Master's thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 15, 2014 WYTSKE BIJMA Student number: 1604759 Kleine Palen 3 8601 AB Sneek Tel: (+31) 6 12 95 50 03 e-mail:w.bijma.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor: J. Oedzes, MSc
ABSTRACT
Teams in organizations nowadays are increasingly supposed to be self- managing and formal hierarchy seems to be declining. Since an informal hierarchy develops naturally within teams whereas members try to influence one another, the question is if teams and organizations are indeed 'hierarchy-free'. In an experimental setting, the presence and absence of a formal structure was manipulated in teams. Results confirmed my hypotheses that teams with a strong formal structure develop less linear informal hierarchies and show less tension. Tension did not fully mediate the negative relationship between the presence of formal structure and informal hierarchy linearity. Implications are that teams are not 'hierarchy- free', and social processes play a role in why informal hierarchies are shaped within teams.
INTRODUCTION
Due to a challenging and dynamic environment, organizations and their members need to be increasingly flexible and adaptive nowadays (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). Therefore, organizations focus more on employing team based structures in order to divide tasks in organizations (Bolman & Deal, 1992). Modern teams share responsibility for accomplishing tasks and increase innovation and creativity among its members, ultimately leading to increased flexibility and adaptiveness (Proença, 2010). Those type of teams are often referred to as self- managed work teams (SMWTs). SMWTs replace a traditional and more formal type of team, that strictly enforces rules and procedures upon team members (Bolman & Deal, 1992). Overall, it seems that in many organizations, the adoption of formal hierarchy is declining and the maintenance of egalitarian work relationships is increased in SMWTs (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011).
This raises an important question: is it possible for formally egalitarian teams to function effectively without any form of hierarchy? Within the literature, there is a widely shared acceptance that teams and other complex social systems like organizations are ordered as social hierarchies (e.g. Mousnier, 1973; Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar & Levin, 2004; Zaleznik, 1989). In fact, the development of informal social hierarchy is inevitable and may even rise up against pressures to maintain equality. Diefenbach and Sillince (2011) argue that no type of organization or team is hierarchy- free, so the feasibility of aspired equality among members in SMWTs is questionable. Theory suggests that informal hierarchy develops unavoidably within teams (Blau & Scott, 1962).
Having a strong formal structure in teams, clarifies team members' rank and role (Bolman & Deal, 1992). It facilitates coordination in the team and minimizes intra- group discussions (Anderson & Brown, 2010). In an egalitarian formal structure this is less clear, members do not immediately recognize what their own and others' role and rank is (Bolman & Deal, 1992). During interaction, as roles and ranks are not clear, this may cause negative interpersonal emotions and feelings such as tension among members. (Gibbs, 2009). This tension may lead to discussion and argument, which may cause even more tension. How a team copes with tension is important, members can either be productive or detrimental, depending on how they are managed (Gibbs, 2009). Even without having disagreement or discussion, tension may still be present, causing stress and anxiety among members (Robinson & Smith- Lovin, 2001).
I propose that in SMWTs, characterized by an egalitarian formal structure, informal hierarchy will develop more strongly since roles and ranks are less clear and more tension is expected. Since theory suggests that having an egalitarian formal structure increases the informal linearity between members, I suggest that this increase is explained by the amount of tension in teams. Tension and discussion will affect who will gain influence within the team, which generates a more linear informal hierarchy then within a strong formal structure, where there is less tension and ranks among members are clear. I will investigate this by performing an experimental study by the use of real- time video recordings of teams with strong and egalitarian formal structure, completing a task. Despite active attempts to minimize hierarchy and organize teams such that all team members are equal in terms of formal rank, I expect informal hierarchy to emerge.
Kangasharju & Nikko (2009) noted that research on emotions like tension within teams and organizations is poorly covered when it comes to real-time recorded data of natural interactions. Most data in past research was gathered through interviews or questionnaires.
This research in an attempt to increase the knowledge about formal structures, informal hierarchies and processes that may explain the emerge of informal hierarchies. So far, research has not empirically tested the relationship between formal structures and informal hierarchy (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). It is my aim to show that creating teams or organizations without hierarchies may be unattainable.
& Brown, 2010). This study will be the first to study a micro view on the process of developing informal hierarchies. In addition, this research responds to calls in the literature (Magee & Galinsky, 2008) by taking an approach on the team- level, which helps me to include the effects of social processes (e.g. interactive processes) to help clarify why informal hierarchy develops.
Recent literature (McEvily, Soda, Tortoriello, 2014) detects a gap in research about the relationship between formal structure and informal hierarchy, in that there are two streams (one on formal structure and one on informal hierarchy development) of research that are largely disconnected, independent and hardly ever integrated with each other. This research attempts to fill up this gap.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Formal structure represents the reporting and responsibility relationships in an organization (Dawkins, 1976). It represents an official pattern of unequal person-independent roles and ranks that are linked through top-down command and control mechanisms (Laumann, 1971; Mousnier, 1973). In this research, having a strong formal structure means that there is a vertical formal integration of positions among team members within a team. Subordinates are under the control of a supervisor or team leader (Weber, 1921/1980). Having an egalitarian formal structure means that there is no vertical but equal integration among team members, roles of members are not clarified (Proença, 2010). Intrinsically, most team members are likely to perceive a strong formal team structure to be legitimate and accept the presence of a formal leader. Furthermore, in general it is assumed that organizations award formal leadership positions to those who are highly competent and motivated (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
dominance and subordination which emerge from social interaction and become persistent over time through repeated social processes (especially routine behaviour)" (Diefenbach and Sillince, 2011: 1517).
It only takes members a few seconds of observation to establish judgments of other members' competences and hierarchical differentiation is shaped (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren & Hall, 2005). In a strong formal structure, a primary source of hierarchical differentiation is the influence that is allocated to a formal leader (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Influence is a process in which team members modify others' behavoirs, thoughts and feelings (Cartwright, 1959; Lewin, 1951). Anderson & Kilduff (2009) use the term influence to incorporate prior literature on power, status and leadership since all concepts involve inequalities among team members' influence (e.g. French & Raven, 1959). In an egalitarian formal structure, influence is not immediately allocated. To optimize coordination of team activities and clarify ranks and roles, influence needs to be 'divided' among members and informal hierarchy emerges (Chase, 1974). Members who become ranked highly in an informal hierarchy are allocated more influence over the team processes compared to lower ranked members (Anderson & Brown, 2010).
Informal hierarchy is usually described by its degree of linearity (Chase, 1980; Singh, Singh, Sharma & Krishna, 2003). When a team is perfectly linear, member A influences all other members, member B influences all other team members except member A, member C influences all other members except for member A and B, and so on. On the other hand, a non- linear team hierarchy is characterized by equal influence or unclear relationships among team members. Research on linearity in human groups (e.g. Schmid-Mast, 2002) found notable high degrees of linearity within informal hierarchies.
becomes more linear as the formal structure becomes more egalitarian (Barker, 1993; Coupasson & C legg, 2006; Jaques: 1996) This assumption leads me to the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a negative relationship between the presence of formal structure and informal hierarchy linearity.
When formal structure provides a team with rules and rationality, problems in these type of teams are solved by following policies and procedures (Bolman & Deal, 1992). In addition, a strong formal team hierarchy has established work relations, which makes issues concerning rank and roles unambiguous (Thompson, 1961). Members do not need to engage in discussion or disagreement to resolve ambiguity. Teams with an egalitarian formal structure, like SMWTs, are likely to focus more on participation and interaction among members to solve problems and ambiguity (Bolman & Deal, 1992). With the relations in a team being undefined, members try to distribute influence within the team and with this challenge it is expected they meet resistance, which results in more tension (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Tension covers any act that indicates that a team member is experiencing anxiety (Nam, Lyons, Hwangc & Kimd, 2009).
Showing tension according to Bales (1950) involves any act related to asking for help, withdrawal and anxiety. People who are tensed display the following behaviors: all sorts of manifestations of hesitation, shame or stammering. Requests for permission, asking for help, laughing alone, giggling nervously and apologizing are marked as signs of tension. In addition, when a member of a team is unattentive, bored, yawning or daydreaming, this means they psychologically withdraw out of the field of interaction. More explicit withdrawal such as reclining or leaving are also signs of tension.
addition, a formal leader can diminish group discussions since he can provide role-relevant information and resources to team members which clarifies their rank and role in the team (House, 1971).
Past research shows mixed results in this area though, Ivancevich & Donnelly (1975) found that salespersons working in organizations with a strong formal structure, experienced more tension. Overall, the tendency of research supports the assumption that teams with a stronger formal structure, experience less discussion and disagreement. Less disagreement means less tension (Gamero et al. 2008). Next to that, Bales (1950a) found that in teams with a directive leader and strong formal structure, the rate of tension symptoms is lower than in non-directed teams like SMWTs. In this light, I presume that in teams with an egalitarian formal structure, there is more opportunity for interaction focused on discovering ranks and roles which leads to interpersonal tension among members (Gibbs, 2009). This leads me to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between the presence of formal structure and showing tension within teams.
Gibbs (2009) found that managers or leaders are likely to treat tension. When tension symptoms are left and not discussed, this is likely to influence how the team members feel about each other. A lack of trust or discomfort about a member influences a team members' perception about that member and their decisio n in giving this person influence (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro & Chatman, 2006). This may change ones position within the informal hierarchy since attitudes (not being trustworthy or evading behaviour) are important aspects for ones position within the informal hierarchy (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). This suggests that e.g. members that show a great deal of tension symptoms can either gain or lose more influence than members that do not show tension. Since the tension symptoms are not likely to be treated so to say in more egalitarian formal teams (Gibbs, 2009), I propose this generates a wider spread among members when it comes to their position within the informal hierarchy. In other words, this hierarchy will become more linear. This leads me to the third hypothesis:
The three hypotheses are captured in figure one.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
METHODOLOGY Sample
Data was collected in twenty teams in condition one, consisting of one team leader and four subordinates and twenty-one teams in condition two, consisting of four team members. The participants were assigned randomly to one of the 41 mixed-gender teams. Participation in the experiment was voluntary, was granted with a small monetary compensation or study credits. Results were treated confidential. Of the 164 participants, 45,1 percent were male, with an average age of 22.3 years (s.d. = 2.02). All participants were students studying for a bachelor or master degree and are from approximately twenty different nationalities.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted at the Research Lab of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. Upon entering the Research Lab, participants signed a consent form. First they answered a pre-task questionnaire about demographic facts. Then the participants completed the task individually. The participants worked on NASA's task 'Lost on the moon', in which participants imagine that they are a team of astronauts who have crash- landed on the dark side of the moon and have saved fifteen items from the wreck (Shelly & Troyer, 2001). The participant has to rank the survival value of the fifteen items. After that, all participants performed the same task in a team, in which they had to discuss and rank all the items together. Each team had ten minutes to accomplish a task together. T he team discussions were videotaped. Then participants answered a post-task questionnaire with
Tension
Informal hierarchy linearity Presence of formal
questions about the team process and the influence of each individual member. At the end, they were debriefed about the purpose of the experiment, remunerated and thanked for their participation.
Data collection
Bales (1950) developed twelve different interaction categories that occur during group interactions. The twelve categories are divided within four areas of interactions, namely the positive social-emotional area (show solidarity, tension release and agreeing), the negative social-emotional area (show antagonism, tension and disagreeing), questions in the task area (asking for suggestion, opinion or orientation) and attempted answers within the task area (give suggestion, opinion or orientation). The process of gathering numerical data from the forty-one videos went through several steps. Four researchers transcribed the video's, which resulted in forty-one scripts in which is clear which team member says what, to who and when. All the transcripts were double checked by another researcher who watched the video's while reading the transcripts. Then, interaction units were added into the transcripts, by which it was clear what needed to be coded. The definition of an interaction unit according to Bales (1950) is: " a unit of speech or process which he considers a proper unit for classification". After we checked each other's units, we all coded the same fifteen transcripts to establish the required amount of reliability among each other. Each interaction unit got a coding of 1 to 12 (Bales, 1950). To help us reach the required amount of reliability, an extensive coding book with rules about when to use which category, was developed. Among the fifteen groups, the lowest Cohen's kappa was κ =.77, the highest κ =.87 with an average reliability of κ =.84 among all fifteen groups, so I can conclude that the inter-rater reliability was high enough. Next we divided the remaining twenty-six transcripts among each other. Of all the coded transcripts, a coding table per team was made, presenting each team member, the twelve interaction categories and the amount of times each category was used by each team member. In Appendix A the system of categories of Bales (1950) is presented. An example of a transcript, with interaction units and interaction codings can be found in Appendix B. An example of a coding table can be found in Appendix C.
Manipulation
subordinates. In the second condition, the groups consisted of four members that were appointed to the role of team member. This study compares the four subordinates within the first condition (strong formal structure) with the four team members of condition two (egalitarian formal structure). The leader is excluded from the analyses. All participants got an instruction before the experiment started. The team leaders' formal power was manipulated such that it gave the leader reward power and the power to evaluate the subordinates (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, Magee, 2003). The team leader received the following instruction:
"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 th e standards by which they are evaluated.
Because you are the group leader, you receive two raffle (loterij) tick ets 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 tick ets is for you. At the end of the experiment, you will decide who gets the other tick et. You should give the tick et to the one subordinate that you think performed best in the group.
Thus, as a leader, you will be in charge of directing the discussi on, evaluating your subordinates’ performance, and determining who gets the opportunity of winning the 10 Euro extra reward. "
In the teams with a leader, the subordinates received the following instruction: "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 tick ets 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 tick ets is for the team leader him-/herself. At the end of the experiment, the team leader will decide who gets the other tick et. He or she will give the ticket to the one subordinate that he or she think s 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. "
Within the teams without a formal leader, all team members received the following instruction:
"Your role is the role of team me mber.
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 .
between the individual solutions that each team member provided a nd the final collective team solution."
Measures
Showing tension: When measuring tension, the interactions in this category are: Shows tension, asks for help, withdraws out of field. Within our coding book based on Bales (1950) we developed rules considering tension. Table 1 shows rules and comments about when an interaction unit was marked in the tension category.
When team members all laughed, except for one, that person showed tension. When only one team member laughed, this one person showed tension.
When team members literally withdraw themselves from the discussion by e.g. recline or start playing with their phone.
When team members said; 'I don't know' or 'I don't care'.
When team members doubted his or her power of expertise and expressed it e.g. by saying 'I'm not sure', or 'Yeah right?' in an insecure way.
When someone asks for help. Table 1. Use o f category 'showing tension'
Linearity: The linearity of the hierarchy is measured by using a formula adapted from Singh et al (2003), which is the following:
Membe r 1 2 3 4 Da value
1 - 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,26
2 1,00 - 1,00 0,63 2,63
3 0,88 0,00 - 0,13 1,01
4 0,88 0,38 0,88 - 2,14
Table 2. Example dominance matrix
Individual rank: To calculate what the rank within the team of each individual member was, I used a personal influence score, adapted from Ross' ordering method (1934). All four members ranked all six dyads in the team, resulting in 24 outcomes of who has more influence in each dyad. Every individual member was a player in half of these pair wise encounters, thus 12, and therefore each member has won, lost or tied 12 time s. Whoever scored highest, got rank 1 within the team, the second highest got rank 2 etc. We calculated this by the following formula: (number of wins in pair wise encounters + (number of ties/2))/n.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
In this section, I will test the conceptual model I developed. The means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations between the variables are presented in Table 3. As can be seen, the correlation between the presence of formal structure and linearity was negative and significant. Presence of formal structure is negatively related showing tension and finally, linearity seems to be marginally positively related to showing tension.
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics and Study Variable Intercorrelations
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2
1. Presence of formal structure
2. Linearity/Steepness .53 .19 .033*
3. Showing tension 21.61 10.10 .049* .073~
Note. N = 41
Hypotheses testing
Table 4 summarizes the results of the separate regression models and a bias corrected bootstrap technique (Preacher & Hays, 2008, Model 4, 10,000 bootstrap resamples) was used to test the proposed mediation of tension on the negative relationship between presence of formal structure and informal hierarchy. The first hypotheses suggested that presence of formal structure was negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity. The regression results confirm this hypothesis (F(40) = 4.88; p = .033; R² = .111), showing that presence of a formal structure is indeed negatively related to informal hierarchy linearity. The second hypotheses suggested that presence of formal structure is negatively related to showing tension, and the regression results also confirm this hypothesis (F(40) = 4.12; p = .049; R² = .096). The third hypotheses examined if showing tension mediates the negative relation between the presence of formal structure and informal hierarchy linearity. Adding both the presence of formal structure and showing tension to the regression, resulted in a ma rginally significant effect of the presence of formal structure (t(40) = - 1.7624; p = .0924) and a non-significant effect of showing tension (t(40) = 1.2615; p = .02148). This means that showing tension does not mediate the effect because the presence of formal structure is still marginally significant, and tension is not. This is confirmed when I analyze the outcomes of the Sobel test (Z= .9885; p= .3229).
TABLE 4
Regression analysis results
When comparing the means of the groups with a strong and weaker formal structure, using an ANOVA test, I notice a difference. Groups with a strong formal structure show on
Showing tension Linearity
Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE B SE Main effects Presence of formal structure -3.09 1.52* -.063 .029* -.051 .030 Showing tension .004 .003 Note. N = 41. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented.
average 18.45 times tension during the task (s.d. = 8.02) and groups with weaker formal structure show on average 24.62 times tension (s.d. = 11.11).
Additional analysis
The video codings according to Bales' categories (1950) provided me with information on different interaction categories in the groups in both conditions. Therefore, I want to present some of the general result considering individual rank and the twelve interaction categories of Bales (1950).
Using an one way ANOVA on team members' level for all the interaction categories as dependent variables and the rank of a member as a fixed factor, the results are presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics and Study Variable Intercorrelations
Variables Mean S.D. 1
1. Individual rank
2. Shows solidarity 1.78 2.13 .244
3. Shows tension release 6.82 4.86 .035*
DISCUSSION
Over the last decades the research about teamwork, formal structure and informal hierarchy has developed. Still the linkage between formal structure, interactions like showing tension and informal hierarchy needs to be further investigated. This research expands on existing literature by investigating the relationship between formal structure and informal hierarchy mediated by showing tension in the context of real-time video recordings of teams performing a task.
Findings
Using data of 41 experimental teams, I found that the first hypothesis considering stronger presence of formal structure leads to a less linear informal hierarchy was confirmed. It appears that teams indeed need some guidelines, either in the form of formal structure or informal hierarchy, to coordinate their tasks and clarify their role and rank. I empirically confirmed that when formal structure becomes more egalitarian, informal hierarchy emerges more linear (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). In addition, the second hypothesis confirmed the proposed negative relationship between the presence of formal structure and showing tension within teams. When there is strong formal structure within teams, there is less tension shown by its members. Furthermore, SMWTs in organizations may therefore experience higher levels of tension compared to teams with stronger formal structures. A mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between formal structure on informal hierarchy was not entirely explained by showing tension. I expect that the process of informal hierarchy development is too complicated to be caught into the tension category. Research shows that multiple factors influence informal hierarchy development (e.g. Anderson & Brown, 2010; Chase, 1980).
Theoretical implications
The results of this research have various theoretical implications for research on the development and emergence of informal hierarchy in teams. The tendency to decrease formal structure in teams and organizations has been well recognized within the literature (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Literature also confirmed that an informal hierarchy emerges in all types of social groups (Magee & Galinsky, 2008) while no study empirically examined this relationship yet. Theoretically is had been reasoned that when formal structure becomes stronger, informal hierarchy weakens and the other way around (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). This research confirms indeed that when a strong formal structure is present in teams, this leads to a less linear informal hierarchy then when a weak formal structure (like in a SMWT) is present. It seems that groups indeed have a 'need for hierarchy' to ensure effective team functioning. Past research did not give sufficient attention to the team- level processes in emerging informal hierarchy (Ravlin & Thomas, 2005) and this research responds to that. The interaction analysis (Bales, 1950) at team- level allows us to seek for explanatory or mediating mechanisms that influence the development of informal hierarchy. The results showed that tension within teams does not entirely explain this development processes.
In addition, this research decreases the gap in literature about the relationship between formal structure and informal hierarchy, that originated the last decades (McEvily et al., 2014). Understanding better how formal structure predicts informal hierarchy is a major application for the development of theories of teams and organizations.
In my additional analysis, I found significant relationships between a members' individual rank based on influence in the team and all except for one (showing solidarity) of Bales' interaction categories (1950). This may be due to the fact that rank is granted to members who exhibit expertise (e.g. giving opinion and orientation) as well as social (e.g. showing tension release, agreeing) and leadership skills (e.g. giving and asking suggestions, disagreeing or correcting others) (Lord, 1985; Van Vugt, 2006).
Limitations
In the research, the proposed mediating effect of tension was not confirmed. This may be due to the fact that participants were unacquainted and since they had only ten minutes jointly to perform the task, the pressure was mainly on task-related issues. Since it takes time to develop more interpersonal relationships where discussion and tension may arise more rapidly, this may explain the non-significant results. On the other hand, showing tension as a single mediator may be an overly simplistic representation of the complex process towards developing an informal hierarchy.
During the process of making the transcripts and coding them according to Bales' (1950) interaction categories, an extensive coding book was developed to leave as little as possible to interpretation. Since we could not account for every situation or sentence that occurred during the interactions, it is impossible to say that nothing is left to the interpretation of the researcher.
The amount of data from the sample is limited, 41 teams participated and for future research, more data could be collected.
Future research directions
Since the explanatory mechanisms that underlie the emergence of informal hierarchy in teams is not fully explained by this research, future research is needed to discover possible mechanisms, e.g. other interaction categories (Ba les, 1950). Conducting this experiment in a real organizational setting would probably give new insights in the processes for example. Future research should in addition consider if a certain style of leadership has influence on the development of emerging informal hierarchy (Bass, 2008). In this research, the formal leader role was randomly assigned to a team member and it is likely that these participants used several different leadership styles.
Despite this study, there is still little known regarding the social phenomena leading to informal hierarchy (Nelson, 2001) in contrast to formal hierarchy.
Practical Implications
As the results have shown, there is less tension and a less linear informal hierarchy in teams with a strong formal structure. As Diefenbach & Sillince (2011) argue, no team in this research was hierarchy- free. Knowing this as a practitioner can be important when e.g. decisions need to be forced upon team members and no creativity, discussion or critical thinking by members is desirable. Since a strong formal hierarchy is often seen as more legitimate than a strong informal hierarchy (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), sending out a compelling decision into a team can be easier when a more formal structure is present.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. 1993. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64(3): 431–441.
Anderson C. & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 30: 55–89.
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
Anderson, C.R., Spataro, S.E. & Flynn, F.J. 2008. Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3): 702-710
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E. & Chatman, J. A. 2006. Knowing Your Place: Self-Perceptions of Status in Face-to-Face Groups Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91(6): 1094–1110.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self- managing teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408–437.
Bales, R. F. 1950. A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction American Sociological Review, 15(2): 257-263.
Bales, R. F. 1950a. Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups
University of Chicago Press.
Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M. & Roseborough, M. E. 1951. Channels of communication in small groups American Sociological Review, 16: 461–468.
Bass, B. M. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, (4th ed.) New York: Free Press.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction ` Books.
Blau, P.M., & Scott, W.R. 1962. Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. 1992. What makes a team work? Organizational Dynamics, 21(2): 34-44.
Cartwright, D. 1959. Introduction. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 150–165.
Chase, I.D. 1980. Social processes and hierarchy formation in small groups: A comparative perspectives. American Sociological Review, 45(6): 905-924.
Chaston, I. 1998. Self- managed Teams: Assessing the Benefits for Small Service-sector Firms. British Journal of Management, 9:1-12.
Courpasson, D. & Clegg, S.R. 2006. Dissolving the Iron Cages? Tocqueville, Michels, bureaucracy and the perpetuation of elite power. Organization, 13(3): 319–343.
Dawkins, R. 1976. Hierarchical organization: a candidate principle for ethology
Cambridge University Press, 7-54.
Diefenbach, F. & Sillince, J. A. A. 2011. Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies, 32(11): 1515–1537.
French, J.R.P. & Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. Studies of social power, 259-269.
Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H. & Magee, J.C. 2003. From power to action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3): 453-466.
Gamero, N., González- Roma, V. & Peiro, J. M. The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal study Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81: 47–69.
Gibbs, J. 2009. Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture Human Relations, 62(6): 905–935.
Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. 1991. Personality and status. In D. G. Gilbert & J. J. Connolly (Eds.),
Personality, social skills, and psychopathology: An individual differences approach,
New York: Plenum Press, 137-154.
House, R.J. 1971. A path- goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339.
Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H., Jr. 1975. Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 272–280.
Jacques, R. 1996. Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 19th to
21st centuries. London: Sage.
Kangasharju, H. & Nikko, T. 2009. Emotions in organizations: Joint Laughter in Workplace Meetings Journal of Business Communication, 46(1): 100-119.
Laumann, E. O., Siegel, P. M. & Hodge, R. W. (Eds.) 1971. The logic of social hierarchies. 2nd printing. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harpers.
Lord, R. G. 1985. An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.)
Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 7: 87–128.
Magee, J.C. & Galinsky, A.D. 2008. Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 351–398.
Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I. & Guerra, J. M. 2005. Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20: 219–230.
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.
Mousnier, R. 1973. Social hierarchies. New York: Schocken Books.
Nam, C. S., Lyons, J. B., Hwangc, H. S. & Kimd, 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: 771–782. Nelson, R. E. 2001. On the shape of verbal networks in organizations. Organization Studies,
22: 797–823.
Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research
Methods, 40: 879-891.
Proença, T. 2010. Self- managed work teams: an enabling or coercive nature. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3): 337–354.
Ravlin, E.C. & Thomas, D.C. 2005 Status and stratification processes in organizational life.
Journal of Management, 31: 966-984.
Robinson, D. T. & Smith-Lovin, L. 2001. Getting a laugh: Gender, Status and Humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1): 123-158.
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.
Shelly, R. K. & Troyer, L. 2001. Emergence and completion of structure in initially defined and partially defined groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 318-332.
Shelly, R. K. & Troyer, L. 2001a. Speech duration and dependencies in initially structured and unstructured task groups Sociological Perspectives, 44(4): 419-444.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C. & Levin, S. 2004. Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25:845–880.
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.
Thompson, V.A. 1961. Hierarchy, specialization and organizational conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 5(4): 485-521.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A.N., Goren, A. & Hall, C.C. 2005. Inferences of
competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science Magazine, 308(5728): 1623–1626.
Van Vugt, M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10: 354–371.
Weber, M. 1921/1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 5, rev. edition. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Zaleznik, A. 1989. The managerial mystique: Restoring leadership in business. New York: Harper & Row.
APPENDIX B - transcript of one of the team video's, with interaction units and codes
Group 17, condition 1 Start video: 11/02/2013 15.17.50
red text = the first time an item is mentioned, we categorize this as 'giving suggestion' green text = not clear enough to be coded
Person A: boy, blond hair, dark sweater Person B: white shirt, brown hair
Person C: girl, blonde hair, black sweater Person D: boy dark hair, scarf
Person E: boy, blond hair, dark shirt
{{A pakt definitieve papier om te gaan schrijven}} A-0: /What do you got for the first?/4
D-A: /Oxygen/4 C-A: /Yeah/3
A-0: /Yeah think that's good/3 E-A: /Yeah, me too/3
D-0: /Water/4 {stilte 5 sec}
A-0: /Food.4/ Second/4 C-A: /Water/5
D-A: /Water/3
E-A: /Water, yes/ 3 {{A schrijft op definitieve papier}}/4 A-0: /Third./ 4
C-A: /Food/5
A-0: /I don't know 11/ I took solar powered FM receiver/4 D-A: /Yeah I would../
A-D: [[mompelt iets, the way I don't know]]
D-A: /200 K's you need to survive 6/, you know it's far 5/, you need food 5/, you cannot walk 200 k's without food 5/. And you can walk 200 k's without a.. fm receiver/10
A-D: /[yeah]/3
C-0: /Yeah but 10/ you can live without food ee h.. I think three weeks or something like that so../5
A-C: /[yeah]/ 3 B-C: /{{knikt}}/3
A-0: /With water it's possible 5/ and I think if you know the way/5
D-A: /I was wondering on which side of the moon are you 8/, because if you are on the dark side there is no eeh solar 5/. You don't have the sun 5/ so there is no solar power 5/ so it's useless 5/(15:18:50)
C-D: /I think we will have to hypothes which is ((easier denk ik)) for us 5/ cause it doesn't say anything 5/ so we will just, that we won't, we are in the, you know in the right side/5
D-C: /[in the sun] 5/. In the right side yeah./3
A-0: /Hmmhmm/3. How far should we go then 8/ should we take the solar or other things for the navigation maybe?8/ I mean that, that magnetic compass doesn't work on the moon right/4 D-A: /Yeah it's not working 3/, like, yeah it probably doesn't work there so../3
A-0: /Yeah 3/. Also box of matches 4/you don't use it/5
D-A: /Yeah it's not 3/, there's no oxygen 5/ so you cannot use it/5. The same for flares 4/ and the same is for the eeh, the pistols. /4
B-0: /Yeah/3 C-0: /Yeah/3
D-0: /If you shoot you go 5/, the same direction as the bullets so../5
A-0: /Should we go from the other direction then, 4/ what's completely useless/6 D-A: /[Yeah]/3
E-A: /[Start at fifteen]/4
{iedereen mompelt een beetje maar niemand zegt iets dat ik kan verstaan}
D-0: /Box of matches 6/, I had the pistol on the last place 5/ but it's all like, yeah../ {{versleept een aantal briefjes}}/x
A-0: /doesn't matter 5/ {{schrijft antwoorden op papier}}/4 A-Y: /Matches..6/ pistols 6/ {{schrijft}}
D-Y: /Max.. matches 6/ {{versleept briefjes}} (15:19:50) E-A: /Isn't the magnetic compass completely useless/8 A-E: /[Useless]/1
A-E: /It's also useless/3 D-A: /Yeah/3
E-A: /I would say that's totally useless but/5 B-0: /Yeah/3
D-0: /But they're all useless eeh, 5/ the flares 5/ {{pakt het briefje}}
A-0: /So we're ((versta ik niet)) to make the decision for food ? 8/ or should we take the solar powered FM?/8
C-A: /Eh I think you're right you 3/, we should eeh choose.. A-C: /First the way?/8
D-A: /[I would say food] 5/ {{haalt schouders op}}/ C-A: /Yeah, the FM receiver first/3
A-B: /So what do you think? 8/ Food or FM?/8 B-A: /Uuhm../6
A-E: /And you also first?/8
B-0: /I think food first 5/, I'm not sure/11
A-B: /Yeah? 8 (zo van jij ook?) / I thought you're not gonna carry around all this shit 5/, it's easier to just walk 5/. I mean it's not too far 5/, 200 kilometres. /5 ((fout, want het is miles)) B-A: /[Yeah]/3
E-0: /Also does an FM receiver work? /8 A-E: /I guess so/5
C-0: We haven't something elso to..
A-E: /Then you know where to go 5/ otherwise you just running around all the time/5 E-A: /[[Because it is solar powered but]] 6/, but how strong is, is the solar energy at, on the moon? 8/ (15:20:50)
A-E: /It's gonna work/5 E-A: /Yeah? 10/ okay/3
D-A: /And for direction ((geen unit, stond er wel)) I had the map first before the receiver/4 C-D: /[Yeah]/3
A-D: /Okay that's also possible/3 (knikt er wel bij) D-A: /So I had food 5/, map 5/ and then the receiver/5
A-C: /Do you agree that we first take the map 4 / and then food 4/ or other way around/8 C-A: /Eeh surely first map 3/ and then FM receiver 5 / because we.. would have.. A-C: /Ah no I mean food 6/. Just about the stellar map first 4/ and then the food?/8 D-A: /{{knikt}}/3
E-A: /[Yeah, it's okay] /3 B-A: /Yeah 3/ {{knikt}}
((C: 10 want die disagreed passief))
A-B: /Yeah? /6 {{begint te schrijven op papier}}4/ {stilte van 7 seconden}
D-A: /And I was wondering for the self inflating raft 4/, if there is no oxygen 5/ how could it inflate 8/ so it doesn't work 5/ so you can put it all the way down.. 5/ {{verplaatst een
briefje}}
A-0: [mompelt iets instemmends] /yeah/ 3
A-0: /What do you think about the parachute silk/4
D-A: /Oh you can use it for all kinds of things 5/ like bandaids or 5/, it's it's use, usefull 5/ but it's not very very useful 5/ so it's not important/5
E-0: /As a sleepingbag or something maybe/5. To stay warm/5 C-0: /[Ah first aid..]/4
D-E: /Yeah, yeah 3/ (als reactie sleeping bag) {{verplaatst briefjes}}.
D-0 :/We have this four/6, ((mompelt iets dat ik niet versta)), heating.. 6/ solar powered receiver 6/ {{legt briefje ergens anders neer}} (15:21:50)
A-0: /((iets)) is also not that useful yeah 5/. Signal flare, signal flares is also../6 D-A: /Useless/1
C-A: /Useless/6
B-0: /Yeah, I think they actually work 10/ I'm not sure like../11
D-B: /Because enlight on oxygen 5/ and there's no oxygen 5/n so you would say they../5 B-D: /Are you sure they do?/8
D-B: /And they, eeh there's no gravity 5/ so they float away 5/ and they go in every direction, I think/5
B {{kijkt D niet aan}}: /Hmm yeah I think then it goes in the direction you shoot it 5/ but yeah well../10
C-0: /What about first aid kid?/8 D-0: /Yeah first aid kid eeh../5 A-D: /Yeah you think it's useful?/8
D-A: /Yeah/ 5
D-A: /more useful than the other ones on the table /.5
A-Y: /box of matches 6/, did we use it already 6/, no 6/. {{kijkt aandachtig naar papier}} C-A: /Yeah we use is as useless I think/ 5
D-A: /[Ah that's the..]/ ((was nog niet groen, anders een 5)) A-Y: /I already used that 6/. Food concentrate.. /6
C-A: /Yeah./3
A-Y: /50 meters, we didn't 4/. Parachute..8 (beetje vragend) {{haalt zijn handen op}} D-A: /These are the five we have left, if I'm correct/5 {{zoekt briefjes uit}} (15:22:50) D-A: /So I would say the first aid kid/5
A-D: /Ya, First/ 3 {{schrijft iets op}}/ D-C: /Don't you think?/8
C-Y: /Eeh. Yeah./ 5 Did you write eeh..
D-0: /And then I would say the rope/5 {{A,C en D pakken en kijken naar briefjes}} A-D: /Rope?/10 ?
D-A: [Do you have the..] A-D: /Ah no, no I don't. /5
D-A: /Aah, uh I think it's more important than the first aid kid/5 C-D: /Yeah/3
D-0: {{schuift een briefje heen en terug}} {stilte van 10 sec} A-0: /Okay./6
D-0: /I think the other ones.. 5/ I had the rope 5/ because you can tie eachother 5/, I don't know 11/, if you have a canyon or...5/ or whatever, you have to, like if there../
B-A: [mompelt iets door D heen]
A-D: /But it's really cold, 10/ what about the portable heating/4
D-A: /Yeah you're in a suit 5/ and a suit is normally, eeh yeah I don't know 11/{{wikt met handen}} /And I was with the sun energy 5/ because if you're on the right, eh wrong side of the moon, you don't have sun energy 5/ so it's pretty useless/5
A-D: /[Ja]/3
B-A: /[Hmmhmm] 3/ Maybe it's pretty hard to carry around the heating unit 5/ I don't know/11 {{haalt handen op}}
A-B: /[Heating? 10/ Oh okay] 3/ (15:23:50)
D-B: /And you have your own suit 5/ so I think your suit is normally protected against cold/5 and and.. warmth. /5
A-0: /Okay 6/, so then we take the heating yeah 4/.. After that?/8
D-A: /I would say heating last of these three 10/ but its.. {{A sleept nog een briefje}} A-E: /What about you guys?/8
E-0: /Maybe the milk first 4 /, it's also eeh C-0: /Why milk is../ 10
D-0: /I had this one/ 5 {{wijst briefje aan}} A-C: /[It's protein]/5
E-C: /[Yeah]/3
A-E: /But you have already food 10/ and water/5 D-E: /You have food 6/ and water so../6
C-E: /Yeah we have already food 6/ so I don't think it's too important to get milk/5 E-C: /[Yeah..]/ 3
D-0: /I think this one uuh 5/ {{wijst een briefje aan}} B-0: /Yeah../3
A-0: /First the heating?/8 D-A: /No/ 10
C-A: /Yeah./ 3
A-Y: /Heating last 5/ {{haha}}/11
C-0: /Then milk 5/ and then parachute silk/5
D-0: {{mompelt iets en lijkt of ie zijn hoofd schudt}} ((iemand zegt yeah))
A-0: /Okay/3. (15:24:50)
B-0: /Oke/3. {{leunt achterover}}/ {stilte van ongeveer 10 sec}
D-Y: /{{schuift briefjes bij elkaar}}/x
E-0: {{pakt telefoon uit zijn zak}} Four minutes, how long was it?/8 C-0: /{{laughing}}/2
D-0: /{{laughing}}/2 E-0: /{{laughing}}/2
C-E: /How much time do we have?/8
D-C: /I think we have another five minutes. 5/ We had ten minutes 6/ so we're pretty quick/2 C-D: /[Oh!] /2 ((statisfaction))
B-0: /Are we just waiting for her here../8 D-0: /Just go to her 4/ and say we're ready../4
E-0: /I can ask her to come in.5/ {{E staat op en loopt naar de deur}}
--- Niet verder coderen
E-X: ((praten even over dat groep klaar is)) E-X: Okay.
D-0: /I heard a group there was a guy who had the pistols first/ E-D: /The pistols first?/ Yeah?/{glimlach}/
D-0: /Yeah in his own list/ not on the team paper/ {laughing}/ D-E: /Quite funny/
