PERSONALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF HIERARCHICAL PREFERENCES: DO AGREEABLENESS AND NEED FOR STRUCTURE MAKE PEOPLE MORE
SATISFIED IN STRONG HIERARCHIES?
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
- 2 -
PERSONALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF HIERARCHICAL PREFERENCES: DO AGREEABLENESS AND NEED FOR STRUCTURE MAKE PEOPLE MORE
SATISFIED IN STRONG HIERARCHIES? ABSTRACT
In a world that seems to be changing faster every day, one can recognize a trend in which more and more organizations try to become more flexible and responsive, for instance by giving work teams and individuals more autonomy. Based on this trend, one might even conclude that hierarchy is in decline. On the other hand there is evidence that hierarchy is inevitable nonetheless; when hierarchy is diminished formally, informal hierarchies are likely to take over their place. Little is known about what it is that makes individuals prefer hierarchy over equality. Therefore, this paper suggests that personality, and in particular agreeableness and need for structure, determine the extent to which individuals are satisfied in strong informal hierarchical settings. The proposition will be tested by performing a field study among 43 work teams, and will give insight into what it is that determines a preference for hierarchy; namely agreeableness and need for structure.
Keywords: Hierarchical preferences, informal hierarchy, agreeableness, need for structure, job satisfaction
- 3 -
There has been a trend going within organizations over the recent years; more and more companies restructure and flatten their organization, for instance by removing hierarchical layers and complicated structures, with the goal of becoming more flexible, maneuverable and eventually more efficient. The desire to become more flexible comes from a seemingly faster changing world with an increasingly challenging and dynamic environment (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). As a reaction to this changing world, new organization types and measures have emerged and have grown in popularity (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006; Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). A more specific example of such a development is the increasing popularity of self-managing teams, which are relatively autonomous in decision making and more egalitarian in terms of formal hierarchy compared to ‘traditional’ work teams (Molleman, 2000). Based on these developments, one might even conclude that in many organizations, and specifically the teams inside these organizations, hierarchy is in decline.
Although this trend might indicate a decline in the formal hierarchical ordering within teams, hierarchy seems to be quite persistent. In fact, it is a widely shared understanding that hierarchy is a defining feature of teams. That is, when hierarchy is diminished formally (i.e., by removing formal hierarchical layers), informal hierarchies are likely to take their place (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Friesen, Kay, Eibach & Galinsky, 2014; Anderson & Brown, 2010). Indeed, theorists state that hierarchy emerges naturally within groups and provides a psychologically appealing kind of order that facilitates coordination, clarifies roles and reduces conflict (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Bunderson, van der Vegt, Cantimur & Rink, 2015; Anderson & Brown, 2010).
- 4 -
environments. This may be especially true for strong formal hierarchies in which influence is derived from official positions which are vertically integrated within one explicit organizational structure (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Mintzberg, 1979). Examples of such negative consequences mentioned in research are reduced member motivation and the undermining of member satisfaction (Bunderson et al., 2015; Huang & Cummings, 2001; Grund, 2012; Jewell & Molina, 2004; Leavitt, 1951). The question is whether informal group hierarchies, which emerge through interaction between group members and become stable over time, negatively affect team member satisfaction just like more formalized differences between members of a group. In fact, scholars have long suggested that informal hierarchies may affect behavior and valence among group members just as much as formal hierarchies do (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Bunderson et al., 2015; Leavitt, 1951). Therefore the current study will focus on what effect informal hierarchy strength has on the job satisfaction, which is known to be related to lower turnover and increased engagement and productivity (Henne & Locke 1985; Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001), of specific types of people.
Though I argue that the strength of a group’s informal hierarchy may impact job satisfaction of those specific group members, previous work demonstrates that there are other forces that influence hierarchical preferences; namely individual-psychological characteristics, contingency effects, and cultural and societal aspects (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Anderson & Brown, 2010; Friesen et al., 2014). A specific example of this is that people tend to have a higher need for hierarchy and evaluate hierarchy more positively, when people lose control over their lives, for instance in crisis situations (Friesen et al., 2014).
- 5 -
settings, and how much they feel at home in such an environment. I propose, therefore, that personality is an important determinant of whether people are satisfied working in strong hierarchal environments. In particular, I argue that agreeableness and need for structure are two of the most important traits that might determine an individual’s hierarchical preferences. Highly agreeable people are eager to cooperate, tend to avoid conflict, and are motivated to maintain positive interpersonal relationships with others (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Hierarchical settings create role clarity, structure and order; allowing the possibility to have good interpersonal relationships, indicating that agreeable individuals might be more satisfied in such hierarchical environments. Need for structure can be described as a characteristic of individuals who prefer structure and clarity in most situations and dislike ambiguity and “grey areas” (Thompson, Naccarato & Parker, 1992; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). People who have a high personal need for structure tend to have a more organized life, establish and enjoy routines and prefer familiar social situations more than people with a lower personal need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Slijkhuis, 2012). Hierarchy is known to provide order, coordination and role clarification; aspects that provide structure in working environments, therefore, one can assume that individuals with a high need for structure are more satisfied in situations in which these aspects are present compared to situations with ambiguity and uncertainty.
- 6 -
often underexposed. We know that hierarchies can have beneficial effects on team outcomes, such as performance improved coordination, reduced conflict (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Bunderson et al., 2015; Anderson & Brown, 2010) and performance (Halevy, Chou & Galinsky, 2011). However, this paper contributes to the understanding of the effects of informal hierarchy strength on the job satisfaction of specific individuals inside those teams, a relation of which previous literature shows little knowledge.
The second contribution helps in explaining the paradox in which people on the one hand claim to dislike hierarchy, which Gruenfeld & Tiedens (2010) even describe as the explicit distaste of hierarchy, but on the other hand automatically create informal hierarchies themselves when formal hierarchies are diminished, suggesting that people actually like hierarchy (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Friesen et al., 2014; Anderson & Brown, 2010). With arguing that individuals high in agreeableness and need for structure are more satisfied in strong informal hierarchies, this paper provides clarity about which situations specific people actually prefer.
On a practical level, knowledge is provided on which particular employees might be more satisfied in strong informal hierarchical teams or more egalitarian teams; teams with weak informal hierarchies. For instance when an organization is recruiting for a relative egalitarian team in terms of informal hierarchy, they might consider selecting individuals that are low in need for structure and agreeableness. On the other hand, when teams are characterized by high informal hierarchies, they might actually prefer to recruit individuals that are highly agreeable and with a high need for structure due to its positive moderating effect on job satisfaction.
- 7 -
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Relationship between agreeableness and job satisfaction
The Big Five model is often used in research to categorize personalities in five different traits or dimensions. Agreeableness, as one of these five variables, is actually the primary concept to consider in the assessment of individual differences according to some researchers (e.g., Witt, Barrick, Burke & Mount, 2002; Havill, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998). According to research by Mount, Barrick & Stewart (1998), agreeableness is considered to be most relevant to job performance in situations in which joint action and collaboration are required, which are both aspects of work teams according to the definition by Kozlowski & Bell (2003) used in this paper. Agreeableness can be described as a personality trait in which people are considered warm, trusted, kind and modest (Costa & McCrae, 1992). More specific traits of agreeableness that are interesting from an organizational standpoint (since they have bigger influence on teamwork) are that agreeable individuals are more tolerant, selfless, cooperative, helpful, flexible and less critical compared to less agreeable individuals (Digman, 1990; Witt et al., 2002). Agreeable individuals strive for common understanding and tend to deal with conflict cooperatively and less negatively than less agreeable individuals (Digman 1990; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell & Hair, 1996). Finally, agreeable individuals better cope with frustration and emotion (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001).
- 8 -
Al-Rabayah & Khasawhneh, 2015; Henne & Locke, 1985). Typical values that individuals seek in their jobs are for instance the work itself, pay, promotions, fairness, working conditions, and coworkers (Judge et al., 2001).
There are several arguments why this paper suggests a positive relation between agreeableness and job satisfaction. In the first place this paper assumes that agreeable individuals are more inclined to do what is expected of them and to go with a system, since agreeable individuals are less critical towards their working environment compared to less agreeable individuals (Digman, 1990; Witt et al., 2002). Secondly, agreeable individuals tend to have greater control over frustration and emotion (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001) and are more tolerant and flexible (Digman, 1990; Witt et al., 2002), which indicates that they might handle disappointment and conflicting opinions more constructive compared to individuals low in agreeableness. Finally, agreeable people are characterized as warm, kind and trusted, with a high priority for establishing and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships with others (Judge & Zapata, 2015), which might imply that agreeable people have a more positive approach to life and their jobs in general. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is formulated (visualized in Figure 1) to examine a main effect between agreeableness and job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 1. Agreeableness is positively related to job satisfaction; agreeable individuals are more satisfied with their jobs.
Informal hierarchy strength as linearity
- 9 -
2008). The differences in influence derive from dyadic dominance that naturally develops among individuals who work together and that is why, when talking about informal hierarchy, we are talking about influence hierarchy.
Previous research has operationalized hierarchy strength by the degree of linearity, as is used in this paper. Specifically, linearity refers to a situation in which individuals working together (for instance team-members) dominate each other in a hierarchical order; absolute linearity equals a strong hierarchy (Krackhardt, 1994; Bunderson et al., 2015). Research by Chase (1980) and Schmid Mast (2002) define this hierarchical order with the transitivity rule; an example of absolute linearity or strong hierarchy would be when team member A is dominant over all other team members, team member 2 is dominant over all other team members except 1, team member 3 is dominant over all other team members except 1 and 2, and so forth (Chase, 1980; Schmid Mast, 2002). In this example influence domination is ordered downwards in the hierarchical order, a lower ranked member has no direct or indirect influence over any member above him (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), which Chase (1980) and Schmid Mast (2002) refer to as transitivity. In contrary, in a non-linear informal influence hierarchy all members would influence each other to some extent. The more intransitive relations exist, the less hierarchal the setting is. The moderating role of hierarchy strength
- 10 -
The main reason why this paper assumes that agreeable individuals are more satisfied in hierarchical settings compared to non-agreeable individuals, is that these hierarchical settings create order and structure, which enables the possibility to establish and maintain good interpersonal relationships which is the main characteristics of highly agreeable individuals (Judge & Zapata, 2015; Witt et al., 2002). The second argument why this paper expects that agreeable individuals prefer strong informal hierarchies over weak informal hierarchies is based on the effect of reduced conflict; strong hierarchies are known to reduce conflict (Bunderson et al., 2015; Anderson & Brown, 2010); which is also a characteristic of agreeable individuals. Finally, agreeable people are known to be more tolerant, cooperative, selfless and less critical than less agreeable people (Digman, 1990; Witt et al., 2002); therefore this paper expects agreeable people to be more satisfied in strong hierarchies than low agreeable people, since they will sooner accept a structure and will do what is expected of them, without implying submissiveness. Based on these arguments, I expect that under stronger informal hierarchies, which provide structure and role clarity, high agreeable individuals to be more satisfied than less agreeable individuals, since these strong hierarchies enable the establishment and maintenance of positive relations and reduced conflict. Consequently, under low informal hierarchy strength (egalitarian environment), agreeable individuals are expected to be less satisfied than less agreeable individuals, since there is less order and clarity and more risk for conflict. Therefore the second hypotheses states that:
Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between agreeableness and job satisfaction is moderated by hierarchy strength. Agreeable individuals are more satisfied in strong hierarchies than in weak hierarchies.
- 11 - FIGURE 1
Conceptual framework agreeableness + +
Need for structure and the moderating role of hierarchy strength
There is another personal characteristic, besides agreeableness, that seems interesting if we look at hierarchical preferences of individuals; personal need for structure. Personal need for structure can described as a characteristic of individuals that makes them less likely to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity in an efficient manner; they prefer clarity and structure in most situations (Thompson et al., 1992; Thompson, Naccarato, Parker & Moskowitz, 2001; Slijkhuis, 2012). People with a high need for structure prefer to live an organized life, both cognitively and behaviorally; they establish and enjoy routines and prefer familiar social situations more than people with a low need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993).
This paper argues that informal hierarchy strength moderates the relation between need for structure and job satisfaction; individuals with a high need for structure are more satisfied in strong hierarchies than they are in weak hierarchies. In the first place this is expected because weak informal hierarchies do not provide the certainty and structure that people with a high need for structure prefer. Strong informal hierarchies do provide this certainty and structure through giving order, coordination and role clarification, which makes that this paper assumes individuals with a high need for structure are more satisfied in such hierarchical environments. Secondly,
Agreeablenes s
Job satisfaction
- 12 -
egalitarian environments (low informal hierarchy) require flexibility and ambiguity (Thompson et al, 1992; Slijkhuis 2012), which are aspects that are disliked by individuals with a high need for structure. This also suggests that individuals with a high need for structure would prefer strong informal hierarchies over weak informal hierarchies. Based on these arguments, I propose that under high hierarchy strength, people with a high need for structure are more satisfied than people with a low need for structure. Consequently, under low hierarchy strength I expect that people with a high need for structure are less satisfied than people with a low need for structure. This proposition is formulated in hypothesis 3 (and visualized in Figure 2), in which I propose that:
Hypothesis 3. The relationship between need for structure and job satisfaction is stronger when hierarchy is strong, rather than when hierarchy is weak.
FIGURE 2
Conceptual framework need for structure
METHOD Sample and Procedures
For this research questionnaires were send out to diverse work teams located in the Netherlands, utilizing a standard data collection protocol. The requirements used to determine what a work team is were based on the definition of Kozlowski & Bell, 2003. Teams had to exist
Need for structure Job satisfaction
- 13 -
of at least 4 members, perform organizational relevant work, interact frequently face-to-face and members should be interdependent; sharing resources and information and coordinate efforts towards the accomplishment of joint goals (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Teams were primarily approached from personal contacts and networks. Once teams were identified, team leaders were invited to participate with the questionnaires. Team leaders who agreed to participate provided additional information, for instance task description, team definition and names and contact information of the team members. Data where then collected using standardized instruments and procedures. Two separate questionnaires were sent out; one for group members and one for group leaders. In this study however, I focused solely on the results of the group members; the results of the team leaders were not relevant.
The data that was used for this research was obtained from a total of 57 teams, containing 314 people, of which 56 were team leaders. The questionnaires that were send out were filled in by a total of 205 people (160 members, 45 leaders), which is 65%. The minimum team member requirement of four meant that data from 47 groups could be used in the research; other groups were dropped due to a lack of member response. The approached teams worked in organizations varying in a broad variety of settings; examples are educational institutions (16%), health care (13%), business services (11%), government institutes (7%; for instance the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science), and the financial sector (5%). In terms of organization size, 14 teams (31%) worked in organizations with fewer than 20 employees, 13 (29%) worked in organizations with 20 to 99 employees, 8 (18%) in organizations with 100 to 499 employees, and 10 (22%) in organizations with 500 or more employees.
- 14 -
23% had an intermediate vocational qualification, 44% higher vocational qualification and 26% a university degree.
Measures
Agreeableness. Agreeableness, as one of the components of the ‘Big Five’ instrument, was measured with ten items from Costa & McCrae’s (1992) NEO personality Inventory (NEO-PIR-R). Sample items include: “I take time out for others”; “I am interested in people”; I sympathize with others’ feelings”; and “I have a soft heart”. The items were measured on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Four items; “I am not really interested in others”; “I insult people”; I am not interested in other people’s problems”; and “I am not really interested in other people” had to be recoded to make a higher score resemble a stronger score on agreeableness, as is the case with the other items. Cronbach’s alpha for the ten item scale was .85. As a predicting variable, agreeableness was standardized prior to the analyses.
- 15 - TABLE 1
Example dominance matrix (Chase, 1980): what percentage of the raters said that row dominates column. Team member 2 3 4 5 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0
After dominance matrices were filled in for all teams, a modified version of the basic Landau equation by Sing, Sing, Sharma and Krishna (2003), as presented in Figure 3, was used to calculate the strength of hierarchy for each team. For each team this equation calculates a score between 0 and 1, in which 0 = no hierarchy at all; no linearity and 1 = strong hierarchy; high linearity.
Figure 3. Equation to measure hierarchy strength by Singh et al. (2003)
Where h is the strength of hierarchy, n is the number of individuals in the group and Pa is the proportion of encounters in which a member is dominant against another in a pair-wise encounter. Part of the equation [12/(n3-n)] has been used as a constant o that any calculated value of h ranged from 0 to 1. In the example of table 1 a maximal level of linearity is observed; which indicates that the team has a maximal hierarchy strength value of 1.
- 16 -
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and four items were recoded to ensure that a score of seven resembled a high need for structure. Cronbach’s alpha for the combined twelve-item scale was .85. Just like agreeableness, need for structure was standardized prior to analysis. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with four items adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1980): “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job”; “My job never bores me”; “I am very satisfied with my job”; and “I would like to keep doing this job”. The four items were measured on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the combined four-item scale was .91.
Control variables. The first model described in this research searches for a relation between agreeableness and job satisfaction and what role hierarchy strength has on this relation. In addition to the first model, the second model investigates a moderating effect of hierarchy strength on the relation between need for structure and job satisfaction. Team tenure and team size were included to explore whether these variables would alter the results. Team size was added because there was a lot of variation in the size of teams and since previous research indicates a relation with cohesiveness and communication (Bunderson et al., 2015; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bantel & Jackson, 1989), which might influence job satisfaction. Team tenure was added because agreeable individuals are known to develop and maintain positive interpersonal relationships (Judge & Zapata, 2015), which might indicate that agreeable individuals with a long team tenure are more satisfied because they developed stronger relationships over time.
Statistical analysis
- 17 -
check for significant nesting of the data. Nesting would imply that members inside teams are more similar to each other than to people in other teams, which would violate the assumption of independence of the data. The multilevel analysis is also relevant for job satisfaction; group members are nested in teams that can influence their job satisfaction, meaning that results on this variable are possibly not independent either.
RESULTS Descriptive statistics
The main descriptive statistics and correlations provided in Table 2 give a first insight in the outcomes for all variables of the data collection. As expected, a positive significant correlation can be observed between agreeableness and job satisfaction (.22, p<.01), suggesting a main effect between both variables. Another positive correlation is observed between team tenure and need for structure (.25, p<.01). Although this paper will not further investigate the modest relation between need for structure and team tenure, it might suggest that people who have a high need structure change their job less often; an interesting idea for future research.
- 18 - TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Correlation
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Agreeableness 5.78 .79
2. Hierarchy strength .49 .26 -.05
3. Need for structure 4.09 .92 .01 -.12
4. Team size 6.08 2.52 -.03 .12 -.04
5. Team tenure (years) 4.19 5.04 -.01 -.03 .25** -.03
6. Job satisfaction 5.72 1.18 .22** .06 -.03 -.02 .03
Note: N = 141-160. ** p<.01
Hypothesis testing
Before testing the hypotheses, I conducted a multilevel analysis to investigate whether there was significant nesting of the data which would violate the assumption of independence of the data. Outcomes of the multilevel analysis showed that people within teams are not necessarily more similar than people between teams (p<.24). Since there were no independence issues, moderation effects were tested with regression analyses, specifically by using ‘Process Macro for SPSS’ by Hayes (2013). Table 3 and Table 4 show the results of the regression analysis and simple slope analysis, which form the basis for Figure 4 and Figure 5, in which the relations between the variables are visualized.
- 19 -
Hypothesis 2 predicted that hierarchy strength would moderate the positive relationship between agreeableness and job satisfaction. As results show in Table 3, the interaction coefficient for agreeableness*hierarchy strength was not significantly associated with job satisfaction (b = -.14, SE = .57, p = .80). This means that, contrary of what was expected, there is no evidence for a moderating effect of hierarchy strength on the relation between agreeableness and satisfaction (which is visualized in Figure 4), meaning that the second hypothesis is not supported by the results.
TABLE 3
Linear model of agreeableness as a predictor of job satisfaction
R2= .242 R2Δ=.059, F = 1.059, p = .386
95% Confidence interval Conditional Effect of
agreeableness on job satisfaction at different values
- 20 -
Hypothesis 3 posited that hierarchy strength would moderate the relationship between need for structure and job satisfaction; individuals with a high need for structure are expected to be more satisfied in strong hierarchies than they would be in weak hierarchies. However, in contrary of what was expected, Table 4 shows there was neither a significant relation found between need for structure and job satisfaction (b = -.04, SE = .09, p = .63), nor a interaction effect of hierarchy strength on the relation between need for structure and job satisfaction (b = -.30, SE = .36, p = .40). This means that there is no evidence for a moderating effect of hierarchy strength on the relation between need for structure and job satisfaction, which means that the third hypothesis is also not supported by the results as is also shown in Figure 5.
5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6 6,2 6,4 6,6 6,8 7
Low agreeableness High agreeableness
J o b Sa tis fa ct io n
Figure 4. The moderation effect of hierarchy strength on the relationship between agreeableness and job satisfaction
- 21 -
TABLE 4
Linear model of need for structure as a predictor of job satisfaction
R2= .113 R2Δ=.013, F = .480, p = .791
95% Confidence interval Conditional Effect of need for
structure on job satisfaction at different values of hierarchy
strength LLCI ULCI -1 SD .03 -.23 .30 M -.04 -.22 .14 +1 SD -.12 -.37 .13 Note: N = 139. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6 6,2 6,4 6,6 6,8 7
Low need for structure High need for structure
J o b S a tis fa ct io n
Figure 5. The moderation effect of hierarchy strength on the relationship between need for structure and job satisfaction
Weak hierarchy Strong hierarchy
Variable b SE B t p
Constant 5.82 .28 20.43 .00
Hierarchy strength .22 .42 .54 .59
Need for structure -.04 .09 -.48 .63
Interaction -.30 .36 -.84 .40
Team tenure .00 .00 .29 .77
- 22 - DISCUSSION Findings, implications and future research
The goal of the present study was to investigate whether personality, and in particular agreeableness and need for structure, determine the extent to which individuals are satisfied in strong informal hierarchical settings. Previous literature shows little knowledge about how specific individuals react to these informal hierarchies in terms of job satisfaction. To improve our understanding about these individual preferences, I proposed that a strong informal hierarchy would actually make specific individuals more satisfied with their jobs, namely individuals high in agreeableness and need for structure.
- 23 -
However, in contrary of what was expected, no evidence was found of any moderating effect of hierarchy strength on the relations between agreeableness and need for structure on job satisfaction. The results do therefore not add to the knowledge of the hierarchical preferences of individuals who are highly agreeable and have a strong need for structure. The main reason why I expected informal hierarchy strength to have a moderating effect on the relationships between agreeableness and need for structure on job satisfaction, was based on the assumption that informal hierarchies provide order and structure. In hindsight, this assumption might have been too simplistic.
- 24 -
Secondly, it can be questioned whether the hierarchical order that informal hierarchy provides is implicit or explicit (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). When the hierarchical order is explicit, people are aware and consensually agree on the hierarchical order in which they are embedded. But when the order is implicit, the order is subjectively understood and taken for granted. With an implicit order there might be people who are not aware of the order of the team in which they are embedded, meaning that this has no impact on their job satisfaction. Therefore in future research it might be interesting to take in to account whether people are aware of the informal hierarchal order they are embedded in.
Lastly, the assumption that informal hierarchy strength always provides order and clarity creates another difficulty; there might be situations in which a team has a strong formal hierarchy, but also a strong informal hierarchy in which the order of team members does not correspond with the order from the formal hierarchy. This situation might confuse team members since they do not know which situation to adhere to, which might harm their job satisfaction. Therefore, results in future research on individual hierarchical preferences might benefit from taking possible differences in formal and informal hierarchical orders into account.
Limitations
- 25 -
Secondly, the survey is performance by self-reports, leaving a risk on respondents giving socially desirable answers (Arnold & Feldman, 1981), especially if it comes to personality, satisfaction and performance ratings of teamwork situations.
Thirdly, all respondents lived and worked in the Netherlands, which leaves the possibility that results might have been different if data was obtained in other countries due to cultural differences. The cultural dimensions by Hofstede (1980) are commonly used to compare cultural differences between countries. These dimensions show a relatively low score on power distance for the Netherlands (Hofstede, 2016), meaning that in general work environments are relatively egalitarian. Results might have been different if data was also gathered in countries with a relatively high power distance score, for instance France. In future research, data gathered from different countries or regions might help to account for possible cultural differences.
Finally, the statistical power was relatively low due to the sample size of 160 employees from 43 work teams, partially due to a relative low number of respondents (65%). This small sample draws up questions on to how significant the results are; a bigger sample size might achieve higher generalizability.
CONCLUSSION
- 26 -
- 27 - REFERENCES
Abu-Shamaa, R., Al-Rabayah, W.A., & Khasawneh, R.T. 2015. The effect of job satisfaction and work engagement on organizational commitment. IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15(4): 7-27.
Ahadi, S., & Rothbart, M. K. 1994. Temperament, development and the Big Five. In C. F. Ancona, D.G. & Caldwell, D.F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team
performance. Organization Science, 3: 321-341.
Anderson, C., & Brown, C.E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 30: 55-89.
Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C. 1981. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of management journal, 24 (1), p. 377-385.
Bantel, K.A. & Jackson, S.E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107- 24.
Bunderson, S., van der Vegt, G., Cantimur, Y., & Rink, F. (2015). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of
Management Journal.
Chase, I.D. 1980. Social process and hierarchy formation in small groups: A comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 45: 905-924.
Clegg, S.R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. 2006. Power and organizations. London: Sage. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Neo-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
- 28 -
Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J.A.A. 2011. Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32(11): 1515-1537.
Digman, J. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41: 417-440.
Friesen, J. P., Kay, A.C., Eibach, R.P., & Galinsky, A.D. 2014. Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4): 590-609.
Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H, & Magee, J.C. 2003. From power to action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3): 453–466.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. 1996. Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70: 820–835.
Gruenfeld, D.H., & Tiedens, L.Z. 2010. Organizational preferences and their consequences. In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology: 1252- 1287.
Grund, T.U. 2012. Network structure and team performance: The case of English Premier League soccer teams. Social Networks, 34: 682-690.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Haines, E.L., & Jost, J.T. 2000. Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate
explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13(3): 219- 236.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational
- 29 -
Halverson, D. Kohnstamm, & R. Martin (Eds.), Development of the structure of temperament
and personality from infancy to adulthood: 189-208. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Havill, V.L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaki, S. 1998. Agreeableness as a diachronic personality trait. In G.A. Kohnstamm & C.F. Halverson, Jr. (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child
personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big 5: 49-64. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henne, D., & Locke, E.A. 1985. Job dissatisfaction: what are the consequences? International
Journal of Psychology, 20: 221-240.
Hofstede, G.H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage publications.
Hofstede, G.H. 2016. https://geert-hofstede.com/. Accessed May 27.
Huang, S. & Cummings, J.N. 2011. When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Research, 42: 669-699.
Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Graziano, W.G. 2001. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2): 323-362.
Jewell, R.T. & Molina, D.J. 2004. Productive efficiency and salary distribution: The case of U.S. major league baseball. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51: 127-142. Jost, J.T., Banaji, M.R., & Nosek, B.A. 2004. A decade of system justification theory:
Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.
Political Psychology, 25(6): 881-920.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Thoresen, C.J. & Patton, G.K. 2001. The job satisfaction-job
- 30 -
Judge, T.A., & Watanabe, S. 1993. Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 939-948.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. 2015. The person-situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five Personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4): 1149-1179.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Bell, B.S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12: 333-375. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons.
Krackhardt, D. 1994. Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. In Carley, K.M., & Prietula, M.J. (Eds), Computational organization theory: 89-111. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A.D., Gordijn, E.H., & Otten, S. 2008. Illegitimacy moderates the effect of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19: 558–564.
Leavitt, H. 1951. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 38–50.
Leavitt, H.J. 2005. Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage
them more effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
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.
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 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.
- 31 -
performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11: 145-165.
Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. 1993. Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1): 113- 131.
Rothbart, M. K. 1989. Biological processes in temperament. In G. Kohnstamm., J. Bates, & M.K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood: 77–110. Chichester: Wiley.
Schmid-Mast, M. 2002. Female dominance hierarchies: Are they any different from males?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 29-39.
Singh, M., Sing, M., Sharma, A.K. & Krishna, B.A. 2003. Methodological considerations in measurement of dominance in primates. Current Science¸ 85(5): 709-713.
Slijkhuis, J.M. 2012. A structured approach to need for structure at work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.
Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., & Parker, K. E. 1992. Measuring cognitive needs: The
development and validation of the Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) measures. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E., Parker, K.C.H. & Moskowitz, G.B. 2001. The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In Moskowitz, G.B. (Ed.), Cognitive social
psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition:
19-39. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Witt, L.A., Barrick, M.R., Burke, L.A. & Mount, M.K. 2002. The interactive effects of
