on content and the behavior of the participant. Per group, the frequency of the categories was calculated by summing up the category scores per person.
Sample
The data in this study was obtained from 41 groups, composed of 164 students. Two group compositions were used for the group interactions: 21 groups of 4 equal group members (condition 1), and 20 groups of 4 group members and one formally assigned leader (condition 2). As linearity was calculated using the 4 group members and not the assigned leader, the latter is not included in the data set. The leader already occupies the highest position in the formal hierarchy, while the ranking of the other group members may or may not change during the group interaction. For condition 1, linearity was calculated over all 4 group members.
All participants successfully participated in the experiment. Fifty-five percent of the participants were female. The mean age was 23.58 years (SD = 15.563). Sixty-six percent of the respondents were Dutch.
Formal Hierarchy Manipulation
This experiment involved two conditions: presence of formal hierarchy and absence of formal hierarchy. After individually completing the pre-task questionnaire and the “Lost On the Moon” task, every participant in the group was informed of their role during the group interaction.
raffle tickets, of which one had to be distributed to the group member that performed best according to the leader. The leader was presented with the following text:
You will be the leader of the group. Together with your team, you will try to find a group solution to the survival task. As the leader, you are in charge of leading this process. You will decide how to structure the discussion. You will be in charge of the team members and you will set the standards by which they are evaluated. Because you are the group leader, you receive two raffle tickets that each represent a chance of winning a 10 Euro extra reward. This raffle will be conducted at the end of the experiment. One of these tickets is for you. At the end of the experiment, you will decide who gets the other ticket. You should give the ticket to the one subordinate that you think performed best in the group. Thus, as a leader, you will be in charge of directing the discussion, evaluating your subordinates’ performance, and determining who gets the opportunity of winning the 10 Euro extra reward.
The other group members were informed that their role was that of subordinate. They were informed that another group member was appointed as the leader, and that the leader had control over the discussion process, the evaluation of group members, and division of rewards among group members. The raffle system was also explained, and they were informed that the group member who was perceived by the leader as best performing would receive a raffle ticket. The subordinates were presented with the following text:
Your group role is the role of a subordinate. Together with your team, you will try to find a group solution to the survival task. One of the other members is appointed as the leader of the team. This means that he/she will be in charge. He or she directs the discussion process and sets standards to evaluate you and the other subordinates. In addition, the team leader has received two raffle tickets that each represent a chance of winning a 10 Euro extra reward in a raffle that we will conduct after this experiment is over. One of the tickets is for the team leader him-/herself. At the end of the experiment, the team leader will decide who gets the other ticket. He or she will give the ticket to the one subordinate that he or she thinks performed best in the group. In conclusion, the leader will be in charge of directing the discussion, will evaluate your performance, and will determine whether or not you deserve a chance of winning the 10 Euro extra reward.
Your role is the role of team member. Together with the other team members, you are responsible for finding a group solution to the survival task. Therefore, you all carry responsibility for a good outcome of the task. At the end of the experiment, a financial bonus of 10 euros will be distributed to the best performing team member. This distribution will be made by the experimenter and is based on a comparison between the individual solutions that each team member provided and the final collective team solution.
Measures
Objective conflict. Objective conflict is measured by recoding the occurrence of disagreement between group members. The notion of conflict is centered on disagreement, and is therefore the primary component of conflict (Jehn, 1995; Barki & Hartwick, 2004). Bales (1950, p. 59) identified twelve observation categories: (1) shows solidarity (includes helping group members, raising status of others, rewarding others); (2) shows tension release (includes joking, laughing, showing satisfaction); (3) agrees (includes complying, understanding, passive acceptance); (4) gives suggestion (includes giving direction, implying autonomy for other); (5) gives opinion (includes making evaluation, making analysis, expressing feeling, expressing wish); (6) gives orientation (includes giving information, repeating, confirming, clarifying); (7) asks for orientation (includes asking for information, repetition, confirmation, clarification); (8) asks for opinion (includes asking for evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling); (9) asks for suggestion (includes asking for direction, possible ways of action; (10) disagrees (includes passive unacceptance, formality, withholding help); (11) shows tension (includes asking for help, withdrawal); and (12) shows
antagonism (includes defending or asserting own status, deflate status of others). Categories
1-3 form a social-emotional area and are positive responses, categories 4-9 form the task area, of which categories 4-6 are attempted answers, and 7-9 questions. Categories 10-12 is another social-emotional area, but are negative responses.
of conflict are task-related, this study uses the term objective conflict to refer both to objective task conflict and process conflict.
Inter-rater reliability. Four different raters coded the occurrence of objective conflict and the other categories. To test inter-rater reliability, 15 group interactions were coded by all four raters. The average reliability rate was .84. The lowest rate between raters was .70, the highest rate .93.
Subjective conflict. Conflict was also measured during the post-task questionnaire, in which participants were asked to rate the degree of relationship, task, and process conflict. Based on Jehn (1995), relationship conflict was measured by three items: “There was much relationship tension in our team”; “There was much emotional conflict in our team”; and “There was much conflict of ideas in our team”. Task conflict was measured by the following two items: “There were frequently disagreements in our team about the task we were working on”; and “People in our team had conflicting ideas about the task we were working on”. The following two items measured process conflict: “There were often disagreements about who should do what in our team”; and “There was much conflict in our team about task responsibilities”. All three types of subjective conflict were measured using a seven-point scale (1 = “completely disagree, 7 = “completely agree”), and were combined to be used as a generic subjective conflict variable. These seven items are a reliable representation of subjective conflict (α = .78).
Informal hierarchy linearity. Informal hierarchy was measured by paired comparisons in the post-task questionnaire. For each dyad, each group member was asked to answer who was most influential during the group interaction. For example, member C answered whether member A was more influential than B, A and B were equally influential, or B was more influential than A. Every member of a group rated six different dyads: member A vs. B, member A vs. C, member A vs. D, member B vs. C, member B vs. D, and member C vs. D. The question order was based on Ross’ (1934) ordering method in order to achieve maximum spacing between the dyads, to exclude space and time errors, and to prevent regular repetitions that could influence the group member’s judgment. The results of the paired comparisons were used as input for a dominance matrix, which presents the proportion of wins for each group member in the paired comparisons (Pa). To calculate da, the sum of these
The resulting data from the matrix were used as input for the formula below, a method of Singh, Singh, Sharma & Krishna (2003) to calculate the strength of informal hierarchy:
ℎ = [12/(𝑛3− 𝑛)] ∑ [𝑑
𝑎− (𝑛 − 1)/ 𝑛
𝑎=1 2]2,
where
Control variables. A small minority of the participants might have been acquainted to other participants in the same group. Therefore, this study includes three control variables: familiarity, liking, and friendship. Gruenfeld et al. (1996) found that groups with members that were familiar with each other and groups that were mixed (with familiar members and unfamiliar members) felt more comfortable in working with each other, and also more comfortably expressed disagreement than groups in which members were all unfamiliar. Jehn & Mannix (2001) found task conflict to be negatively correlated with liking one another, and found open conflict norms (willingly and openly discussing conflict within the group (Jehn, 1997)) to be positively correlated with liking.
The three control variables were measured using one item per control variable. Familiarity was measured by “How well do you know this person?”, liking by “How much do you like this person?”, and friendship by “To what extent could this person be a friend of yours?”. All three variables were measured by using a seven-point scale (1 = “very little”, 7 = “very much”).
Table 2
Dominance Matrix Condition 1
Results
Analyses
A bivariate correlations test was performed at group level among the control variables (familiarity, liking, and friendship), the independent variable (level of formal hierarchy), the moderator (objective/subjective conflict), and the dependent variable (informal hierarchy linearity). To test the dynamic nature of hierarchy, regression analysis and a bias corrected bootstrap technique (Preacher & Hayes, 2008, Model 4, 10.000 bootstrap resamples) were used to test the moderation effect of conflict on the relationship between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity. The z-score of the level of familiarity, liking, friendship, the level of formal hierarchy, and objective/subjective conflict has been calculated and used as input for the bootstrap technique. Finally, an additional bivariate correlations test was performed at group level to present the correlations among the categories of the interaction process analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the control variables (familiarity, liking, and friendship), the independent variable (level of formal hierarchy), the moderator (objective conflict and subjective conflict), and the dependent variable (informal hierarchy linearity).
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1 states that the level of formal hierarchy is positively related to informal hierarchy linearity. The results are presented in table 4. The table shows that the level of formal hierarchy is indeed significantly negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity (F(1, 39) = 4.88; p < .05; r2 = .11): the lower the level of formal hierarchy, the higher informal
hierarchy linearity, and the higher the level of formal hierarchy, the lower informal hierarchy linearity. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 states that conflict (measured by objective conflict) moderates the relationship between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity, such that informal hierarchy is only strong when formal hierarchy is absent and this relationship is moderated by high conflict. Objective conflict has been found to significantly moderate the relationship between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity (F(1, 34) = 5.67; p < .05; r2 = .12), but only has been found to be significant when conflict was low. Figure 2 plots the results.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Variable Correlations
Figure 2. Relationship between level of formal hierarchy and informal
hierarchy linearity, moderated by objective conflict
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 Presence Absence In for m al h ier ar ch y li n ear ity Formal hierarchy High objective conflict Low objective conflict Table 4
Regression Analysis Results
Informal hierarchy linearity Variable B SE Controls Familiarity -.03 .04 Liking .02 .05 Friendship -.06 .04 Main effects
Level of formal hierarchy .06* .03
Objective conflict
Interaction effect
Thus, hypothesis 2 is not supported for groups without formal hierarchy experiencing high levels of conflict. However, this study did find an opposite effect: low levels of conflict have been found to significantly moderate between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity. Only groups without formal hierarchy experiencing low levels of conflict significantly formed a strong informal hierarchy. This is surprising, since low levels of conflict was expected to have a non-significant moderating effect between absence of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity.1 2 Furthermore, low and high conflict have a
non-significant moderating effect in groups with formal hierarchy, as expected.
Additional Descriptive Analysis
To elaborate on the twelve different categories of Bales’ (1950) interaction process analysis and the content of the group discussions, an additional correlations test was performed. Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of the twelve categories, and the correlations between the twelve categories and the level of formal hierarchy (note: the leaders of groups with formal hierarchy is not included in the data set). From the table it can be seen that category 5, giving opinion, appeared most often in the group interactions relative to the other categories, while category 9, asking for suggestion, appeared the least. Furthermore, the level of formal hierarchy is negatively correlated with giving suggestion, giving orientation, asking for opinion, asking for suggestion, and showing tension. The level of formal hierarchy and disagreement are not significantly correlated. However, disagreement has been found to be significantly positively correlated with tension release, giving suggestion, giving opinion, and also antagonism.
1 We also tested hypothesis 2 with the self-reported conflict measures as moderator. The interaction with
relationship conflict (F(1, 34) = .64; n.s.; r2 = .01), task conflict (F(1,34) = .00; n.s.; r2 =.00), process conflict (F(1, 34) = .13; n.s.; r2 = .00), or the variable containing all three types of subjective conflict (F(1, 34) = .02; n.s.; r2 = .00) did not support hypothesis 2. This can be explained by the subjectivity of the self-reported conflict measures, such that a group member may have reported less conflict because he or she did not perceive conflict as such, while it did occur in objective measures. Also, conflict was measured after the group interaction, and the sense or perception of conflict may have decreased over time. Furthermore, the level of formal hierarchy only predicted relationship conflict significantly (p < .05), while the objective results suggest that conflict that occurred during the group interaction is task-related (thus, task and process conflict). This suggests that group members have perceived task-related conflict under relationship conflict, as opposed to task and/or process conflict. According to Simons & Peterson (2000), group members can indeed perceive task conflict as relationship conflict by misattributing the task-related behavior of those other group members as personal attacks and criticism (Yang & Mossholder, 2004).
2 Hypothesis 1 and 2 was also tested without the control variables (familiarity, liking, and friendship). The main
23 Additional Descriptive Statistics and Variable Correlations
Variable Mean S.D. LFH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Level of formal hierarchy (1 = absence, 2 = presence) 1. Showing solidarity 7.12 4.42 -.26+ 2. Tension release 27.27 15.69 -.22 .02 3. Agreement 73.54 22.22 -.10 .41** .24 4. Giving suggestion 33.76 12.77 -.64** .24 .35* .18 5. Giving opinion 125.15 48.08 -.26+ .17 .37* .40** .58** 6. Giving orientation 26.12 15.09 -.57** .34* .21 .39* .69** .52**
7. Asking for orientation 6.61 5.24 -.30+ .04 .39* .03 .46** .30+ .54**
8. Asking for opinion 21.27 10.38 -.34* .19 .54** .32* .64** .63** .60** .50**
9. Asking for suggestion 1.46 2.52 -.44** .29+ .13 -.01 .47** .02 .31* .27+ .22
10. Disagreement 18.56 10.32 -.19 .12 .46** .28+ .50** .71** .38* .55** .67** .26
11. Showing tension 21.61 10.10 -.31* .42** .43** .61** .26 .47** .37* .12 .42** .14 .31+
12. Showing antagonism 3.93 3.44 -.15 .31* .13 .28+ .44** .58** .30+ .13 .28+ .09 .49** .17
Note. N = 41.
Discussion
Past research has recognized that although formal hierarchy in organizations and work teams is intentionally decreased (for example by adopting self-managing teams) to achieve e.g. higher levels flexibility, job satisfaction, and performance, hierarchy is seldom eliminated (e.g. Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). Although researchers agree on this phenomenon, how this process is influenced has received very little attention. Therefore, this study focused on conflict influencing the relationship between the level of formal and informal hierarchy linearity. In accordance with previous assumptions in research, the level of formal hierarchy was hypothesized to be negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity, such that when formal hierarchy is present, informal hierarchy is weak, and when formal hierarchy is absent, informal hierarchy is strong. Conflict was hypothesized to influence this relationship, such that strong informal hierarchy was only established when a group without formal hierarchy experienced high levels of conflict.
Using data derived from 41 groups, the level of formal hierarchy was, as expected, found to be significantly negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity. Also, the level of formal hierarchy has been found to be negatively correlated with giving suggestion and giving orientation. This may imply that, in groups with a formal leader, the other group members provide low levels of direction and orientation, which may suggest that the formal leader takes on this responsibility (as the latter is not included in the data set). Also, group members may ask less for directions as the formal leader already sufficiently provides it. Moreover, we found that the level of formal hierarchy is non-significantly correlated with disagreement. Thus, there is no significant difference in groups with or without formal hierarchy with regard to the level of conflict.
Furthermore, conflict has been found to significantly moderate between the level of formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy linearity. However, we found no significant moderating effect for high conflict. Surprisingly, low conflict did have a significant effect. Thus, in groups without formal hierarchy experiencing low levels of conflict, informal hierarchy was significantly stronger than in such groups experiencing high levels of conflict: the opposite effect from the hypothesized moderating effect of conflict was found. Thus, informal hierarchy is only strong in self-managing teams experiencing low levels of conflict.
between group members on diffused, observable characteristics, such as race and gender (Berger, Cohen & Zelditch Jr., 1972; Driskell & Mullen, 1990; Van der Vegt, De Jong, Bunderson & Molleman, 2010). Such a characteristic has status value when it is associated with general competence. For example, men and whites are assumed to be more competent than women and blacks (Ridgeway, 1991). Group members form performance expectations consistent with these diffuse characteristics: those who are perceived to have more competence receive higher performance expectations. These performance expectations then determine the distribution of power and influence in a group (Berger et al., 1972), such that influence inequalities between group members arise (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Shelly & Troyer (2001) found that these inequalities between group members were indeed activated during the group interaction. Hence, status characteristics theory argues that when group members differ on diffuse characteristics, but there is no formal hierarchy, informal hierarchy still arises. Also, it arises quickly: it only requires minimum interaction between group members (Ridgeway, 1993; Ronay et al., 2012).
Thus, informal hierarchy in groups without formal hierarchy could have arisen very quickly through performance expectations based on diffuse characteristics. When the newly formed informal hierarchy is perceived as legitimate by the group members, it is not challenged and lower-ranked individuals defer to the higher-ranked individuals (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010; Lammers et al., 2008). Thus, when conflict is low, the informal hierarchy remains strong throughout the rest of the group interaction. However, when the informal hierarchy is perceived as illegitimate, members may have challenged the informal hierarchy, resulting in high levels of conflict. Through continuously resisting against the informal hierarchy during the group interaction, the informal hierarchy might have lost strength with the group members. Eventually, high conflict might have had no significant effect on informal hierarchy linearity when an informal hierarchy is established through performance expectations, because informal hierarchy was weak at the end of the group interaction.
questionnaire: thus, after the group interaction. Therefore, it is impossible to specify at which moment during the group interaction the informal hierarchy was formed.
Implications
This study offers multiple theoretical implications. First, it statistically confirmed the assumptions made in previous research that when formal hierarchy decreases, informal hierarchy increases. This study found the level of formal hierarchy to be significantly negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity, thus contributing to a better theoretical and practical understanding of the development of informal hierarchy. Second, previous research has focused merely on the relationship between formal and informal hierarchy, and has failed to explore possible conditions that influence this process. This study provides a more elaborate view of informal hierarchy formation, by providing insight in such a condition that prevents or permits informal hierarchy to arise: not only focusing on the level of formal hierarchy, but also on the level of conflict. Third, this study used a procedure to research the moderation model that has not yet been used before in this context: behavioral coding of videotaped interactions. It has proven to be a more objective approach than self-reported measures of moderating variables, in this case conflict. Also, this procedure has provided an extensive data set including not only disagreement, but also other interaction categories such as tension release and giving opinion.
different in groups with or groups without formal hierarchy. Thus, adopting formal hierarchy in order to decrease conflict, may not have the desired results.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
This study had a number of strengths. First, the data was collected in a laboratory in which settings were controlled, which allowed for the testing of the hypotheses, for making causal inferences, and for videotaping the group interactions. Second, we used an objective and subjective measure for conflict. The objective measure allowed for measuring conflict in a less biased way than the subjective measure.
However, there were also limitations present. Because the data was collected in a laboratory setting of which the participants were all students, these groups might not have been a good representation of real organizational work teams. Students might have had no experience in group discussions in which a formal leader was present, or the formal leaders might have had no experience in directing a group discussion. Also, students might respond differently to formal leaders than organizational members: for organizational members there is more at stake than for students who knew that the interaction would end quickly. Second, informal hierarchy linearity was only measured after the group interaction, and not during the group interaction. Therefore, we are not able to determine when informal hierarchy was established and exactly how it was influenced by conflict. Third, the procedure for gathering the data was very time-consuming. To establish sufficient inter-rater reliability among the four raters, intensive practice was needed. Furthermore, transcribing and coding the video-taped interactions required much effort and time.
References
Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1997). Formal and Real Authority in Organizations. Journal of
Political Economy, 105(1), 1-29.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 50, 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, 81(1), 116-132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491-503.
Bales, R. F. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction.
American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257-263.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in Information System Development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 195-228.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216-244.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch Jr., M. (1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241-255.
Blau, P.M. (1968). The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations. American Journal of
Sociology, 73(4), 453-467.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. The Academy of Management Journal,
47(6), 795-817.
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Gender role, organizational status, and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(1), 78-94. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An
investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.
Chase, I. D. (1982). Dynamics of Hierarchy Formation: The Sequential Development of Dominance Relationships. Behaviour, 80(3/4), 218-240.
Chase, I. D., Bartolomeo, C., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1994). Aggressive interactions and inter- contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Animal Behaviour, 48(2), 393- 400.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi- Experiment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13-43.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task Versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & Van Dijk, E. (2010). Social status as a cue for tacit coordination.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 515-524.
Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2011). Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies, 32(11), 1515-1537.
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, Expectations, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review and Test of the Theory. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 16(3), 541-553.
Dugatkin, L. A., & Druen, M. (2004). The social implications of winner and loser effects.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 271(6), S488-S489.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From Power to Action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.
Goessmann, C., Hemelrijk, C., & Huber, R. (2000). The formation and maintenance of crayfish hierarchies: behavioral and self-structuring properties. Behavioral Ecology
and Sociology, 48(6), 418-428.
Gould, R. V. (2002). The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test.
American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1143-1178.
Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality Versus Differentiation: The Effects of Power Dispersion on Group Interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1032-1044.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational
Psychology Review, 1(1), 32-52.
Hsu, Y., & Wolf, L. L. (1999). The winner and loser effect: integrating multiple experiences.
Animal Behaviour, 57(4), 903-910.
Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait Configurations in Self-Managed Teams: A Conceptual Examination of the Use of Seeding for
Maximizing and Minimizing Trait Variance in Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(3), 885-892.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 517-543.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on the Conflict-Outcome Relationship. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25, 187-242.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy Moderates the Effects of Power on Approach. Psychological Science, 19(6), 558-564.
Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885-900.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting Voice Behavior in Work Groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.
Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An Input-Process- Output Analysis of Influence and Performance in Problem-Solving Groups. Journal of
Personality and Psychology, 69(5), 877-889.
McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). More Formally: Rediscovering the Missing Link between Formal Organization and Informal Social Structure. The Academy of
Management Annals, 8(1), 299-345.
McKenna, S., & Richardson, J. (1995). Business values, management and conflict handling: issues in contemporary Singapore. Journal of Management Development, 14(4), 56-70.
Molleman, E. (2000). Modalities of self-managing teams – The “must”, “may”, “can” and “will” of local decision making. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 20(8), 889-910.
Nam, C. S., Lyons, J. B., Hwang, H., & Kim, S. (2009). The process of team communication in multi-cultural contexts: An empirical study using Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(5) 771-782.
O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The Experience and Effects of Conflict in Continuing Work Groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 362-382.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other Nominal Characteristics. Social Forces, 70(2), 367-386.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1993). Gender, status, and the social psychology of expectations. In Theory
on Gender/Feminism on Theory, ed. P. England, 176-198. New York: Aldine.
Ronay, R., Greenaway, K., Anicich, E. M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The Path to Glory Is Paved With Hierarchy: When Hierarchical Differentiation Increases Group
Effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23(6), 669-677.
Ross, R. T. (1934). Optimum orders for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25(5), 375-382.
Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 359-370.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
Singh, M., Singh, M., Sharma, A. K., & Krishna, B. A. (2003). Methodological
considerations in measurement of dominance in primates. Current Science, 84(5), 709-713.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 899-926.
Thompson, V. A. (1961). Hierarchy, Specialization, and Organizational Conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 485-521.
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social Network Analysis for Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507-519.
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(3), 402-414.
Van der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power
Asymmetry and Learning in Teams: The Moderating Role of Performance Feedback.
Organization Science, 21(2), 347-361.
Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). A Model of Conflict, Leadership, and Performance in Virtual Teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434-455. Watson, C. (1994). Gender versus Power as Predictor of Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes.
Negotiation Journal, 10(2), 117-127.
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A Conceptual Review of Decision Making in Social Dilemmas: Applying a Logic of Appropriateness. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281-307.
Whyte, W. F. (1949). The Social Structure of the Restaurant. American Journal of Sociology,
54(4), 302-310.
