When, why, and how does status
hierarchy steepness affect work team
performance?
By
NICOLE KLAASSENS
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
2
ABSTRACT
A small body of literature adds to our understanding of the role of status hierarchies in work teams, in predicting team performance. Therefore, this research analysed the effect of status hierarchy steepness on team performance, transmitted by intra-team conflict and contingent on legitimacy of the status hierarchy. A field study was conducted at 69 work teams in 40 organizations in the Netherlands. The regression analysis results and the conditional indirect relationships did not support the hypothesis that the moderating effect of status hierarchy legitimacy on the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance is mediated by intra-team conflict.
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The term “team” stands for Together Each Achieves More (Banutu-Gomez, 2012). This acronym explains why a variety of global forces unfolding over the last two decades have pushed organizations worldwide to restructure work around teams (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This shift from the individual to the team level challenged researchers to develop new theories, they could not simply dust off the current ones with an individual focus (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Consequently, team composition increasingly became the object of organizational research (Christie & Barling, 2010), since the combination of team member attributes can have a powerful influence on team performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Unfortunately, the main focus of the increasing team composition research has only been on demographic factors and deep-level factors (e.g. personality). Yet, status hierarchies which are informally developed within work teams (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Blau & Scott, 1962) have been largely neglected, despite their inevitable emergence as emphasized by sociological research (Christie & Barling, 2010; Cohen & Zhou, 1991; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). This neglect is unfortunate because of the fact that status hierarchies, regarded as the primary form of social relations, are often prevalent in work teams (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). This pervasiveness is evidence enough that status hierarchies are efficient and necessary for work teams to succeed (Anderson & Brown, 2010). By examining the effects of status hierarchies in work teams, this paper will respond to recent calls to close this research gap (Pearce, 2001; Ravlin & Thomas, 2005).
An important determinant for the effects of status hierarchies in work teams is status hierarchy steepness (Tyler, 2006) which refers to the magnitude of the overall asymmetry of members’ status levels (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Past theory suggests that steeper status hierarchies exhibit greater work team success and performance (e.g. Halevy, Chou & Galinsky, 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). However, empirical evidence shows mixed results (see Anderson & Brown, 2010). Hence, the contingency theory of status hierarchies suggests that the effects of status hierarchy steepness are not universally bad or good, rather they depend on many factors (Anderson & Brown, 2010). It is therefore necessary to study when, why and how status hierarchies affect team performance (Halevy et al., 2011).
4
legitimacy as a contingency condition on the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance. It is proposed that status hierarchies will have a positive relationship with team performance when the status hierarchy is perceived as legitimate among the team members (Halevy et al., 2011). The perception of status hierarchy legitimacy indicates whether or not team members perceive status to be fairly distributed, in such a way that each team member gets what he or she deserves (Brandt, 2013).
Additionally, this paper proposes intra-team conflict as an underlying mechanism that affects the conditional relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance. Halevy et al. (2011) theorize that steeper status hierarchies reduce intra-team conflict and thereby increase team performance. Nevertheless, a few studies suggest the opposite effect of greater team performance through more intra-team conflict (e.g. Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Mazur, 1985). In particular, steeper status hierarchies can increase intra-team conflict through reduced trust, lower cooperation and increased competition between team members. In order to understand and cope with the effects of intra-team conflict in work teams, this apparent contradiction in past research must be resolved (Jehn, 1995). This paper therefore serves to investigate the effects of status hierarchy in work teams on intra-team conflict.
5
In addition to the theoretical relevance, this research is also practically relevant. As discussed, work teams become increasingly important in modern life (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate which conditions increase team performance. Besides, this research will also clarify how firms should take into account the legitimacy of the status hierarchy when making status asymmetries salient (Halevy et al., 2011).
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Work teams are entities defined as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to common purposes, performance goals and working approaches, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1992). Members of such work teams attain different status positions with respect to the amount of influence, prominence and respect they enjoy in the eyes of the others (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001). Such an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals, in accordance with their assigned status, can be defined as a work teams’ status hierarchy (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The individual status positions in such status hierarchies are socially determined in a way that one can only possess as much status as other team members are willing to grant (Fragale, 2006).
An allocation of high status brings many advantages, such as increased influence, more credit for work, greater access to information and resources that contribute to individual performance and more positive evaluations relative to low-status members (Bendersky & Shah, 2013; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014). Additionally, they enjoy better physical health, a longer life span and better reproductive success (Ellis, 1994). The basis for such a high-status position in the status hierarchy varies widely, team members will naturally differentiate along a valued dimension (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Anderson and Kilduff (2009) however state that there are two main individual characteristics that are consistent predictors of high status, namely competence and a strong commitment to the work team. By having expertise and acting confidently team members indicate to have superior task competence and by acting generously toward others they suggest a strong commitment to the work team. Inversely, work teams often punish team members who try to take high-status positions by force and aggression or who try to claim higher status than the work team believes they deserve (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009).
6
discrepant views among the parties involved (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). This definition indicates that two types of intra-team conflicts can be distinguished, one focusing on tasks and the other one on relations (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Jehn, 1995). Task conflicts, which can be subdivided in task and process conflict respectively, include discrepant views over ideas and opinions pertaining to the work team’s tasks and conflicts about dividing and delegating responsibilities and deciding how to get work done. Relational conflict derives from disagreements resulting from interpersonal incompatibilities, e.g. personal values (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). These two types of conflicts are typically correlated within teams and therefore hard to distinguish (Rispens, 2012). The consequences of both types of intra-team conflict include tension, animosity and friction between team members (Jehn, 1995).
Different factors determine the relationship between the steepness of status hierarchy and intra-team conflict. In accordance with Halevy et al. (2011), steep status hierarchies can create incentive systems resulting in an internal competitive structure whereby team members compete for recognition and voice. However, they propose that low-status members rather avoid such an intra-team conflict because of their short- and long-term interests. These interests can refer to valuable resources that the low-status members desire and which high-status members control. Also, steep high-status hierarchies can reduce intra-team conflict through motivating conflict avoiding behaviour by “enlarging the pie” (Halevy et al., 2011). Such an enlargement is related to the fact that the high-status members possess much expertise and task competence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009) which consequently results in higher overall team performance, where low-status members can also benefit from. Since high-status members’ contribution to higher team performance is also beneficial for the low-status members, they are less inclined to argue with the high-status members.
7
(Anderson, Ames & Gosling, 2012; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Steepness of the status hierarchy is negatively related to intra-team conflict.
A steep status hierarchy, which will reduce intra-team conflict, cannot be coerced, this will be counterproductive in the long term (Brandt, 2013). It is argued that in order to maintain the social system in a good manner (without conflicts), it must be perceived as legitimate (Brandt, 2013). Legitimacy can be defined as a psychological property of an authority, institution or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that it is appropriate, proper, and just (Tyler, 2006). High-status members deserve their relative position when the other team members perceive the status hierarchy to be fair and just, with the consequence that the low-status members feel obligated to defer to the decisions made by the high-low-status members (Tyler, 2006). Hence, in order to have an effective status hierarchy, low-status members should be convinced that the high-status member deserves to be more influential and prominent.
When individuals perceive the steep status hierarchy as illegitimate, they are often conflict-seeking in order to advance their interests and particularistic identities (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Jost, Banaji and Nosek, 2004; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). These individuals who perceive the status hierarchy to be illegitimate, want to reject the current status hierarchy that in their eyes disadvantages them (Brandt, 2013) However, when team members do perceive the status hierarchy as legitimate, they do not question, challenge, reject or attempt to change it (Brandt, 2013), rather it promotes cooperation which might reduce intra-team conflicts in work teams (Halevy et al., 2011).
8
H2: Status hierarchy legitimacy moderates the relationship between steepness of status hierarchy and intra-team conflict, in such a way that this relationship becomes more negative when status hierarchy legitimacy is high.
In addition to reducing intra-team conflict, status hierarchy legitimacy also facilitates status hierarchy steepness to lead to the effective functioning of work teams, due to the decreasing need to use coercive influence styles by the high-status members (Halevy et al., 2011). This derives from the fact that when high-status members are seen as legitimate, low-status members will obey them because they personally feel that they ought to do so (Tyler, 2006). Previous work on status hierarchies hinted at four other possible reasons why status hierarchy steepness increases performance when the status hierarchy is perceived as legitimate (Halevy et al., 2011). At first, a higher level of voluntary cooperation can be attained, which interacts with higher team learning and information sharing and it therefore increases team performance (De Dreu, 2007). Second, there is higher complementarity and coordination that stabilize institutional arrangements and help teams to increase performance (Kraut, Fussell, Lerch & Espinosa, 2005). Additionally, high-status members will feel less stressed because they do not need to fight for their status position, which leads to increased performance (Driskell, Salas & Johnston, 1999). At last, legitimacy of the status hierarchies motivates team members to increase effort on behalf of one’s work team and consequently to advance overall performance (Halevy et al., 2011).
A legitimate status hierarchy also encourages team members to work together as a single work team and share critical information with each other (Bendersky & Hays, 2012), to reach a consensus and improve work team cohesiveness (Peterson, Martorana, Smith & Owens, 2003). Empirical evidence shows that high team work cohesiveness enhances team performance (Huang, 2009). At last, when a steep status hierarchy is seen as legitimate, the high-status members do not need to use a large expenditure of resources to create a credible system of surveillance to ensure social order. Instead, the high-status members can use the resources to benefit long-term interests and thereby increase performance of the work team (Tyler, 2006). Hence, a third hypothesis can be drawn:
9
Past research theorizes that intra-team conflict is harmful for team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Halevy et al., 2011; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). One reason for this negative relationship between intra-team conflict and team performance is the fact that intra-team conflict produces tensions, antagonism and it distracts team members from performing their tasks, thereby hindering team performance (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Furthermore, intra-team conflicts induce competitive negotiation tactics that restrict information sharing within the work team (Bendersky & Hayes, 2012), which is a critical determinant of team success (Tost, Gino & Larrick, 2013). Additionally, intra-team conflict is also associated with reduced productivity and satisfaction in work teams, which is related to decreasing performance (Jehn, 1995). Jehn and Bendersky (2003) acknowledge this negative view of conflict and state that organizational conflict research in general has shown that intra-team conflict diminishes intra-team performance.
It can now be said that steep status hierarchies, which lessen intra-team conflict (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011; van Vugt et al., 2008), will in general increase team performance. However, the status hierarchy must be seen as legitimate by the team members in order to indeed reduce intra-team conflict and consequently increase team performance (Brandt, 2013). In other words, the absence of intra-team conflicts shows the positive relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance, when the status hierarchy is seen as legitimate. When the status hierarchy is perceived as illegitimate, the indirect positive relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance will not exist or it will have far less effect. This conclusion can be drawn through what is already discussed, namely when the status hierarchy is not seen as legitimate there will likely be resistance and conflict among members in the work team, which is harmful for the team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Halevy et al., 2011; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
At last, a fourth hypotheses can be drawn:
10
The four hypotheses together lead to the following moderated-mediation model:
Figure 1. Moderated-mediation model
3. METHOD 3.1 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
To test the four hypotheses, I collected data from 72 Dutch work teams together with four other MSc students. The work teams we selected were composed of two or more individuals, existed to perform organizationally relevant tasks, shared one or more common goals, interacted socially, exhibited task interdependencies (i.e. work flow, goals and outcomes), maintained and managed boundaries and were embedded in an organizational context that set boundaries, constrained the work team and influenced exchanges with other units in the broader entity (i.e., work teams; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Among these 72 work teams, 36 work teams operated in the non-profit sector (education, healthcare or government) and 34 work teams in the profit sector. For two work teams it was not known in which sector they operated. The 72 work teams included member roles like teacher, tax specialist, policy advisor, chemical analyst, and floor manager.
The data collection was a requirement for our MSc theses and was collected through a broad survey about work team functioning. We introduced our research to the immediate supervisors of 72 work teams and additionally informed them about the privacy and confidentiality policy the University of Groningen applies. Upon approval for participation, the immediate supervisor gave us all the necessary information about his or her work team (such as contact information, names of team members and a brief description of the work team tasks). Subsequently, we distributed three survey versions among the team members and the immediate supervisors. In order to minimize communication among the team members, the first team member survey was filled in by the team members in the presence of a student assistant. A week later the second team member survey was collected and the immediate supervisor independently filled in the supervisor survey. To assure anonymity, team members
Steepness of status hierarchy
Intra-team conflict Team performance Legitimacy of status
11
and supervisors were asked to place their completed surveys in an envelope which they consequently could seal.
We distributed three survey versions to ascertain that various sources of information are used, in order to minimize potential common method variance concerns. This refers to variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the construct of interest (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon & Podsakoff, 2003). To ensure minimization, two sources of information were implemented in the team member surveys, these include self-reports and peer-ratings (i.e. round robin). Initially the team members had to indicate their perceptions of status hierarchy legitimacy and intra-team conflict and later on they had to rate one another on dimensions of status (influence, prominence and respect). A third source of information derived from the immediate supervisor survey, who rated the overall performance of the work team. The items included in the three survey versions were translated to Dutch using a double blind-translation procedure. Teams were offered feedback for the completion of the surveys.
I excluded 3 work teams in my data set for which no immediate supervisor responses were available. My final sample therefore consisted of 447 team member participants, distributed across 69 work teams in 40 organizations in the Netherlands. The overall response rate among the participating team members thus was 89%. Team size ranged from 5 to 18 members, with an average of 7.26 (SD = 2.93), the average team member age was 42.49 years (SD = 12.32) and 54% were female. The team members had an average team tenure of 5.74 years (SD = 6.51) and 48% had a vocational qualification or higher.
Among the 69 immediate supervisors, the average age was 45.16 years (SD = 9.21) and 70% were male. The average team tenure of the immediate supervisors was 5.64 years (SD = 5.68) and 69% had a vocational qualification or higher.
3.2 MEASURES
12
three dimensions for each team member, to form an overall measure of their status level within the work team. Subsequently, I operationalized status hierarchy steepness as the standard deviation of all team members’ status scores within the same work team. Higher standard deviation values represented steeper status hierarchies.
Legitimacy of status hierarchy. The legitimacy of status hierarchy was measured using five items, of which the first two items were self-developed and the other three items were defined by Cheng, Terry and Hogg (2006). Some sample items include: “The status position of team members is based on what they actually can do”; “The status position of team members is based on their contribution to the team’s success”; and “I think the status hierarchy within my team is generally fair”. Team members indicated the degree of their agreement with these items by using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = fully disagree, 7 = fully agree). I averaged the ratings on the five variables for each team member and aggregated it to the team level. Cronbach’s alpha was .83, thus the five items together formed a reliable representation of legitimacy of status hierarchy.
Intra-team conflict. Nine items, based on Jehn (1995) and Shah and Jehn (1993), measured the presence of intra-team conflict in a work team. The nine items were prefaced by “How often” and ended with for example: “Do people in your work team disagree about opinions regarding the work being done?” (representing task conflict); “Do emotional conflicts arise among members in your work unit?” (representing relationship conflict); and “Are there differences of opinion in your work unit?” (representing process conflict). A 7-point Likert scale (1 = never, 7 = always) was used to rate a team member’s perception of intra-team conflict. I combined the different conflict types into one single construct. Consequently, the ratings of the nine items were averaged for each team member and aggregated to the team level. With a Cronbach’s alpha of .90, the nine items together formed a reliable representation of intra-team conflict.
Team performance. The immediate supervisors provided ratings of team performance by means of a six-item measure developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992), using a 7-point Likert scale (1= far below average, 7 = far above average). Example items were as follows: “How does this team score on the attainment of goals?”; “How does this team score on quality of work?”; and “How does this team score on productivity?” The Cronbach’s alpha of the six items was .87 and thus the six items for team performance represented this construct in a reliable way.
13
because past research has shown that it has a significant effect on intra-team conflict and team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Sharma & Ghosh, 2007). Also, team performance typically increases as team members work together for longer periods (Katz & Tushman, 1979), therefore I included team tenure as a control variable. At last, I controlled for the mean level of status in work teams, since past research has shown the need to statistical control for the mean of an attribute when testing the relationship between the disparity of that attribute and other variables (Harrison & Klein, 2007). This control variable was measured by averaging the team members’ status levels within the work teams.
4. RESULTS
4.1 DATA ANALYSIS
Since the theory and measurement of this research are aimed at the team level of analysis, all the independent variables were aggregated to the team level. Furthermore, in order to facilitate interpretation of the results, all independent variables were standardized prior to testing the hypotheses, as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Then the interaction term was calculated from the products of the standardized variables of status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy legitimacy. Subsequently, I tested my hypotheses at the team level analysis, using moderated ordinary least square (OLS) regression in SPSS. In a series of analyses, I regressed intra-team conflict and team performance on the control variables, status hierarchy steepness, status hierarchy legitimacy, and the interaction term of status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy legitimacy.
14
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS
The means, standard deviations and zero-order Pearson correlations for all team-level variables are presented in Table 1. An inspection of the correlations revealed that team size was negatively related to team performance (r = -.33, p < .01), whereas a legitimate status hierarchy was marginally positively related to team performance (r = .23, p < .10). Results also indicated that the mean status in a status hierarchy and the legitimacy of a status hierarchy was negatively related to intra-team conflict (r = -.22, p < .10 and r = -.33, p < .01 respectively). At last, the mean status in a status hierarchy was positively related to status hierarchy legitimacy (r = .25, p < .05). As these results indicate, there were significant correlations between the control variables and study variables, which confirms the need to control for them.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order Pearson correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Team size 7.26 2.93
2. Team tenure 5.75 4.47 -0.07
3. Mean status 4.37 0.60 0.06 -0.06
4. Hierarchy steepness 0.61 0.30 0.04 -0.11 -0.15
5. Status hierarchy legitimacy 4.39 0.67 -0.09 -0.13 0.25* 0.01
6. Intra-team conflict 3.28 0.76 -0.02 0.07 -0.22˜ 0.19 -0.33**
7. Team performance 5.26 0.80 -0.33** -0.15 -0.05 -0.10 0.23˜ -0.12 Note. N = 69 work teams
˜ p <.10; *p <.05; **p <.01 4.3 HYPOTHESES TESTING
15
main effects have been taken into account (B = -.10, n.s.). Hence, Hypothesis 2 must also be rejected.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that when the status hierarchy is seen as legitimate, steeper status hierarchies have a positive effect on team performance. Model 1 of team performance in Table 2 though shows that after controlling for the covariates and the main effects of status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy legitimacy, status hierarchy steepness is not significantly related to team performance, when moderated by status hierarchy legitimacy (B = .08, n.s.). These results fail to support Hypothesis 3.
Table 2. Regression analysis results and conditional indirect relationships
Conditional indirect relationship
Moderator Value 95 % Confidence Interval (BCA)
-1 SD -.121, .029
M -.019, .079
+1 SD -.036, .131
Note. N = 69 work teams. Standardized regression coefficients are presented. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. BCA = Bias Corrected and Accelerated. **p <.01
To test Hypothesis 4 I inserted intra-team conflict to the model. A requisite for intra-team conflict to mediate the conditional relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team
Intra-team conflict Team performance
Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE B SE Controls Team size -0.04 0.09 -0.24** 0.09 -0.25** 0.09 Team tenure 0.04 0.09 -0.14 0.09 -0.13 0.09 Mean status -0.09 0.09 -0.08 0.10 -0.09 0.10 Main effects Hierarchy steepness 0.13 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.09 0.10 Status hierarchy legitimacy -0.21* 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.10 Two-way interactions Hierarchy steepness *
status hierarchy legitimacy -0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Mediator
Intra-team conflict
0.03 0.10
16
performance, is that the significance level of this relationship changes when intra-team conflict is inserted (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Model 2 of team performance in Table 2 shows the results which reveals that it cannot be suggested that there is a moderated-mediation effect, because the interaction between status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy legitimacy remained insignificant (B = .08, n.s.) and the fall in significance from Model 1 to Model 2 in Table 2 was also not significant.
Preacher et al.’s (2007) moderated-mediation macro also computes conditional indirect effects at various arbitrary values of status hierarchy legitimacy. Table 2 shows the bootstrap results using the mean, one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean. The indirect and positive effect of status hierarchy steepness on team performance through intra-team conflict was not observed at high levels of status hierarchy legitimacy; the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect contained zero (-.036, .131). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is also rejected.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 represent graphical depictions of the findings presented here.
17
Figure 3. Interactive effect of status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy legitimacy on team performance
5. DISCUSSION 5.1 FINDINGS
18
5.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
A great contribution of this research to the literature is the fact that it highlights the need to focus on work teams rather than individuals, when assessing effects of status hierarchies. Unfortunately, both the regression analyses and the indirect conditional relationships did not support any of the four hypotheses in this research, where several possible reasons could be found for. First, this research predicted that steeper status hierarchies have negative effects on intra-team conflict, when the status hierarchy is perceived as legitimate, with evidence derived from many studies (see Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011). However, some extant literature suggests that status hierarchy steepness does not have a negative, but a positive effect on intra-team conflict (Tost et al., 2013). Specifically, a steeper status hierarchy increases the tendency among the low-status members to consolidate status and engage in alliance and insurgency behaviours (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988).
Additionally, past research has showed that legitimate steep status hierarchies facilitates the effective functioning of work teams, thereby increasing team performance (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; De Dreu, 2007; Driskell et al., 1999; Halevy et al., 2011; Huang, 2009; Kraut et al., 2005; Peterson et al., 2003; Tyler, 2006). However, a few researchers have suggested that a team members’ perception of having high status that is seen as legitimate by other team members, can have wide-ranging effects on the cognitions and behaviour of that high-status team member, which may challenge the work teams’ ability to effectively facilitate team performance (Tost et al., 2013). Existing literature for example has demonstrated that a team members’ psychological experience of high-status leads to more objectification by that person towards the other team members, which can be defined as a process of subjugation whereby people are treated as means to an end (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Also, these high-status members may adapt less at understanding the perspectives of other team members, they are more likely to stereotype other team members and they are less likely to listen to other team members (Fiske, 1993; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld & Inesi, 2006). These counterproductive behaviours of high-status members may result in the fact that possible positive effects of steep status hierarchies on team performance may vanish.
19
introduced bias into survey results because both types presumably have differing effects on team performance. It is recommended to avoid relational conflicts (Jehn, 1995; Rispens, 2012) because relational conflicts limit the information processing of team members and extract time and energy which is actually devoted to working on the task (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Conversely, task conflicts should be enhanced because it increases divergent opinions about the task which ultimately may improve decision making quality and team performance (De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012; Rispens, 2012).
5.3 STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
A great strength of this research is the uniqueness of the sample, which was composed of 69 work teams in 40 organizations operating in many different sectors, all containing different sets of contingencies (such as nature of the task). The great variability in the work teams used, justifies generalization of the results to other work teams (Somechi, Desivilya & Lidogoster, 2009). Other great strengths are the high response rate (89%) and the fact that there is controlled for mean levels of status, since the amount of variability in scores must be taken into account to accurately present how well a person scored relative to the mean (Heneman, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
Additionally, the use of various sources of information (self-reports, peer-ratings and immediate supervisor) for the different variables included in the moderated-mediation model, enhanced the avoidance of problems such as inflated main effects resulting from common method variance. Team members for example find it difficult to accurately assess team performance (Breugst, Patzelt, Shepherd & Aguinis, 2012), hence the immediate supervisor is the source of information on team performance. Nevertheless, there is no data that this perceptual measure of team performance derived from the immediate supervisor, is the predictor of an objective measure of team performance (Somech et al., 2009).
At last, according to the prominent positive illusions perspective, people have a strong desire to view themselves positively, which can lead them to construct distorted, unrealistically positive self-perceptions on a variety of dimensions, including their status position in a status hierarchy (Chatman et al., 2006). In order to avoid such distortion effects in the status hierarchy steepness calculation, this research used peer-ratings rather than self-reports for assigning status levels to team members.
20
issues may appear concerning possible reversed causality (De Jong & Bruch, 2013). Also, a large number of the team member participants showed some resistance towards filling in the peer-ratings, because of various reasons such as that they did not want to differentiate among their colleagues, they were afraid that their responses could come to the attention of their colleagues or immediate supervisors or they thought it took too much of their time. All these reasons could have resulted in the fact that the peer-rating scores were not precise, which consequently could have affected the status hierarchy steepness calculation.
Furthermore, it is important to consider that the ratings on the study variables could have been driven by variables that were not directly assessed for, such as personality. For example team members that often end up in negative thoughts perceive in general more intra-team conflict or less status hierarchy legitimacy, than relatively more positive intra-team members do. It is important for future research to rule out this possibility by controlling for personality, or other variables that might result in a misinterpretation of the study variables.
Additionally, this research focused solely on work teams operating in the Netherlands, whereas it is possible that national cultures may affect to which degree status hierarchies are perceived as legitimate by team members. Culture has been defined as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of different societies (Hofstede, 1991). Two dimensions of national culture defined by Hofstede (1991) can be relevant to this research: individualism vs. collectivism and power distance. Power distance is the extent to which individuals of work teams or organizations in a country accept that power is distributed unequally (Tan, Kwok-Kee, Watson & Walczuch, 1998). In high-power-distance countries, it is more likely that steeper status hierarchies are seen as legitimate. The second dimension is a continuum, whereby in an individualistic country status influences are low and in a collectivistic country the status influences are high (Tan et al., 1998). It can be expected that the likelihood that team members question the legitimacy of status hierarchies is less in the more collectivistic countries. Future research is needed to see how culture affects perceptions of status hierarchy legitimacy.
21
and is seen as a key work team process that affects team performance (Bendersky & Hays, 2012).
A last suggestion for an interesting direction for future research is investigating the role of status hierarchy stability as an additional contingency mechanism on the indirect relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance. When a status hierarchy is seen as stable, the high-status members feel no threat to their positive social identity and at the same time the low-status members have few opportunities to question the stable status hierarchy (Caricati & Monacelli, 2012). Nevertheless, when a status hierarchy is unstable the high-status members may act unsocial to protect their threatened high-status position, whereas the low-status members may challenge the status hierarchy by engaging in intra-team conflict (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton & Hume, 2001).
5.4 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Practically, identifying the potential causes of poor team performance is of significance to work teams and their overarching organizations. By means of this identification, managers can take actions to ensure higher team performance. Despite the fact that this research could not confirm the existence of an indirect conditional relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance, managers should still take into account the legitimacy of status hierarchies when allowing for steep status hierarchies. Namely, some limitations may have influenced this research’s results, though past theorizing has strongly suggest that status hierarchies should be legitimate, to ascertain increased team performance as a result of steep status hierarchies (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Halevy et al., 2011; Peterson et al., 2003; Tyler, 2006). Therefore, if status hierarchies are perceived as legitimate by team members, managers should attempt to hold the status hierarchy steep to make sure that potential positive effects of status hierarchy steepness on team performance are actually exploited. On the other hand, when team members perceive the status hierarchy as illegitimate managers should try to make the status hierarchy less steep.
22
6. REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, CA: Thousand Oaks.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3): 321-341.
Anderson, C., Ames D. R., & Gosling, S. D. 2012. Punishing hubris: The perils of
overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1): 90-101.
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research
in Organizational Behaviour, 30: 55-89.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1): 116-132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2009. The pursuit of status in social groups. Journal of
Psychological Science, 18(5): 295-298.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. 2012. The importance of effective and efficient team work in an organization. Advances in Management, 5(3): 21-23.
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. 2012. Status conflicts in groups. Organization Science, 23(2): 323-340.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, P. N. 2013. The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(2): 387-406.
Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr. N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. 2001. Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 520–542.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. 1962. Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Brandt, M. J. 2013. Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
23
Breugst, N., Patzelt, H., Spepherd, D. A., & Aguinis, H. 2012. Relationship conflict improves team performance assessment accuracy: Evidence from a multilevel study. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 11(2): 187-206.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Caricati, L., & Monacelli, N. 2012. Intergroup biases of the intermediate-status group: The
effect of stability and instability of social stratification. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(6): 713-726.
Chatman, J. A., Anderson, C., Beer, J. S., Srivastava, S., & Spataro, S. E. 2006. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91(6): 1094-1110.
Cheng, G., Terry, D., & Hogg, M. 2006. Am I being treated fairly by my leader? The roles of group identification and self-other comparisons in judgements of procedural justice. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58: 22.
Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. 2010. Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5): 920-934.
De Dreu, C. K. W. 2007. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(3) 628-638.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4): 741-749.
De Jong, S. B., & Bruch, H. 2013. The importance of a homogeneous transformational leadership climate for organizational performance. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(1): 1-18.
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 360-390.
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. 1999. Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective?
Group dynamics: Theory, research and practice, 3(4): 291-302.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high- velocity environment: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 739-770.
Ellis, L. 1994. Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality, Vol. 2: Reproductive and
interpersonal aspects of dominance and status. Westport, CT: Praeger.
24
Psychologist, 48: 621–628.
Fragale, A. R. 2006. The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 101(2): 243-261.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2006. Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17: 1068–1074.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Power and the
objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1): 111-127.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational
Psychology Review, 1: 32.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199-1228.
Heneman, H. G., Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2012. Staffing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw- Hill.
Huang, C-C. 2009. Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11): 786-797.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intra-group conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational
Behaviour, 25: 187-243.
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 256-282.
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): 881-919.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. 1992. Why teams matter. McKinsey Quarterly, (3): 3-27. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
25
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3): 77-124.
Kraut, R., Fussell, S., Lerch, F., & Espinosa, A. 2005. Coordination in teams: Evidence from a simulated management game. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, 8(2): 66-78. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Chapter 8: Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing
nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 351-398. Mazur, A. 1985. A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces,
64: 377–402.
Peterson, R. S., Martorana, P. V., Smith, D. B., & Owens, P. D. 2003. The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 795.
Pearce, J. L. 2001. Less epistemology; more government and social status. Human Relations, 54(1): 85-89.
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. 2014. Status in organization and management theory. Journal of
Management, 40(1): 287-315.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 42(1): 185-227.
Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. 2005. Status and stratification processes in organizational life.
Journal of Management, 31(6): 966-987.
Rispens, S. 2012. The influence of conflict issue importance on the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61(3): 349-367.
Shah, P., & Jehn, K. 1993. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2: 149-166.
Sharma, M., & Ghosh, A. 2007. Does team size matter? A study of the impact of team size on the transactive memory system and performance of IT sector teams. South Asian
Journal of Management, 14(4): 96-115.
26
Organizational Behaviour, 30: 359-378.
Tan, B. C. Y., Kwok-Kee, W., Watson, R. T., & Walczuch, R. M. 1998. Reducing status effects with computer-mediated communication: Evidence from two distinct national cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1): 119-141.
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. 2013. When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(5): 1465-1486.
Tyler, T. R. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review
of Psychology, 57(1): 375-400.
Van der Kam, N. A., Janssen, O., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Stoker, J. I. 2013. The role of vertical conflict in the relationship between leader self-enhancement and leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 267-281
