• No results found

A FIELD STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS DISTANCE AND HELPING : A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A FIELD STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS DISTANCE AND HELPING : A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL"

Copied!
41
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

S TATUS DISTANCE : UBIQUITOUS AND HIGHLY CONSEQUENTIAL

A FIELD STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS DISTANCE AND HELPING : A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 21, 2012

A NDRÉ VAN T OLY

Student number: 1999117 Het Hout 127 9723 LB Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-29108273 E-mail: a.h.van.toly@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

Drs. Y. Cantimur

(2)

2

S TATUS DISTANCE : UBIQUITOUS AND HIGHLY CONSEQUENTIAL

A FIELD STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS DISTANCE AND HELPING : A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

ABSTRACT

In this paper, a relationship between status distance – differences among individual team members in their level of influence, prominence, and respect – and helping behavior is tried to be found. Previous research relevant to this relationship is reviewed. The review finds that the effects of status distance on team functioning, processes and outcomes are mixed. In some cases status distance is found to have positive effects, sometimes negative effects are found. The relationship is therefore tested through three hypotheses, while mediated by intrateam conflict and moderated by psychological safety. Data were collected from 71 teams from 62 German and Dutch organizations. There was no moderated mediation of psychological safety found. Neither for intrateam conflict, nor for helping behavior. The proposed moderated mediation model did not hold. The results are discussed in light of the theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: Status; teams; status distance; psychological safety; intrateam conflict; helping behavior.

Word count: 11.949

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

The emphasis on status shifts away from individual and interteam status towards intrateam status. Correspondingly, research on teams has increased (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Therefore, it is important to consider the effects of status on the functioning of teams.

Status is defined as the amount of influence, prominence, and respect each team member enjoys in the eyes of others (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). People can differ in the amount of status. When one or a few individuals possess high status and others have low status within a team, there exists a larger status distance among these team members. Status differences are omnipresent in human groups and emerge spontaneously from social interactions (Anderson &

Kilduff, 2009b; Ridgeway, 1987). This is interesting as the level of status distance affects team processes and team functioning. Research is not unambiguous in whether the effects of status distance are positive or negative. A larger status distance might have negative effects on relationships between individuals. These negative effects can manifest themselves in team processes or team performance. The allocation of status can shape directions and magnitude of influence and control in teams such that it decreases team satisfaction and team performance (Cohen & Zhou, 1991; Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008). Other research shows that larger status distance has potential value as it may facilitate the survival and success of teams (Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky, 2011). Due to the mixed findings on the effects of status distance, it is noted here that status distance does not necessarily need to be a problem, as the mere existence of differences in status might not be detrimental to team performance. Status distance may become a problem when team members do not feel psychologically safe (Edmondson, 1999). In a psychologically safe working environment, team members feel safe to take risks and open productive discussions take place (Edmondson, 1999), which in turn will enhance team performance.

Teams can be hotbeds of conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). While teams become more central to organizations (e.g., many organizations shift towards team-based structures), problems of coordination, cooperation and conflict management rise (Boyett & Conn, 1991;

Chattopadhyay, Finn, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Gladstein, 1984; Jehn, 1995). Therefore, intrateam

conflict plays a large role in the relationship between status distance and helping behavior. With

organizations making more use of cooperative work practices (Ten Brummelhuis, Van der

Lippe, & Kluwer, 2010) helping behavior at work becomes increasingly important. Research has

shown that higher levels of helping behavior are found when the working climate in a team is

good (Burger, Messain, Patel, Del Prado, & Anderson, 2004; Sleebos, Ellemers, & De Gilder,

(4)

4

2007). Higher levels of helping behavior can possibly be found, even when one or few team members are more influential, prominent and respected than others (Anderson & Brown, 2010;

Halevy et al., 2011; Tyler, 2006). Key to a good working climate are low levels of intrateam conflict and a feeling of psychological safety among team members (Choi, 2006; Edmondson, 2003). “The relationship between status inequality and outcomes within teams is complex”

(Christie & Barling, 2010: 929). Thus, research is needed on the variables under consideration.

The level of status distance affects team processes and team functioning (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Magee & Galinsky, 2008) and it is therefore posed that status distance possibly affects the level of intrateam conflict and helping behavior which are closely related to how effective a team functions (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This thesis investigates the effects of status distance and psychological safety on intrateam conflict and helping behavior.

This research intends to yield both scientific and practical implications. A scientific contribution lies in the fact that while there are mixed findings of status distance on team processes and team functioning (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011; Magee &

Galinsky, 2008), a moderating variable is needed for better understanding. By suggesting psychological safety as a moderator, it is tried to reconcile the divergent views on the effects of status distance on team processes and outcomes. Furthermore, the research contributes scientifically to the investigation of how status distance influences team processes in general and how it influences intrateam conflict and helping behavior specifically. The moderating role of psychological safety on these processes is also explored. Status distance and more specific intrateam status distance receive increasing attention, as status distance is a rather new concept that needs additional research (Christie & Barling, 2010). While much attention is paid to the effects of status distance on team performance (cf. Anderson & Brown, 2010), and there are many theories about the effects of status distance on team processes (Anderson & Brown, 2010;

Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Halevy et al., 2011; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995), not much evidence is provided. This research contributes scientifically by providing evidence on the effects of status distance on team processes. Up to now, research has focused mainly on the antecedents and consequences of status (cf. Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980;

Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), this research investigates differences in status within

teams. The within-team status configuration is at the core of this paper, as there is looked at the

status structures of teams. The practical contributions are clear as well. First, when psychological

safety is low, managers can change the status structure by lowering status distance. When

psychological safety among team members is high, the status distance among team members can

be larger. Second, when there is a large status distance, managers need to make sure that team

(5)

5

members dare to take risks and not feel embarrassed, rejected or punished when they speak up, through creating a psychologically safe working environment. Finally, unresolved conflicts within teams and a low level of experienced psychological safety in the past can have negative future effects on helping behavior (Blakar, 1984; Carron et al., 2003; Desiviliya & Eizen, 2005).

Research on this phenomenon and the possible influence of managers on creating psychologically safe environments can be of great value to organizations (Klaver, 2008).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Status distance, psychological safety, and intrateam conflict

Status is defined by many authors. Anderson et al. (2001) define status as the amount of influence, prominence, and respect one enjoys in the eyes of others. Status also concerns the possession over and allocation of resources and responsibilities (Blieszner & Adams, 1992;

Anderson & Brown, 2010; French & Raven, 1959). Status fulfils a number of important roles within teams, especially when individual team members differ in status. High-status individuals can control team interactions and give verbal assignments to team members, while low-status individuals can exert less influence, are expected to obey the orders given and need to keep their opinions to themselves (Berger et al., 1980; Goffman, 1967; Keltner et al., 2003). Benefits of being in a high-status position include higher compensation, having greater influence and valuable exchange partners, having access to information and resources contributing to individuals’ performance, and receiving more positive evaluations than those with low status (Belliveau, O’Reilly, & Wade, 1996; Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Bendersky & Shah, 2010;

Berger et al., 1980; Foschi, 2000; Friedkin, 1999; Thye, 2000). It can be beneficial to attain a higher status level than others within a team. Within-team status difference, or status distance, is an interesting phenomenon. Most definitions of status distance hold aspects in it such as

“differences between persons with regard to status”, and “inequality with respect to the status people hold” (Blau, 1977; Christie & Barling, 2010; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Status distance is also called status inequality (e.g., Bottero & Prandy, 2003; Prandy, 1999; Remøe, 1982), status difference (e.g., Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Bobo & Zubrinsky, 1996; Vorauer &

Sakomoto; 2008), status dispersion (e.g., Greer & Van Kleef, 2010) or steepness of a hierarchy

(e.g., Anderson & Brown, 2010). These concepts are all treated here as status distance – the

situation in which status is concentrated in one, or only few people and not in others. When two

individuals are exactly the same in status, there is zero status distance. In case there is a large

status distance within a team, the actors with higher status possess more resources (Ellis, 1994)

(6)

6

and enjoy higher levels of influence, prominence, and respect than actors with lower status (Anderson, Beer, Srivastava, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Keltner et al., 2003).

Research has shown mixed effects of status distance on team processes (Anderson &

Brown, 2010; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Tarakci & Groenen, 2011). Large status distance can facilitate team survival and team success whereas it possibly creates a psychologically rewarding environment, it may support coordination, and it can reduce conflict and therefore might enhance voluntary cooperation (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011; Sondak & Bazerman, 1991). Furthermore, a larger status distance facilitates clear division of labor in which team members know each others’ responsibilities, thereby supporting smooth and efficient interactions, preventing intrateam conflict and facilitating conflict resolution (Magee &

Galinsky, 2008; Sondak & Bazerman, 1991). A negative effect of a low status distance is that teams can experience inefficient decision making due to the fact that too many team members want to have a say in the decision making process (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Berger et al., 1980). This occurs when too many team members strive to enhance their status positions. In contrast, large status distance can have a negative effect on the quality of relationships among team members. Due to the fact that status shapes interpersonal interactions, (Byrne, 1971;

Ridgeway & Walker, 1995) large status distance is ought to be an obstacle for developing high- quality relationships (Blau, 1977; Kalmijn, 1991; Lincoln & Miller, 1979; McPherson & Smith- Lovin, 1987; Wuthnow, 2003). Larger status distances produce a competitive environment due to the fact that team members compete for salary, voice, promotion, and recognition (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011). Large status distances might also impair conflict resolution (Mannix, 1993; Wolfe & McGinn, 2005) due to feelings of inequality and injustice among team members (Henderson & Frederickson, 2001; Lawler & Proell, 2009). Finally, research has shown that larger status distance within a team increases the team members’ motivation to achieve higher status while the disparity in resources becomes more salient when status distance increases (Christie & Barling, 2010). When team members strive for higher levels of status, the emphasis is placed on individual advancement, “often irrespective of collective interests”, which possibly leads to higher levels of intrateam conflict (Christie & Barling, 2010: 921).

The existence of teams can thus be conducive to conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Some researchers even go as far as stating that conflict is inevitable in teams (e.g., Jehn, 1995).

Intrateam conflict is defined as a disagreement about issues, or a difference in opinion about the

best way to perform, which results from incompatible goals and interests (Amason & Sapienza,

1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Conflict within teams is also defined as the

awareness by employees that discrepancies, incompatible wishes or desires exist among them

(7)

7

(Boulding, 1963). Conflict is often categorized in three distinct types: relationship, task, and process conflict. This categorization lies beyond the scope of this research; intrateam conflict will therefore be treated as a general construct. As stated, asymmetric status relationships (i.e., large status differences between team members) lead to lower-quality relationships (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009). Lower-quality relationships within teams report higher levels of conflict (Druskat & Wolff, 1999). Especially when there is a large status distance and individuals within the team feel that psychological safety is low, levels of conflict are expected to increase.

This might become a problem, as research has shown that conflict within teams is often detrimental for performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012).

As research does not show a clear, unidirectional effect of status distance on team processes, it is theorized that status distance may not be a problem in itself. The mere existence of status distance does not necessarily have large negative implications (e.g., increased intrateam conflict). It might, however, influence relations and the level of conflict among team members when team members do not feel psychologically safe. Psychological safety is defined as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (Edmondson, 1999: 354).

Interpersonal risk taking is the “sense of confidence that others will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up” (Edmondson, 1999: 354). This clearly indicates that psychological safety has to do with the environment and context people are in and that trust is a part of psychological safety; but psychological safety goes beyond trust, also including a

“comfortable environment” (Edmondson, 2003: 241). The definition Kahn (1990: 708) gives of psychological safety also emphasizes this environment in which it is accepted and possible “to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences”. Psychological safety is a requisite for individuals to feel secure (Schein & Bennis, 1965). Nevertheless, this safe and comfortable environment does not imply that team members are necessarily close friends, nor does it imply that there are no problems or that there is no pressure (Edmondson, 2003). Rather, as team members feel that they do not have to protect themselves, but can speak openly, “it describes a climate in which the focus lies on productive discussion, enabling early prevention of problems and accomplishment of shared goals” (Edmondson, 2003: 242). In a climate in which team members feel psychologically safe, there seems to be no or little room for intrateam conflict as concerns are expressed and people who make mistakes are not punished by others, but helped in preventing it to happen again.

Research has shown that psychological safety leads to open and productive

communication (Edmondson, 1999; 2003), which in turn leads to higher levels of conflict

resolution or even prevents the existence of unsatisfied team members (Simons & Peterson,

(8)

8

2000). High-status individuals are influential and prominent team members, compared to low- status team members (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Due to higher levels of psychological safety, low-status team members are expected to engage in open communication with both high- and low-status team members through which team members’ perceived feelings of inequality and injustice will decrease (Halevy et al., 2011). The strive for status in teams with large status distance is expected to decrease when team members feel psychologically safe as in a psychologically safe environment, team members do not need resources or prominence before they are given voice and allowed to speak up (Edmondson, 1999; Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012).

Therefore, when there is a psychologically safe working environment, and team members feel safe enough to express their concerns and take risks, fewer conflicts are expected within the team, even when a large status distance exists (Christie & Barling, 2010). The following hypothesis is posed:

Hypothesis 1: Psychological safety moderates the relationship between status distance and intrateam conflict, such that status distance is more negatively related to intrateam conflict when psychological safety is higher.

Status distance, psychological safety, and helping behavior

Increasingly, organizations work with collective goals for several individual organizational members. This requires information and idea sharing, the integration of perspectives and the coordination of tasks (Edmondson, 2003). In achieving these collective goals, collaboration and cooperation are essential (Chattopadhyay et al., 2010). Research has shown that higher status team members receive more helping than those with lower status (Ellis, 1994). Helping behavior consists of collectively eliminating workload distribution problems through sharing the workload in order to get the work done (Choi, 2009; Ilgen et al., 2005; Porter, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Ellis, &

West, 2003). In previous research, helping behavior is described as either proactive or reactive

(Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009), based upon a lack of ability or a lack of effort (LePine,

Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Colquitt, & Ellis, 2002) and resulting from an explicit or implicit request for

help (Bierhoff, 2002; Guégen, Martin, & Meineri, 2011). Status distance can have various effects

on helping behavior. Low-status individuals exhibit less helping behavior when status distance

increases (Caverley, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2007). Other researchers have also shown a

negative relationship between the two variables. It is found that when there exists a large status

distance, team members feel more detached from each other, which will lead to lower levels of

helping behavior (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). People are more likely to work

(9)

9

together with those equal in status (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Research also shows that helping behavior positively affects other team members and team performance (Flynn, 2006;

Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). It is found that differences in status may be seen as contributing to both outcome and procedural fairness (Halevy et al., 2011), which in turn promotes voluntary cooperation (Tyler, 2006). It is suggested that in steep, well established hierarchies (e.g., large status distance) higher levels of helping behavior among team members are found than in teams in the opposite fashion (Chattopadhyay et al., 2010). When there exists a large status distance within a team, the low- status individuals possibly cooperate with the higher-status team members, as this might serve their own interests whereas the latter possesses influence and resources the low-status team members desire and employing non-cooperative behavior will not lead to these resources (Gruenfeld & Tiedens, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011).

From this it can be derived that status distance and helping behavior affect each other, although the direction and causality between the two variables might still considered to be unclear. Status shapes interpersonal interactions and large distance in status among team members is found to be an obstacle for developing high-quality relationships. Due to the existence of status distances in virtually all teams, this might lead to problems concerning the helping behavior among team members. Despite the fact that a larger status distance was shown to lead to less helping behavior due to the fact that team members feel more detached from each other (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989), it is expected that in a team with large status distance among team members, higher levels of helping behavior are found when psychological safety is higher as research has already shown this effect among students who worked together (Strange & Banning, 2001). Sharing knowledge, workload and accomplishing shared goals (Edmondson, 2003), as well as asking questions or seeking help are expected to occur when team members are in a comfortable context. Through psychological safety, team members will be transparent, trusting, honest, and open towards each other and their high-status team members (Eggers, 2011). Furthermore, higher levels of psychological safety create a feeling of inclusion (Foldy, Rivard, & Buckley, 2009). Therefore, even in a situation with large status distance among team members, collective workload sharing is expected to happen when team members feel psychologically safe. Psychological safety also decreases concerns about being viewed as incompetent when asking for feedback and assistance on the job (Eggers, 2011).

Hence, in case psychological safety is high, team members are expected to be more willing to

(10)

10

ask each other for help and help each other in achieving collective goals despite a larger status distance, compared to the situation in which psychological safety is low.

It is thus important for organizations to create a supportive working environment, in which individuals feel safe to take risks and team members can employ themselves while they do not fear negative consequences as in such a psychologically safe working environment helping behavior is likely to increase (Klaver, 2008). Hence, the second hypothesis reads as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Psychological safety moderates the relationship between status distance and helping behavior, such that status distance is more positively related to helping behavior when psychological safety is higher.

The mediating role of intrateam conflict in the relationship between status distance, psychological safety, and helping behavior

The final part of this research investigates the mediating role of intrateam conflict on the interaction of status distance and psychological safety and helping behavior. The necessity for low-status individuals to comply with demands of high-status individuals increases as the likelihood of sanctions increases in a team with larger status distance (Halevy et al., 2011).

Therefore, larger status distance might motivate, or force, low-status team members to show

more cooperative behavior in the short term, but with the risk of increasing dissatisfaction among

team members, possibly leading to intrateam conflict and lower levels of helping behavior in the

long run. Successful team action almost always requires cooperation (Halevy et al., 2011). Thus,

team members operating in a larger status distance are expected not to show higher levels of

helping behavior due to higher levels of intrateam conflict. Intrateam conflict potentially harms

team processes, such as cooperation, as well as performance outcomes, such as goal

accomplishment (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Langfred, 2007; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). Team

members often hold past and future relationships with other team members in mind when

evaluating current team membership (Jetten, Branscombe, Spears, & McKimmie, 2003). This

suggests that unresolved conflicts within the team negatively affects concern for others and sorts

negative effects on the future willingness of team members to help others (Blakar, 1984; Carron

et al., 2003; Desiviliya & Eizen, 2005). Other research shows that conflict within teams can lead

to ineffective teamwork and other negative outcomes when the conflicts are poorly managed

(Barki & Hartwick, 2001; McGrath, 1991; Robey, Smith, & Vijayasarathy, 1993). Several

researchers have reported higher levels of mental and physical withdrawal from the job as a

result of conflicts within teams (Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Medina, Munduate, Dorado,

(11)

11

Martínez, & Guerra, 2005; Surra & Longstreeth, 1990). Withdrawal from the job reduces helping behavior. This suggests that organizations must make sure that intrateam conflict is actively managed to create a supportive working environment in which team members feel psychologically safe. It is shown that when there is less intrateam conflict, there is more helping behavior (Carron et al., 2003; Desiviliya & Eizen, 2005). Furthermore, it is suggested that low levels of intrateam conflict lead to a healthy disagreement in which team members create an environment that enhances team innovation and cooperative problem-solving (Gobeli, Koenig, &

Bechinger, 1998). Low levels of conflict are considered to be good as they encourage debate and discussion over divergent ideas, issues, and important decisions (Johnson, 2008). The key to maintain and exploit this low level of conflict is a psychologically safe context in which open energetic discussions can take place to exchange ideas (Johnson, 2008; Kahn, 1990). In addition, higher levels of psychological safety are desired whereas the increased possibility of sanctions due to larger status distances among team members leads to lower levels of helping behavior (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Halevy et al., 2011). Team members must be made more willing to take risks and communicate openly, without the fear of negative consequences (e.g., being punished, embarrassed, or rejected by their team members). The following hypothesis results:

Hypothesis 3: Intrateam conflict mediates the relationship between the interaction of status distance and psychological safety and helping behavior

The conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual model of the relationship between status distance, psychological safety, intrateam conflict and helping behavior

Intrateam conflict

Status distance Helping behavior

Psychological safety

(12)

12

METHOD Participants

The sample comprised 71 teams from 62 German and Dutch organizations, which in total amounted to 433 individuals. The non-governmental and governmental organizations operated in different industries and were located in different regions in Germany and the Netherlands. A team is defined as composed of more than two individuals, existing to perform tasks relevant to the organization, conducting interdependent tasks, socially interacting and sharing responsibility and accountability for collective common goals (Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major, &

Phillips, 1995; Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski & Bell, 2001) The average team contained 6.69 employees (s.d. = 2.17), with a minimum of 5 team members and a maximum of 12 team members, including the team leaders. Overall, of the 475 individuals who were asked to participate, 433 agreed to participate. The response rate was 91%.

There was no large distinction in the number of females (55%) and males participating.

Most participants were well educated at or above the higher vocational educational level (65.6%). The participants averaged 38.85 years of age (s.d. = 11.71), ranging from 17 to 62 years old. The organizational tenure was 10.08 years (s.d. = 9.17). Team tenure was 4.93 years (s.d. = 5.40).

Design

The research was conducted on the team level. Students from the pre-master Human Resource Management 2010-2011 conducted the surveys for the course “Research Paper for Pre-MSc Human Resource Management”.

After having agreed to participate, each team member was instructed about the procedure of the study. Team members, blind to the purposes of the research, were asked to fill out two structured questionnaires concerning team functioning, the functioning of individual team members, including themselves, and the functioning of the team leader. The team leaders were asked to fill out one questionnaire on the performance of the team members. The team leaders’

questionnaire and the first questionnaire from the team members were filled out in the first

meeting with the researcher. The researcher collected the first questionnaires in closed envelopes

to guarantee anonymity, after which the second questionnaires were handed out in envelopes to

the team members. Each individual was assigned a unique code, which was only known by the

researcher, to enable a match between the first and second questionnaires. The researcher

returned after seven to ten days to collect the second questionnaires. A short introductory text on

(13)

13

each questionnaire explicitly stated that the confidentiality of the participants’ and their responses was guaranteed and that their names and the corresponding unique codes were only used to link their responses from the two different questionnaires. The respondents were not rewarded for their participation and participated voluntarily. The measures in the questionnaires were translated to Dutch, using a double-blind back-translation procedure. Only the Dutch version of the questionnaire was offered to the participants.

Measures

Status distance. In order to measure status distance, I first needed to measure the status of each individual team member. Therefore, I have used a round-robin (peer-rating) design. Each individual team member rated and was rated by all team members. This design prevented the outcomes to be affected by common method variance. The team members also indicated their own (perceived) level of status according to the definition of Anderson et al., (2001). The item measured was: “To what extent is this person / are the following team members influential, prominent, and respected within the team?” (see appendix A). A 7-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932) was used, anchored by 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “to a great extent”. These ratings were equally weighted and averaged to form an overall single measure of the specific status level within the team. The validity and reliability of the Likert scales have been demonstrated in previous studies (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2002).

I have operationalized status distance as the within-team standard deviation of the team members’ level of status (cf. Chan, 2008). Research has shown that when looking at the interaction of dispersion, standard deviation is the best measure to be used (Roberson, Sturman,

& Simons, 2007). Through using the standard deviation of all individual members averaged status scores within the same team, I could derive the level of status distance (Aiken & West, 1991). Higher values of standard deviation indicated larger status distance.

Psychological safety. Psychological safety was measured with 7 items developed by Edmondson (1999), of which three items were reverse-coded. Items were measured on a response scale ranging from 1 (= “completely disagree”) to 7 (= “completely agree”), see appendix B. Two sample items used were: “People on this team sometimes reject others for being different” and “It is safe to take a risk in this team”. As a final step, all items were averaged and aggregated to the team level. The items demonstrated a reliable representation of psychological safety, Cronbach’s alpha was .750.

Intrateam conflict. Intrateam conflict was measured through nine items by the existing

Intragroup Conflict Scale of Jehn (1995) and the process conflict items from Shah and Jehn

(14)

14

(1993). The scale ranged from 1 (= “never”) to 7 (= “always”). For specific items, see appendix C. Two sample items were: “To what extent are personality conflicts evident in your work group?” and “How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your work group?”. All items were averaged and then aggregated to the team level. The items were reliable with a demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha for intrateam conflict of .897.

Helping behavior. Helping behavior was measured through six items on a seven-point response scale (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002), anchored by 1 = “never” and 7 = “always” (see appendix D). Two sample items used were: “To what extent do you assist co-workers with heavy workloads?” and “To what extent do you help co-workers with work when they have been absent?”. This variable is also averaged and then aggregated to the team level. The Cronbach’s alpha was .854.

Control variables. Three control variables were used: mean status, team tenure and team size. Status distance is measured through the dispersion of the standard deviation of status.

According to Harrison and Klein (2007) it is important to first statistically control for the within- team mean of an attribute in testing a relationship between separation or disparity of this attribute and other variables. Therefore, I have controlled for the mean status level in the teams. It is shown that team tenure influences status and status distance among team members as team members with higher tenure often possess or have greater opportunities to attain higher levels of influence, prominence and respect compared to individuals with lower tenure (Anderson et al., 2001; Christie & Barling, 2010). In addition, team tenure is likely to increase social power of individuals (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001) and is therefore considered a “marker of status”

(Christie & Barling, 2010: 923). Finally, it is imaginable that team size affected the outcomes of the research, as research has shown relationships between team size and the willingness of team members to contribute to a team task (Alnuaimi, Robert, & Maruping, 2010) and between team size and team performance (Sharma & Ghosh, 2007). Due to the possible influence of these variables, it was important to check whether these control variables affected the results of the study.

RESULTS Data analysis

The hypotheses were tested in two steps. First, the two moderation models as posed in

hypotheses 1 and 2 were examined. Hypothesis 1 predicted that psychological safety moderated

the relationship between status distance and intrateam conflict, such that status distance would be

(15)

15

more negatively related to intrateam conflict when psychological safety was higher. The second hypothesis theorized that status distance and helping behavior would be more positively related when moderated by psychological safety. All predictor variables were standardized prior to the analyses (Aiken & West, 1991). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested through a regression analysis, using the SPSS computer package.

Second, assuming that hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported, the proposed mediator variable of intrateam conflict was integrated into the relation of hypothesis 2 to analyze the overall moderated mediation (hypothesis 3). Hypothesis 3 concerned a moderated mediation between status distance and helping behavior. To test this hypothesis, the MODMED SPSS macro Version 2.0, Model 2 was used (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). This macro provides a method for investigating the significance of moderated mediation at different levels of psychological safety. Coefficients were estimated using standardized variables. Helping behavior was regressed on status distance, intrateam conflict, psychological safety and the interaction between status distance and psychological safety. Subsequently, bias-corrected bootstrapping was applied (2,000 bootstrap samples) as it produces more accurate confidence intervals (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). 1

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables. Status distance, psychological safety and intrateam conflict were standardized. Psychological safety was significantly correlated with intrateam conflict (r = -.59), see Table 1. Team tenure (r = .13), psychological safety (r = .50), and intrateam conflict (r = -.55) were all significantly correlated with helping behavior.

Hypothesis testing

In order to test the hypotheses, status distance was first regressed on intrateam conflict in which psychological safety was added as a moderator. Second, status distance was regressed on helping behavior, again moderated by psychological safety. Finally, the analysis on the conditional indirect effect was conducted (Preacher et al., 2007). All variables in the interaction were standardized (Aiken & West, 1996). The moderated mediation analysis tested the conditional indirect effect of status distance on intrateam conflict and helping behavior at certain levels of psychological safety (-1 standard deviation, mean, and +1 standard deviation). In this step,

1

Full details of the data-collection and analysis methods used can be obtained by emailing the author.

(16)

16

bootstrapping was used (sample size 2,000). The results on hypothesis 1 show a very small, nonsignificant positive interaction between intrateam conflict and psychological safety (B = .02, ns.), see Table 2, implying that the relation between status distance and intrateam conflict is not moderated by psychological safety. Hypothesis 1 thus is rejected. The interactive relationship of status distance and psychological safety with intrateam conflict is shown in Figure 2.

TABLE 1

Means (M), Standard deviations (s.d.) and Correlations for all study Variables

Variable M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Team size 6.69 2.17 -

2. Team tenure 10.08 9.17 .22 -

3. Mean status 4.75 .87 -.06 -.02 -

4. Status distance .72 .32 .00 -.08 -.40 ** -

5. Psychological safety 5.29 .83 -.16 -.41 .32 -.01 -

6. Intrateam conflict 2.87 .94 -.11 -.01 -.20 -.03 -.59 ** - 7. Helping behavior 5.49 .77 .03 .13 ** .31 -.05 .50 ** -.55 **

N = 71.

* p < .05

** p < .01

FIGURE 2

Interactive Relationship of Status Distance and Psychological Safety with

Intrateam Conflict

(17)

17

As shown in Table 2, the results of the analysis on hypothesis 2 (B = .02, ns.) indicate that this relationship also is slightly positive (see Figure 3), but not significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2 also needs to be rejected.

The final hypothesis investigates the moderated mediation relationship. It poses that intrateam conflict mediates the relationship between the interaction of status distance and psychological safety and helping behavior.

TABLE 2

Regression Analyses Results and Conditional Indirect Relationships Intrateam conflict Helping behavior Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2

B SE B SE B SE

Controls

Team size -.09 .06 .03 .05 .01 .05

Team tenure -.16 .06 .17 ** .05 .13 ** .05

Mean status .00 .06 .07 .05 .07 .05

Main effects

Status distance -.03 .06 .02 .05 .01 .05

Psychological safety -.41 ** .06 .27 ** .05 .19 ** .06

Two-way interactions

Status distance x Psychological

safety .02 .05 .02 .04 .03 .04

Intrateam conflict -.24 ** .04 -.12 * .06

ΔR 2 .68 .63 .66

R 2 (Adjusted R 2 ) .46 (.41) .40 (.35) .44 (.38)

Conditional indirect relationship

Moderator Value 95 % Confidence Interval (BCA) p-value

-1 s.d. -.123, .064 .55

M -.079, .054 .74

+1 s.d. -.035, .043 .93

Note. N = 71. Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented. Bootstrap sample size = 2,000.

BCA = Bias Corrected and Accelerated.

* p < .05

** p < .01

(18)

18

FIGURE 3

Interactive Relationship of Status Distance and Psychological Safety with Helping Behavior

The moderated mediation analysis shows that the indirect effect of status distance on helping behavior was not significant (B = .01, ns.) regardless of the level of psychological safety.

Bootstrapped moderated mediation was provided by the SPSS macro by Preacher et al. (2007) at different values of the moderator (-1 s.d., M, and +1 s.d.). Results show that the conditional indirect effect was not significant for any value of the moderator as the bootstrap results contained zero (see Table 2). Hence, no support for hypothesis 3 was found. Hypothesis 3 is thus also rejected.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION Findings

Using a pre-existing dataset, the effects of the variables under study in 71 teams in 62 German and Dutch organizations were examined to find a relationship between status distance and helping behavior. To provide a clearly interpretable interaction term, it would have been desirable that the results had shown that psychological safety did not correlate with both the independent and the dependent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Psychological safety correlated with the dependent variable of all hypotheses, but not with the independent variable.

Psychological safety was theorized to moderate the relationship between status distance and

intrateam conflict, such that there exists less intrateam conflict when psychological safety is

higher (hypothesis 1). Psychological safety was also expected to moderate the relationship

(19)

19

between status distance and helping behavior, such that status distance is more positively related to helping behavior when psychological safety is higher (hypothesis 2). The results are unexpected. The tests of hypotheses 1 and 2 were nonsignificant and the hypotheses were thus rejected. Therefore, the final hypothesis also needs to be rejected, as the final hypothesis is based upon the interaction investigated in hypotheses 1 and 2. The third hypothesis theorized that intrateam conflict mediates the relationship between the interaction of status distance and psychological safety and helping behavior. The conditional indirect effect test for the final hypothesis was conducted and the outcomes confirmed the assumption; the results were not significant.

The results indicate that there is no proof of the hypothesized relationship between status distance and helping behavior. The outcomes may strengthen the argument in this paper that status distance is shown to have mixed effects (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011).

In contrast to the hypothesized negative effects of status distance, more evidence is found on the mixed effects of status distance within teams, confirming the vagueness on the relationship between status distance and team processes and team functioning.

In some cases, a larger status distance enhances team success, in other cases it leads to failures. A helpful conclusion drawn in previous research is that different social structures have different effects on successes of teams, depending on a host of factors (Anderson & Brown, 2010). With this, researchers argue in favor of contingency theories of organizations (cf.

Anderson & Brown, 2010). It therefore seems to be important to take environmental and contextual factors in mind before explaining the effects of status distance on team processes.

Research, for instance, suggests that larger status distance can reduce or even prevent conflict (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), whereas other research shows that larger status distance might lead to lower quality relationships, which in the end might lead to higher levels of intrateam conflict (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). The same holds for the influence of status distance on helping behavior; status distance is found to be conducive to helping behavior (Halevy et al., 2011), but also negative relations have been shown (Caverley, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2007). This contextual dependency can be explained; as teams and organizations are contexts in which mixed motives play a role and individuals are motivated to fend for themselves, as well as for team success (Thompson, 1990).

The expected effects of psychological safety failed to occur, which might lead to the

conclusion that Edmondson (1999) ascribes too much strength to this variable. The usefulness of

the construct is not at issue, but the statement that collective intrateam processes are highly

dependent on psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) does not find evidence in all team

(20)

20

processes. An explanation of the absence of the expected effects of psychological safety may lie in its central ties to learning behavior, instead of other team processes (Edmondson, 2003).

Organizations increasingly move away from standard formal hierarchical designs, towards flatter (Daft & Lewin, 1993), and more team-based structures (Ilgen et al., 2005) even crossing the boundaries of their own organization (Kerber & Buono, 2004). Due to this development, the importance of informal networks increases (Tarakci & Groenen, 2011). This flattening of structures and use of (virtual) teams (cf. Kerber & Buono, 2004) decrease the apparent large status distances among organizational members and team members. Team members cooperate more on an equal level (Siggelkow & Rivkin, 2005). Due to the fact that this development occurs in the Netherlands, it is possible that the status distance within the teams under investigation might not have been large enough to show the posed effects.

Scientific contributions

The research has shown how status distance influences team processes in general and how it influences intrateam conflict and helping behavior specifically. The moderating role of psychological safety on these processes was also explored. With this, a direction for future research into the investigation of status distance in organizations is provided.

As much attention was directed towards the effects of status distance on team outcomes in past research (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Halevy et al., 2011;

Ridgeway & Walker, 1995), this research intended to show scientific evidence of the effects of status distance on team processes. Unfortunately, the posed relationships did not hold and therefore it is not possible to provide the evidence that was aimed for.

Building upon previous research on status and status distance, it is shown that status distance explains both positive and negative effects on team processes and team functioning (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Therefore, psychological safety was suggested as a moderating variable to reconcile the divergent views.

Due to the nonsignificant results of this study, the findings on the direction and strength of the effects of status distance on team processes and outcomes remain mixed.

Research has mainly focused on the antecedents and consequences of status (cf.

Bendersky & Hays, 2010; Berger et al., 1980; Keltner et al., 2003), while this research

investigated the structure of status within teams. The study scientifically contributes as the

within-team status configuration was at the core of this paper.

(21)

21

Strengths and limitations

Considering the fact that the research sample comprises 71 teams in 62 organizations across Germany and the Netherlands, operating in all kinds of sectors, with a total of 433 different individual participants, there is a very high generalizability of the results. Variability among teams was high. Therefore, generalizing across organizations, industries, jobs and different situations is possible, using the outcomes of this study. The large variety of participants also made it possible to take confounders such as the mean status, team tenure and team size into account and use them as reliable control variables.

Given that acknowledged scales were used to measure the mediator, moderator and dependent variable, the validity of the test is guaranteed. Both criterion-validity and content- validity are high, due to the substantial correlations shown in previous research between the test items and the scores and between the actual issues that occur on the job and the related scores.

Another strong point of this study is the method used to acquire the data. One researcher gathered data from one team. Teams were contacted by one and the same researcher. This way, different approaches towards one team were avoided. As there were many teams involved in the research, an important caveat could be that not all the data used in this study were gathered by one researcher. Instead, many students participated in collecting data from different companies.

Nevertheless, through the use of a standardized questionnaire, it seems safe to say that the data gathered was not biased. In addition, a strict protocol of how to gather the data existed; this made deviations and biases nearly impossible to occur.

One of the limitations of this study is that, from the sample taken, only very few participants were at the lower educational level. Most participants completed higher vocational education or university.

Another limitation lies in the fact that all constructs were rated by employees, which might lead to a common source problem. Caution is needed, when processing data in which participants try to score themselves. The data might be biased. A round-robin design was used to make sure this bias was as small as possible.

Finally, psychological safety was significantly correlated with intrateam conflict.

Psychological safety thus seems to have an effect on intrateam conflict. Nevertheless, this relationship was not tested in the light of larger status distances.

Future research directions

It might be interesting to replace the moderator in the posed model by intrateam trust. As

psychological safety is mainly tied to increased levels of within-team learning behavior, and trust

(22)

22

with a reduced necessity to monitor behavior (Edmondson, 2003). Team members do not feel they have to protect their job territory, they show cooperative and participative behavior towards team members and feel able to talk straight to their manager when trust is high within the team (Oakland, 2009). This might especially be interesting due to the fact that trust seems to affect intrateam conflict as well as helping behavior as trust is found to reduce conflict, increase commitment to the team and diminish the tendency to leave the team (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

As the relationship between psychological safety and intrateam conflict was not tested in the light of larger status distances, it would be interesting to test this relationship in the future as these two variables significantly correlated.

The sample comprised mainly higher educated team members. Future research might be needed to study whether the level of education influences the results of this study, as higher educational levels are shown to relate to individuals’ higher level of eagerness to acquire status (Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003).

Practical contributions

One of the practical implications of this research gives an advice to organizations and its leaders.

Despite the fact that this lies outside the scope of this research, psychological safety within teams affects learning behavior, which in turn leads to higher team performance (Edmondson, 1999).

Low levels of intrateam conflict and high levels of helping behavior are presented to have a positive effect on team performance (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999;

Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Team leaders that are capable of utilizing these variables, for instance through creating a sense of safety in taking risks, preventing and resolving conflicts, and increasing the willingness of team members to help each other will lead teams that perform better. Hence, it is important for managers to be able to understand these variables.

As already stated in the introduction, past low levels of experienced psychological safety and unresolved conflicts can have negative future effects on helping behavior (Blakar, 1984;

Carron et al., 2003; Desiviliya & Eizen, 2005). As high-status team members can reduce conflict and create a psychologically rewarding environment (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Halevy et al., 2011; Sondak & Bazerman, 1991) this research can be of great value to organizations (Klaver, 2008).

Differences in status among human beings already were present in the ancient Greece, when

Thucydides stated “The strong do what they will; the weak endure what they must” (Halevy et

al., 2011: 44). Status distance is still an important aspect as in recent times it is still unclear what

(23)

23

effect status distance has on intrateam processes. Research shows positive effects of status

distance on team and organizational functioning, processes and outcomes, but an evenly large, or

possibly larger amount of research shows failures due to status differences among team

members. The title of this thesis sums it rather well by stating that status distance is ubiquitous

and highly consequential (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a). Questions on how, when, and why status

distance affects team processes and outcomes remain unanswered and enigmatic.

(24)

24

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. 2010. Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1): 203-230.

Amason, A. 1996. Distinguishing effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 123-148.

Amason, A., & Sapienza, H. 1997. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4): 496-516.

Anderson, C., Beer, J. S., Srivastava, S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. 2006. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6): 1094-1110.

Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(3): 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. 2009a. The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5): 295-298.

Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2009b. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-

face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 96(2): 491-503.

(25)

25

Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., & Yeo, L. 2011. Information quality in Wikipedia: The effects of group composition and task conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4): 71-98.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. 2009. Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. 2001. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information systems development. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(2): 195-228.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.

Belliveau, M. A., O’Reilly, C. A., & Wade, J. B. 1996. Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6):

1568-1593.

Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. 2010. Status conflict in groups. Organization Science. Published online before print August 4, 2010.

Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. 2010. The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science. Published online before print July 20, 2010.

Benne, K., & Sheats, P. 1948. Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2): 41-49.

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction.

American Sociological Review, 37(3): 241-255.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annual Review

of Sociology, 6(16): 479-508.

(26)

26

Bierhoff, H. W. 2002. Prosocial behaviour. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Blakar, R. 1984. Communication: A social perspective on clinical issues. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Blau, P. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. 1992. Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bobo, L., & Zubrinsky, C. L. 1996. Attitudes on residential integration: Perceived status differences, mere in-group preference, or racial prejudice? Social Forces, 74(3): 883-909.

Bottero, W., & Prandy, K. 2003. Social interaction distance and stratification. British Journal of Sociology, 54(2): 177–197.

Boulding, K. 1963. Conflict and defense. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Boyett, J. H., & Conn, H. P. 1991. Workplace 2000: The revolution reshaping American business. New York, NY: Dutton.

Burger, J. M., Messain, N., Patel, S., Del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. 2004. What a coincidence!

The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1): 35-43.

Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., Bray, S., Dorsch, K., Estabrooks, P., Eys, M. A., Hall, C. R., Hardy, J., Hausenblas, H., Madison, R., Paskevich, D., Patterson, M. M., Prapavessis, H., Spink, K. S., & Terry, P. C. 2003. Do individual perceptions of group cohesion reflect shared beliefs? An empirical analysis. Small Group Research, 34(4): 468-496.

Caverley, N., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. 2007. Sickness presenteeism, sickness

absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization. Journal of

Management Studies, 44(2): 304-319.

(27)

27

Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 234-246.

Chattopadhyay, P. 1999. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3): 273-287.

Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2010. Affective responses to professional dissimilarity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 808-826.

Choi, J. N. 2006. Multilevel and cross-level effects of workplace attitudes and group member relations on interpersonal helping behavior. Human Performance, 19(4): 383-402.

Choi, J. N. 2009. Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46(8): 1396-1420.

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.

Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. 1991. Status processes in enduring work groups. American Sociological Review, 56(2): 179-188.

Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. 1997. Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(2): 378-391.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1993. Where are the theories for the "new" organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4): i-iv.

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.

(28)

28

Desiviliya, H. S., & Eizen, D. 2005. Conflict management in work teams: The role of social self- efficacy and group identification. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(2):

183-208.

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.

Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. 1999. Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self- managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 58-74.

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: A group-level lens." In R.

Kramer, & K. Cook, (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches: 239-272. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Eggers, J. T. 2011. Psychological safety influences relationship behavior. Corrections Today, 73(1): 60-61.

Ellis, L. 1994. Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality, (Vol. 2): Reproductive and interpersonal aspects of dominance and status. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Flynn, F. J. 2006. How much is it worth to you? Subjective evaluations of help in organizations.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 27(2): 133-174.

Foldy, E. G., Rivard, P., & Buckley, T. R. 2009. Power, safety, and learning in racially diverse groups. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 25-41.

Foschi, M. 2000. Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(2): 21-42.

French, J., & Raven, B. H. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in

social power: 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

More importantly, outgroup helping in response to a negative metastereotype was predicted by participants’ concern for the image of the group (Studies 2 and 3), or the degree to

All dogs were tested in both the experimental and control condition in which the experimenter/owner accidentally dropped the object or intentionally threw the object on the floor.

A compilation of photometric data, spectral types and absolute magnitudes for field stars towards each cloud is presented, and results are used to examine the distribution of

To test this assumption the mean time needed for the secretary and receptionist per patient on day 1 to 10 in the PPF scenario is tested against the mean time per patient on day 1

2 The movement was fueled largely by the launch of FactCheck.org, an initiative of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, in 2003, and PolitiFact, by

Further, as empathy has been negatively correlated with anxiety caused by intergroup interactions (Stephan &amp; Stephan, 1985; Vezzali et al., 2010), I propose that

It is proposed that higher levels of task interdependence make the positive relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance stronger when mediated by coordination..

Hypothesis 1: Institutional distance has an overall better fit than psychic distance stimuli in measuring distance that affects FDI flows between developed countries and