Team functioning
A study about status distance, psychological safety,
helping behavior, and team satisfaction
Master Thesis MSc Human Resources Management
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
The present study focuses on the relationship between status distance and satisfaction, mediated by helping behavior and including the moderating role of psychological safety. In advance, it was expected that status differences were negatively related to helping behavior and consequently to satisfaction. Further, it was expected that psychological safety weakened the former negative relationships. Data is collected by means of a questionnaire among 71 work teams in the Netherlands and Germany. Contrary to the expectation, however, results did not indicate a negative effect of status differences on helping behavior. Nevertheless, the results support the positive influence of psychological safety, although not significantly. These findings indicate that psychological safety is an important factor influencing the team’s behavior and satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION
Teamwork is gaining importance in businesses because working in teams can benefit both the organization and the individual. Potential benefits of team work for the organization are cooperation in complex tasks and coordination of different organizational parts, which facilitates the achievement of organizational goals (Mitchell, Parker & Giles, 2011). On the other hand, it serves the individual by fulfilling the need for belonging and reducing uncertainty (Lewis, 2011; Milliken & Martins, 1996). However, in order to be effective as a team, the members must combine their resources and knowledge (Teh & Yong, 2011). Put differently, a member’s behavior influences a team’s effectiveness.
A team is built upon structural features, such as the design or composition (Hackman, 1987). Teams are designed along the hierarchical structure of an organization. A hierarchy facilitates the ranking of individuals, according to socially valuable dimensions (Anderson & Brown, 2010). The development of a hierarchical structure can be arrayed along the status characteristics of the team and its members (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Status ranks individuals according to their position or amount of prestige within the team, i.e. the status hierarchy (Anderson, Beer, Srivastava, Spataro & Chatman, 2006; Metiu, 2006; Phillips, Rothbard & Dumas, 2009; Wu, Loch & Ahmad, 2010). Status is defined as “the prominence, respect, and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others” (Anderson et al., 2006: 1094). Differences in status are inevitable when managing different persons (Blader & Chen, 2011). Status distance is logically derived from these differences in status (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987; Phillips et al., 2009). When there is a large asymmetry between team members’ status, the status distance is also large (Anderson & Brown, 2010). In contrast, when the differences in status are small, in accordance the status distance is small. Status differences influence a team member’s behavior, which is part of the coordination mechanism that describes the interaction between team members. Moreover, as the status differences within a team increase, these achieve greater relevance and importance (Christie & Barling, 2010). Since status characteristics and accompanying group commitment predict the in-group serving behavior, this behavior is important for an organization (Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers & Doosje, 2002). One of the questions that will be answered in this paper is how status influences a member’s behavior and attitudes.
differences and their consequences (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). First, the intentions of a member demonstrate when one provides help. These intentions to help someone are voluntary and can be related to a person’s willingness (organizational concern) or eagerness (prosocial value) (de Vries, van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2006; Wollan, Sully de Lugue & Grünhagen, 2009; Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Willingness can be regarded as a conditional way of helping because it depends on to what degree a person is prepared to provide assistance. On the contrary, eagerness relates to the internal drive to help and is based on personality (de Vries et al., 2006). Second, status differences prescribe whom a team member likely asks for help. For instance, most helping actions take place between people of similar status, in other words when the status distance is small (Burke, Weir & Duncan, 1976). When the status differences are large, there is more competition among team members and competition negatively affects the amount of helping behavior (Christie & Barling, 2010; Cosier & Dalton, 1988).
one’s satisfaction (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; McHoskey, 1999; Vansteenkiste, Duriez, Simons & Soenens, 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Satisfaction and status differences are also negatively related, when uncooperative behavior is adopted (Christie & Barling, 2010). This is in line with previous research that found that people who are cooperative also are more satisfied (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010).
This paper investigates the effect of status distance on helping behavior of team members and their satisfaction. Furthermore, it explores the effect of psychological safety on these relationships. It is expected that a large status distance negatively affects the helping behavior because people compete. Moreover, most helping actions take place between people of equal status. This effect is predictably weakened by psychological safety due to the fact that when people feel safe they are more willing to take risks and to invest in interpersonal relationships, such as helping. It is assumed that the effect of status distance on satisfaction is interposed by helping behavior; being helpful and a helpful environment might lead to more team satisfaction.
Theoretical and practical contribution
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Status distance and helping behavior
Status characteristics organize social interaction (Berger, Cohen & Zelditch, 1972). Team members likely react differently on occurrences because differences in status shape an individual’s behavior (Greer & van Kleef, 2010). The degree of status differences between team members can be expressed as status distance (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987; Phillips et al., 2009). The larger the status distance is in a team, the larger the status differences are within the team. Differences between team member’s status levels are inevitable though functional. First, differences in status among team members provide stability and order because it facilitates the orderly division of influence among team members (Anderson et al., 2006; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). This enables coordination; individual members categorize their rights to perform certain behavior (Anderson et al., 2006). Second, status distance addresses the problem of self-interest and motivation. To succeed as a team, the members must be motivated to act selflessly or to behave in ways that benefit the team (Anderson et al., 2006). The status hierarchy then might enable the motivation of individuals (Magee & Galinksy, 2008). In brief, status, i.e. the perceived prominence, respect, and influence of a member, is an important predictor of commitment and team behavior (Branscombe et al., 2002). Organizations are highly dependent on their members’ behavior because it predicts performance (Mossholder et al., 2011). Therefore, it is interesting to analyze how a team member interacts dependent on his status in comparison to the other team members. Once again, helping is regarded as the most important dimension of organizational citizenship behavior. The decision to seek and provide help is, among other factors, driven by a member’s motivation to be in a certain status position (Lee, 1997).
are rather cooperative than competitive and it is expected that these members are more willing to help others.
In contrast, when the status differences are large within a team, more attention is paid to the status hierarchy. In addition, more emphasis is placed on gaining or maintaining status and there is more competition between the team members (Blader & Chen, 2011). Members might feel dissatisfied by this and show dysfunctional behavior (Heames et al., 2006). Moreover, team members focus on their motivation to be supportive because helping relations are inherently socially unequal (Nadler & Halabi, 2006). Noteworthy differences between low- and high-status members can be distinguished in a team with a large status distance. Low-status members focus on equality because they suppose that they otherwise do not get what they deserve (Hong & Bohnet, 2007). In general, they are motivated to employ status protecting and status enhancing strategies (Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1995). These low-status members have the fear of being rejected (Weisband et al., 1995). Therefore, they might be insecure about asking for support because this affects their self-image (Lee, 1997). Asking for help is considered as a sign of weakness, incompetence and dependence (Lee, 1997). This dependency on high-status members reinforces the latter’s dominant position (Nadler & Halabi, 2006). Low-status members regard high-status members as role models and compete to obtain the same position (Kahn et al., 2009). On the other hand, high-status members may not need to exaggerate their status position (Doosje et al., 1995). They would be in the position to pay attention to help others (Hong & Bohnet, 2007). However, they feel that they need to justify their position (Kahn et al., 2009) or they are concerned about losing their position (Weisband et al., 1995). This is confirmed by empirical research showing that persons with high status fear that their position is threatened, particularly when they give resources away (Cheng, 2011). Therefore, it is expected that they will react reservedly on helping others, in order to maintain their high status position. Thus, in a team with large status differences between members, there is unwillingness to engage in helping because high-status members fear their position and low-high-status members compete due to the fact that they strive for equality. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Status distance is negatively related to helping behavior
Status distance, psychological safety and helping behavior
& Frese, 2003). This environmental characteristic of a team is described as psychological safety. When a member feels psychologically safe, he is able to express himself without having to fear for negative consequences on his status (Kahn, 1990). Successful cooperation even requires the existence of an environment in which team members feel safe in displaying helping behavior, in other words a climate for psychological safety (Baer & Frese, 2003). Thus when providing one another with help does not have any negative consequences for the help-giver and/or receiver, it is expected that team members are willing to do so. Therefore, psychological safety is assumed to have a positive effect on the relationship between status distance and helping behavior.
To recall, it is expected that team members behave differently based on the amount of status differences within the team. In teams with small status distance, members identify with each other and there is a higher amount of trust between them (Lee, 1997; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). There is a closer relationship between team members and individual members face that various emotions and behavior can be expressed without interpersonal consequences (Carmeli, Brueller & Dutton, 2009). As a result, it is expected that a high amount of psychological safety will strengthen the amount of helping behavior that members in a team with a small status distance display. Conversely, when the status distance is large within the team, the motivation to maintain and accrue status is more important (Lee, 1997). Then the level of helping varies as a function of the relationships within the team (Cunningham & Platow, 2007). Edmondson (2003) found that if psychological safety relieves the concern about the other’s reaction, help seeking is promoted. In particular low-status members seek help (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah & Ames, 2006). In the presence of a high-status team member, one was less likely to ask for help than if the team member had equal status (Edmondson, 2003). Seeking help from those in a higher position, who judge your performance or ability, involves interpersonal risk taking. When feeling psychologically safe, members possessing low status do not have to fear for negative consequences On the other hand, high-status members are willing to provide help as long as the low status members are not threatening their position (Cunningham & Platow, 2007). When there is a high degree of psychological safety, the high-status person does not need to fight or defend his position and is able to help others (Hong & Bohnet, 2007). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Psychological safety moderates the relationship between status distance and helping behavior, such that this negative relationship is weakened when psychological safety is higher.
Status distance, psychological safety and team satisfaction
2007). In addition, the relationships with similar others are more satisfying because they result in greater liking and comfort with the team members (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Nevertheless, when more emphasis is placed on the differences between members, members are competing for status (Blader & Chen, 2011; Cheng, 2011). This means there is an extrinsic work value orientation, which concerns the process of advancing up the organizational hierarchy to achieve prestige and status (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). From this perspective, members focus on obtaining external indicators of worth, such as status, and in their competitive struggle affiliation with members is not their most important goal (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Empirical research states that focusing on extrinsic values, such as status, is detrimental for a person’s satisfaction (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; McHoskey, 1999; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006, Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Moreover, contributions of low-status members are taken less seriously by high-status members (Chung et al., 2000). When individuals’ contributions are not accepted by fellow members, an individual also feels less satisfied (Lichtenstein, Alexander, McCarthy & Wells, 2004). Plus the fact that in case of status differences, there is emotional stress for and there are uncomfortable interactions between the members which negatively affects the work satisfaction (Cassidy & Warren, 1991). Consequently, the work satisfaction of members with equal status is higher. Therefore, teams with a large status distance should have a more supportive work environment (Cassidy & Warren, 1991).
This supportive work environment can be found in a team environment of psychological safety. This involves perceptions of vulnerability and making choices to play down negative consequences (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Edmondson, 2003). First it is expected to have a positive effect on satisfaction because members feel safe to perform and act (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). The focus on extrinsic values, such as status and status distance, recedes into the background. So the consequences of a large status distance become less prominent if members feel psychologically safe and this will positively affect the team satisfaction. When members feel safe to engage in a team, they are active members of the team and will also experience more satisfaction (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). Second, psychological safety is comparable to, however not the same as, trust in some organizations. Team relationships characterized by trust reduce conflicts and organizational commitment (Hunt & Morgan, 1994). A study by Cunningham & MacGregor (2000) confirms that trust has a significant relationship with satisfaction, independently of the effect of status variables. Since trust and psychological safety are comparable, it is expected that psychological also positively affects the relationship between status distance and satisfaction. Hence, the following is assumed:
positively related to team satisfaction when psychological safety is higher.
Status distance, psychological safety, helping behavior and team satisfaction
Helping behavior contributes to a positive environment in which morale, team cohesiveness and sense of belonging to a team are enhanced (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). On one hand this enhances members’ sense of loyalty and commitment but simultaneously it provides satisfaction with their job and team (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Furthermore, members that display a higher level of helping behavior rated a higher level of satisfaction (Podsakoff, Ahearne & MacKenzie, 1997). Also supportive components of the team environment are positively related to satisfaction (Babin & Boles, 1996). The social interaction within a team is influenced by the amount of status different members have. To recall, when the differences in status between members are small, members are more willing to help each other (Chung et al., 2000; Heames et al., 2006). Moreover, members have closer relationships, prefer cooperation and feel connected to the organization (Chung et al., 2000; Cunningham & Platow, 2007). On the other hand, when there are large status differences within a team, members focus on the extrinsic value of status and are competing to gain and maintain status (Hong & Bohnet, 2007; Kahn et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Consequently, there is less helping behavior among the team members. Following this line of reasoning, helping is cooperative behavior that builds and preserves the relationships between team members (van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Thus status distance influences the social interaction within a team, i.e. the amount of helping behavior. On its turn, helping behavior has a positive effect on satisfaction. Together this specifies a model in which helping behavior mediates the status distance satisfaction relationship.
Hypothesis 4. The overall moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between status distance and team satisfaction is mediated by helping behavior at higher levels of psychological safety, but not at lower levels of psychological safety.
Based on the combination of all hypotheses above, the following conceptual model is proposed:
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
METHODS
Sample and procedure
To test my hypotheses, I contacted work teams from different organizations in the Netherlands and Germany. A work team is a small group of interdependent individuals in an organization, with clearly defined membership and shared responsibility for organizational outcomes (Alderfer, 1987; Edmondson, 2003; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom, de Meuse & Futrell, 1990). From all approached teams, 81 teams agreed to participate. These teams worked in a variety of settings, ranging from banking and business services to public organizations and medical services. Team size varied from 5 to 12 members, including the team leader. The teams with a within-team participation rate below 50% were eliminated, in order to exclude bias as much as possible (Pirola-Merlo & Man, 2004). This means that the data is collected from 71 teams (87.65%), employed by 62 organizations, which amounted to 433 individuals in total (91.15%). The average team size was 7.19 members (s.d. = 2.39), their organizational tenure was on average 10.08 years (s.d. = 9.17), and their team tenure was on average 4.93 years (s.d. = 5.41). Of these respondents, 55% were female and the mean age of the respondents was 38.85 years old (s.d. = 11.71). 79.9% of these respondents had at least obtained a higher vocational education degree.
Two different types of questionnaires were distributed during meetings at the organization, one for the supervisor and one for the team members. We took the measurement of the employee survey in two different parts. The second questionnaire was filled in seven to ten days later. We kept the objectives blind for the respondents; we only told them that the survey was designed to measure team functioning. We explained that participation was anonymous and that their answers would be kept confidential. Moreover, method biases can be problematic since they are a main source of measurement error (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). As a result, the validity of the conclusions drawn is threatened. Therefore, the following actions were taken. To minimize potential common method bias, multiple sources are used to provide the measures (Ketchen & Bergh, 2006). Common method bias arises when the variance is attributed to the method of measuring rather than to the construct of measuring (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Some measurements were self-reported, meaning that a member fills in questions on an individual basis. In addition, we used a round-robin design, so that each individual team member rated and was rated by the other team members.
Measurement instruments
(Anderson et al., 2006) as obtained from the round-robin questions (1 = very low, 7 = very high). Second, status dispersion was operationalized as the within-team standard deviation of members’ level of status (Greer & van Kleef, 2010). Past research has shown that standard deviation is the best method to measure dispersion (Greer & van Kleef, 2010; Roberson, Sturman & Simons, 2007). When the standard deviation is larger, the hierarchy is steeper which indicates a larger status distance. This works vice versa, when the standard deviation is low, the hierarchy is flat which indicates a smaller status distance.
Psychological safety. Psychological safety was self-reported, but is a variable that describes the team environment so the responses were aggregated to the team level. A seven-point Likert scale is used ( 1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The original scale is developed by Edmondson (1999) and all seven items are used. Three items are reversed coded. Some sample items are “working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized” and “if you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you”. In appendix A1, the scale is included. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.75, so the items were averaged.
Helping behavior. Helping behavior was measured at the individual level but responses were also aggregated to the team level. We adapted a scale developed by Settoon & Mossholder (2002), by selecting six items with the highest loadings on the factor. The questions about helping behavior were both task-related and person-related, using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = always). Examples are “to what degree do you pass work-related information to team members, on your own initiative?” and “helps coworkers with work when they have been absent”. In appendix A2, the scale is added. The six items combined formed a reliable scale (Cronbach’s α = .85), so were averaged.
Team satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured in the team context but rated by the individual team members and thus aggregated to the team level. We selected four items from the scale developed by Agho, Price & Mueller (1992), however based on a scale developed by Curry, Wakefield, Price & Mueller (1986), using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Sample items are “I feel fairly well satisfied with my job” and “I am seldom bored with my job”. In appendix A3, the scale is added. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.
have influence on the amount of information processed and the longer the tenure, the more customized habits exist which blocks new stimuli (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Team size is likely to influence the measures because large groups have more potential for dissimilarities (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Team size affects measures of heterogeneity (dissimilarity) because large teams have more potential for dissimilarity (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). This might affect the status distance within a team. The mean status of a team can be directly translated into observable differences in how people are treated (Aquino, 2000; Astley & Sachdeva, 1984), meaning that status might influence for instance the helping behavior of a member. Furthermore, it may affect an employee’s vulnerability to co-workers actions (Aquino, 2000), linking to how psychologically safe members feel.
Statistical analyses
The Cronbach alpha showed that the items of the different scales have internal consistency, meaning that the different items measured the same construct. As a result, the mean of the items was used. In addition, the predictor variables (status distance, helping behavior and psychological safety) were standardized to eliminate possible scaling differences. Furthermore, the variables measured at the individual level were aggregated to the group level.
RESULTS
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the key variables from the study. Correlation coefficients are not too strong (all r < .90), so none of the variables need to be excluded (de Vocht, 2004). The matrix in table 1 indicates that there are several significant correlations. For instance, team satisfaction was positively related to status (r = .47, p < .01), psychological safety (r = .40, p < .01), and helping behavior (r = .59, p < .01). This means that the higher the amount of helping behavior, the higher the team satisfaction. Moreover, helping was positively related to status (r = .31, p < .01), and psychological safety (r = .50, p < .01). Psychological safety was also positively related to status (r = .32, p < .01), but was negatively related to team membership’s tenure (r = .41, p < .01). In addition, status distance is negatively related to status (r = -.40, p < .01). From the control variables, only average status is correlated to the main variables of interest. Correlations provide preliminary support for the theory, but are formally tested in the regression analysis which also measures the direction of the relationship.
TABLE 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations of key variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Team size 6.69 2.18 2. Membership’s tenure 4.85 3.80 .22 3. Average status 4.75 .48 -.06 -.02 4. Status distance .74 .31 .00 -.08 -.40** 5. Psychological safety 5.30 .46 -.16 -.41** .32** -.01 6. Helping behavior 5.49 .44 .03 .13 .31** -.05 .50** 7. Team satisfaction 5.52 .59 .03 .01 .47** -.23 .40** .59**
N = 71, ** = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Before executing a multiple regression analysis, different assumptions have to be met (Malhotra, 2010). First of all, the data scale assumption which means that the variables need to be measured on interval or ratio scale. Since this is the case in this research, the first assumption is met. Second, to avoid multicollinearity, the correlation coefficients needs to be below .90. (all r < .90). Therefore, the second assumption is met as well. Third, linearity has to be tested. Scatter diagrams show that the assumption of linearity is met. Fourth, the variables need to be normally distributed. The normal probability plots and tests of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shaprio-Wilk) confirmed normal distribution. Since all assumptions are met, regression analysis can be executed.
negative impact on the degree of helping behavior. Regression results for the model with helping behavior as dependent variable are summarized in table 2. There was no evidence for the negative relationship between status distance and helping behavior in model 1. In addition, the expected negative relationship is a weak positive relationship (B = .05, ns). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is not supported.
TABLE 2
Regression analyses results and conditional indirect relationships
Helping behavior Team satisfaction Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE B SE Controls Team size .01 .05 .03 .06 .02 .06 Membership’s tenure .06 .05 .00 .07 -.02 .07 Average status .14 .05 .28 .06 .15 .07 Main effects Status distance .05 .06 -.05 .07 -.06 .06 Psychological safety .27 .05 .22 .07 -.04 .08 Two-way interactions
Status distance * psychological safety .02 .04 -.02 .06 -.03 .06 Helping behavior .27 .07 R2 .01 .01 .13 R2 (adjusted R2) .12 (.07) .40 (.35) .45 (.39)
Conditional indirect relationship
Moderator value 95% Confidence Interval BCA
-1 SD -.07 .12
M -.05 .08
+1 SD -.09 .09
Note. N = 71. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. Bootstrap sample size =
2000. BCA = Bias Corrected and Accelerated. ** p ≤ .01, * p < .05
psychological safety). The steepness of the line shows the strength of the interaction. The coefficient of determination (R2 = .40) defines that 40 % of the variance of helping behavior is explained by the independent variables.
FIGURE 2
Interaction of regression helping behavior
Hypothesis 3 suggests a negative relationship between status distance and satisfaction, weakened by psychological safety. The results of the regression analysis can be found in table 2. The main effect (status distance and satisfaction) is not significant (p = .46). The interaction term is also not significant (B = -.02, ns). Yet, it has a weakening effect on the relationship between status distance and satisfaction. All things considered, hypothesis 3 is rejected. The coefficient of determination (R2 = .45) determines that 45 % of the variance of satisfaction is explained by status distance and psychological safety. When plotting the regression line in a graph, figure 3 becomes visible and the results are consistent with the analysis.
Before executing bootstrapping, the following two main assumptions have to be met: the linearity of the relationships and the independence of the observations (Preacher et al., 2007). The linearity is already shown in the assumptions for regression. The independence of the observations is guaranteed because members filled in the survey separately without consultation.
1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 Low High H E L P ING STATUS DISTANCE
FIGURE 3
Interaction of regression satisfaction
Hypothesis 4 predicted that the overall moderating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between status distance and team satisfaction is mediated by helping behavior at higher levels of psychological safety, but not at lower levels of psychological safety. This hypothesis describes a moderated mediation. This occurs when the strength of the indirect effect depends on the level of another variable (Preacher et al., 2007); in this case the moderator psychological safety. Moderated mediation can be tested by the so-called bootstrapping method (Rees & Freeman, 2009). The information from the bootstrap sampling distribution is used to generate the conditional indirect effect (Preacher et al., 2007). In essence, the model tests for indirect effects by repeatedly rerunning the regression using +/- 1 standard deviation to see the degree to which mediation occurs. In this case, I am especially interested in the +1 standard deviation, because the effect is proposed when the status distance is large (Banff & Kistruck, 2006). The results of the analysis can be found in table 2. The bootstrapped model did not produced significant p-values, so the path is not moderated and the indirect effect cannot be conditioned on psychological safety, the proposed moderator. This outcome is confirmed by the fact that the 95% confidence interval pass from zero (-.09; .09). Thus, hypothesis 4 is not supported.
1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 Low High SAT ISFAC T IO N STATUS DISTANCE
DISCUSSION
Findings and theoretical implications
The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of status distance on the helping behavior and satisfaction within a team. In addition, it explores the effect of psychological safety on these outcomes. A research model is designed to test the assumed relationships between the variables.
First of all, the effect of status distance on helping behavior has been researched. It was expected that the larger the status distance is, the less helping behavior is present, i.e. a negative effect. The analysis did not find significant support for this. Instead, the relationship between status distance and helping behavior shows a very weak positive effect. This is in contrast with the literature found so these results warrant further investigation of the effects of status distance in teams. Two recent developments in teams might be examined in order to back up the results. For instance, status seeking norms are becoming more important in organizations (Gaspart & Seki, 2003). It might be that the strive for equality is less strong present within teams than gaining status. This would especially be the case in teams which have a strong focus on status (Baron & Pfeffer, 1994; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). As a result, members are competing for the desirable positions of higher status ranks (Huberman, Loch & Önçüler, 2004). Another underlying development might be the team norm. The amount of helping behavior might be influenced whether a team has collective or individualistic norms (van den Hooff & Hendrix, n.d.). Additional research might clarify the unexpected influence of status differences.
Finally, I researched whether psychological safety moderates the negative effect of a large status distance on helping behavior, to come to a greater extent of satisfaction. Due to the fact that psychological safety does not moderate the effect of status distance on helping behavior, this moderated mediation did not prove to work.
Strengths, limitations, and future research directions
Inherent in this study are numerous strengths. Strong points of this research can especially be found in the methodological part. The research has been executed cross-organizational and there was a great variability in teams. Furthermore a large sample has been drawn and different sources of measurement are used, i.e. self-reporting and peer-reviewing. This aims to minimize common methods bias, which benefits the representativeness of the study (Meade, Watson & Kroustalis, 2007). Other strengths of this study are the high response rate of 91.15 % and the diverse range of business sectors. With this rate and these characteristics, I can properly generalize (Peter, 1979). The dataset allowed for the control of potentially biasing variables, which is overcome by controlling for potential intervening variables, such as the mean status, team membership’s tenure and team size. Another strength is the fact that this research adds to the growing presence of status theories that explain behavior in teams and organizations. It extends previous conceptualizations of status distance at the team-level by exploring status hierarchies and how this distance explains variance in helping behavior and team satisfaction. A limitation can be found in the variable status distance. Since status distance is a relatively unknown and uninvestigated area in this terminology, the research partly has been executed in status literature; conclusions are drawn from the amount of status a person is assigned to. This does not fully cover the intention of the variable, but it is strongly linked to each other. In addition, no distinction has been made between in-role and extra-role behavior. The in-role behavior is what fits into a member’s task, where extra-role behavior depends on the additional input of a member (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). The motivations underlying in-role and extra-role behavior are varying, which might have influenced the results. Another limitation of the study is the fact that the study only concerns organizations in two West-European countries. It might be the case that status is of less importance in this cultures, compared to some other cultures.
underlying motivation for helping behavior because it has been researched that many factors affect this behavior, such as empathy, closeness, values, rewards and costs (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006). In particular, the consideration between rewards and costs is interesting; this consideration is generally made based on psychological thoughtfulness. A member act in according to his expectations about the effects of helping behavior on his position, the consideration between the costs and rewards of being helpful. Third, status seeking norms are becoming more commonly in organizations (Gaspart & Seki, 2003). These are likely to influence the underlying motivation of willingness to help. Moreover, Hofstede’s dimension of collectivism also plays a role by defining this willingness (van den Hooff & Hendrix, n.d.). In a team with collective norms, more helping behavior can be signaled than in a team with individual norms (van den Hooff & Hendrix, n.d.). Likewise, the eagerness to help is influenced by one’s personality, meaning that a member’s personal motivation affects the degree of helping. Besides, the willingness to help conversely depends on the organizational concern of a member. Distinguishing between these underlying motivations might affect the outcomes. All in all, literature identifies the importance of status on team structure and behavior, however other characteristics might influence the conditions.
Practical implications
High levels of psychological safety are desirable because psychological safety benefits the team performance (Edmondson, 1999; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011). The results of the present study show that psychological safety slightly touches the degree of helping and the degree of satisfaction within a team. Research indicates that satisfied employees are more effective and show functional behavior (Heames et al., 2006). In addition, in an environment that stimulates helping, team members are actively participating and more satisfied (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009). Therefore, an organization might create an environment in which team members feel safe to increase the effectiveness. Another important practical implication concerns the how to favorable design the composition of work groups within the status hierarchy.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3): 185-195.
Alderfer, C. P. 1987. An intergroup perspective on organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, C., Beer, J., Srivastava, S., Spataro, S. & Chatman, J. 2006. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 91(6): 1094-1110.
Anderson, B., Berger, J., Cohen, B. & Zelditch Jr., M. 1966. Status classes in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2): 264-283.
Anderson, C. & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research In Organizational Behavior, 30: 3055-3089.
Aquino, K. 2000. Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26: 171-193.
Astley, W. G. & Sachdeva, P. S. 1984. Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9: 104 –113.
Babin, B. J. & Boles, J. S. 1996. The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(1): 57-75.
Baer, M. & Frese, M. 2003. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1): 45-68.
Banff, A. & Kistruck, G. 2006. A test of moderated mediation between board size and financial performance in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada: 102-119.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P. and Zelditch Jr., M. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37: 241-255.
Blader, S. L. & Chen, Y. R. 2011. What influences how higher-status people respond to lower-status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organization Science, 22(4): 1040-1060.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N. & Doosje, B. 2002. Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6): 744-753.
Burke, R. J., Weir, T. & Duncan, G. 1976. Informal helping relationships in work organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 19(3): 370-377.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D. & Dutton, J. E. 2009. Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1): 81-98.
Carmeli, A. & Gittel, J. H. 2009. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6): 709-729.
Cassidy, M. L. & Warren, B. O. 1991. Status consistency and work satisfaction among professional and managerial women and men. Gender and Society, 5(2): 93-206.
Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C. & Askanasy, N. 2010. Affective responses to professional dissimilarity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 808-826. Cheng, J. 2011. Inter-organizational relationships and information sharing in supply chains. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4): 374-384.
Choi, J. 2009. Collective dynamics of citizenship behavior: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46(8): 1396-1420.
Christie, A. & Barling, J. 2010. Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 95(5): 920-934.
Cosier, R. A. & Dalton, D. R. 1988. Presenting information under conditions of uncertainty and availability: Some recommendations. Behavioral Science, 33: 272-281. Cunningham, J. B. & MacGregor, J. 2000. Trust and the design of work complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53(12): 1575-1591.
Cunningham, E. & Platow, M. J. 2007. On helping lower status out-groups: the nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4): 258-264.
Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. 1986. On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4): 847-858.
Dimotakis, N., Davison, R. B. & Hollenbeck, J. R. 2011. Team structure and regulatory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 421-434.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N. & Spears, R. 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5): 410-436.
Driskell, J. E. & Mullen, B. 1990. Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytical review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3): 541-553.
Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 108-119.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T. & Ames, D. R. 2006. Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6): 1123-1137.
Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. 2000. Reducing intergroup bias: the common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Gaspart, F. & Seki, E. 2003. Cooperation, status seeking and competitive behavior: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1): 51-77. 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.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hardy, C. L. & van Vugt, M. 2006. Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10): 1402-1413.
Heames, J., Harvey, M. G. & Treadway, D. 2006. Status inconsistency: an antecedent to bullying behavior in groups. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 17(2): 348-361.
Hong K. & Bohnet, I. 2007. Status and distrust: The relevancy of inequality and betrayal aversion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28: 197-213.
Van den Hooff, B. & Hendrix, L. No date. Eagerness and willingness to share: The relevance of different attitudes towards knowledge sharing. Amsterdam School of Communications Research, 1-21.
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H. & Önçüler, A. 2004. Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1): 103.
Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. 1994. Organizational commitment: One of many commitments or key mediating construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): 1568-1587.
Kahn, K., Ho, A., Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. 2009. The space between us and them: Perceptions of status differences. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5): 591-604.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. 1996. Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 280–287.
Ketchen, D. J. & Bergh, D. D. 2006. Research methodology in strategy and management. Oxford: Elsevier.
van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review Psychology, 58: 515-541.
Kostopoulos, K. C. & Bozionelos, N. 2011. Team exploratory and exploitive learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(3): 385-415.
Lee, F. 1997. When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(3): 336-363.
Lewis, T. 2011. Assessing social identity and collective efficacy as theories of group motivation at work. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 22(4): 963-980.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J. A., McCarthy, J. F. & Wells, R. 2004. Status differences in cross-functional teams: Effects on individual member participation, job satisfaction, and intent to quit. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(3): 322-335.
Lo, M., Songan, P. Mohamad, A. & Yeo, A. W. 2011. Rural destinations and tourist’s satisfaction. Journal of Services Research, 11(2): 59-74.
Magee, J. C. & Galinksy, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annuals, 2: 1-79.
McPherson, J. M. & Smith-Lovin, L. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-Face groups. American Sociology Review, 52: 370-379.
Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M. & Kroustalis, C. M. 2007. Assessing common methods bias in organizational research. Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1-10.
Metiu, A. 2006. Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17(4): 418-435.
Milliken, F. J. & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 402-433.
Mitchell, R., Parker, V. & Giles, M. 2011. When do interprofessional teams succeed? Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(10): 1321-1343.
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. 2011. Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy Of Management Review, 36(1), 33-52.
Nadler, A. & Halabi, S. 2006. Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1): 97-110.
Nembhard, I. M. & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 941-966.
Palmer, A. & Koening-Lewis, N. 2011. The effects of pre-enrolment emotions and peer group interaction on student’s satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11/12): 1208-1231.
Peter, J. P. 1979. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 6-17.
Pirola-Merlo, A. & Mann, L. 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2): 235-257.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M. & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 82(2): 262-270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1): 185-227.
Rees, T. & Freeman, P. 2009. Social support moderates the relationship between stressors and task performance through self-efficacy. Journal Of Social & Clinical Psychology, 28(2): 244-263.
Roberson, Q. M., Sturman, M. C. & Simons, T. L. 2010. Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4): 564-588.
Schepers, J., de Jong, A., Wetzels, M. & de Ruyter, K. 2008. Psychological safety and support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education. Computers and Education, 51: 757-775.
Settoon, R. P. & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 255-267.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2): 120-133.
Tiedens, L. Z. & Fragale, A. R. 2003. Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558-568.
Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Simons, J., & Soenens, B. 2006. Materialistic values and well-being among business students: Further evidence for their detrimental effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 2892–2908.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. & Van den Broek, A. 2007. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 251-277.
De Vocht, A. 2004. Basishandboek SPSS 12 voor Windows. Utrecht: Bijleveld Press. de Vries, R. E., van den Hooff, B. & de Ridder, J. A. 2006. Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2): 115-135.
Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. 2010. When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2): 222-244.
Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K. & Conolly, T. 1995. Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(4): 1124-1151.
Wiersema, M. F. & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 91-121.
Wollan, M. L., Sully de Lugue, M. F. & Grünhagen, M. 2009. Motives for helping: Exploring cultural influences on extra-role behavior. Multinational Business Review, 17(1): 99-119.
Wu, Y., Loch, C. & Ahmad, G. 2011. Status and relationships in social dilemmas of teams. Journal of Operations Management, 29(7/8): 650-662.
Appendix A
A1 scale psychological safety Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree
1 If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Members of this team are able to bring up
problems and tough issues
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 People on this team sometimes reject others for
being different
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 It is safe to take a risk on this team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 It is difficult to ask other members of this team for
help
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 No one on this team would deliberately act in a
way that undermines my efforts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Working with members of this team, my unique
skills and talents are valued and utilized
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A2 scale helping behavior Never sometimes Always
1 Takes time to listen to coworkers’ problems and worries 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Takes a personal interest in coworkers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Always goes out of the way to make newer employees
feel welcome in the work group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 To what degree do you pass work-related information to
team members, on your own initiative
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Helps coworkers with difficult assignments, even when
assistance is not directly requested
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 Helps coworkers with work when they have been absent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A3 scale team satisfaction Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree
Appendix B
Table B1 - Coefficients moderating effect 1
B S.E. Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 5,489 ,050 110,232 ,000 Zteam_size ,008 ,051 ,018 ,151 ,880 Zteammember_mean ,058 ,051 ,132 1,120 ,267 Zstatus_mean ,137 ,050 ,313 2,722 ,008 2 (Constant) 5,489 ,042 131,654 ,000 Zteam_size ,022 ,043 ,052 ,521 ,604 Zteammember_mean ,165 ,047 ,378 3,496 ,001 Zstatus_mean ,061 ,049 ,140 1,247 ,217 Zstatus_distance ,019 ,046 ,044 ,418 ,677 Zpsysafety_mean ,269 ,049 ,616 5,438 ,000 3 (Constant) 5,489 ,042 130,962 ,000 Zteam_size ,032 ,047 ,074 ,692 ,492 Zteammember_mean ,167 ,048 ,383 3,510 ,001 Zstatus_mean ,066 ,050 ,151 1,319 ,192 Zstatus_distance ,020 ,047 ,046 ,427 ,671 Zpsysafety_mean ,274 ,051 ,628 5,420 ,000 Z_STATUSDISTANCEx PSYSAFETY ,024 ,043 ,061 ,565 ,574
Dependent variable: helping behavior
Table B2 - Coefficients moderating effect 2
B S.E. Beta t Sig.
