1
Hierarchies: Simply the best?
The role that intra-team conflict and task simplicity play in explaining the
relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
ABSTRACT
As status hierarchies are a universal feature of all human groups, including organizations, and the effects of hierarchy steepness are highly mixed, it is of great importance to investigate when steeper status hierarchies are helpful for team performance and when they are harmful. In this research, the focus was on the underlying constructs that may explain the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance. I hypothesized that status hierarchy steepness is negatively related to intra-team conflict when tasks are simple, which in turn leads to a higher level of team performance. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 69 organizational work teams. The results did not provide support for the moderating and
mediating roles of respectively the level of task simplicity and the level of intra-team conflict. I provided possible explanations for the non-significant results, directions for future research as well as theoretical and practical implications.
3
INTRODUCTION
Hierarchies, defined as an “implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008, p.354), are self-reinforcing and therefore highly pervasive (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Hierarchical structures emerge quickly and spontaneously from limited social interactions (Halevy, Chou & Galinsky, 2011). Although hierarchies are everywhere in society, the subject of hierarchy has been a controversial topic in the last few decades. Hierarchies have been described as oppressive and exploitative (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). It has been said that hierarchies are outdated and “crazy times call for crazy organizations” in which flattening of organizational structures and equality is key (Peters, 2010). However, even though in the last decades much effort has been placed on replacing the hierarchical structures of organizations, these structures remain essentially hierarchical (Leavitt, 2005). Because of this persisting and ubiquitous nature of hierarchies, it is highly relevant to investigate under which circumstances hierarchies facilitate team functioning.
Groups with a steeper hierarchy are those groups with larger asymmetries in power, status, and influence of the group members (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Hierarchies can emerge both formally, in which ranking is influenced by the higher level of power, authority and control over resources some members possess due to their official position in the organization, and informally, in which implicit differences in status and influence spontaneously and rapidly develop when groups work together (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). This research will focus on the latter form, informal hierarchies. In these status hierarchies, status can be defined as the amount of respect, influence, and prominence each member possesses in the eyes of the other members (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001).
4 The effects of hierarchy steepness are highly mixed across studies (Halevy et al., 2011). Whereas some studies link status hierarchies to an increase in group functioning and performance (Leavitt, 2005) and increased motivation due to the provision of social, material, and psychological incentives (Willer, 2009), others state that steeper hierarchies may lead to a decrease in group performance, motivation and satisfaction (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Smith & Tannenbaum, 1963). Since hierarchies are both important and pervasive in groups and organizations, further insight into these mixed effects of hierarchy is needed.
As the opinions of academics about the possible implications of hierarchy are divergent, it is likely that a certain factor moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance. Contingency scholars have proposed some factors that may moderate this relationship in order to explain the mixed effects. One of these proposed moderators is task simplicity, which I will examine in this research. Few studies tested the moderator task simplicity with controlled sample comparisons. Moreover, much of the evidence stems from teams with very dissimilar group contexts that were engaging in different kinds of tasks (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Therefore, it is theoretically relevant to clarify this moderating effect in this research.
The mechanism through which hierarchy steepness influences team performance is also not clearly known. One mediating factor that is mentioned in the current literature is intra-team conflict. It may be that hierarchy leads to conflict reducing behavior. However, the results for this relationship are mixed, as some authors state that hierarchy leads to less intra-team conflict (Halevy et al., 2011) whereas others link hierarchy to an increased level of intra-team conflict (Bendersky & Shah, 2012). Since the current studies do not display consistent results about this relationship,this mediating effect of intra-team conflict will be further looked upon in my research.
5 organizational level (Anderson & Brown, 2010). It is striking that most previous research essentially concentrated on the effects of the status of individuals within a team without considering the hierarchy from which this status position is derived, as an individual‟s status embodies his or her rank compared to others in the social system. Therefore, it is theoretically not sound to define status as an individual attribute that can be isolated (Christie & Barling, 2010). Thus, it is of importance to fill this gap in the current literature and advance the theory. Furthermore, although several studies can be linked to this research and are useful to support my hypotheses, hierarchy steepness has until so far not been examined in the way that I do. Previous literature has for instance studied the consequences of centralization versus decentralization (Shaw, 1964), has put emphasis on communication channels (Leavitt, 1951) and has looked at income disparities as an indicator of status (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). This research has in certain areas important similarities and therefore may be related to my study of informal hierarchies based on status. Nevertheless, while hierarchy steepness has been operationalized in these various different forms, researchers never treated it as a concept that derives from the perceptions of others.
This study will be of practical value to organizations in determining their design approach. A better understanding of when informal hierarchies based on status differences facilitate team performance and when flatter structures are more suitable allows managers to structure their teams in such a way that they can optimize team performance. Although hierarchies determine the direction and significance of the influence and control that members have in groups and are therefore self-reinforcing and hard to attenuate (Cohen & Zhou, 1991), it is of importance for managers to recognize the consequences of status differences in different work settings so that the team composition can be strategically designed. As intra-team conflict has shown to be detrimental to team performance (e.g. De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Wall & Nolan, 1986), it is of practical value to identify potential causes for the level of intra-team conflict.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Intra-6 team conflict is concerned with task, relationship and process issues (Shah & Jehn, 1993; Jehn, 1995). While some authors state that hierarchies may reduce conflict and enhance voluntary cooperation, for example by avoiding having “too many cooks in the kitchen” (Anderson & Brown, 2011, p.5) wherein too many team members compete for the scarce resource of status, others link hierarchy steepness to an increased level of intra-team conflict, as steeper hierarchies may decrease the level of cooperation and increase the level of competition among group members (Bendersky & Shah, 2012). Since the results of the current research linking hierarchy steepness to intra-team conflict are not consistent, this research will investigate whether a certain factor moderates the described relationship. I propose that the level of task simplicity may play a moderating role in this relationship, which is conceptualized as “the extent to which the tasks on a job are simple and easy to perform” (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006, p.1323).
7 Furthermore, Dewar and Werbel (1979, p.432) state that when work is routine, rules reduce conflict because they “limit the variety of interpretations concerning work procedures, because they provide standards against which to measure deviance and because they make the activities of various persons or groups easier to integrate”. The enforcement of rules can be linked to the concept of an informal status hierarchy, as in an informal hierarchy individuals with a higher status are given control over decisions and are allowed to direct the lower status individuals (Anderson & Brown, 2011). Furthermore, teams have a tendency to assign higher status to members who possess superior abilities (Driskell & Mullen, 1990). This may be beneficial for teams working on simple tasks as these persons are likely to be skillful in providing procedures and standards and integrating the various activities. Thus, when a team works on relatively simple tasks, rule enforcement by means of a steeper status hierarchy may reduce conflict since this increases the transparency of the work procedures and the work evaluation. Based upon this research, I propose that task simplicity moderates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and intra-team conflict. Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
Hypothesis 1. Status hierarchy steepness is negatively related to intra-team conflict when tasks are simple.
Contemporary research has displayed an inconsistency in the empirical findings explaining the relationship between hierarchy steepness and performance (Halevy et al., 2011). These mixed results match contingency theories of organizations, which state that steeper hierarchies are not generally good or bad for organizations but their effects depend on a number of factors (Anderson & Brown, 2010). One of the proposed moderators is task simplicity. As the simplicity of tasks influences many other relevant aspects such as the creativity or the innovation required in a job and correlates highly with the environment teams are confronted with (Anderson & Brown, 2010), this moderator can be seen as a crucial one to investigate. Previous research supports a possible moderating influence of task simplicity on the relationship between hierarchy steepness and performance.
8 the subject of informal status hierarchies is centralization. Centralization can be described as “the degree to which decisions are made by fewer individuals who are higher in the hierarchy rather than by a wider group of employees throughout the organization” (Anderson & Brown, 2010, p.8). It is likely that this difference in influence over decisions is linked to larger asymmetries in members‟ prominence and influence and thus to a steeper status hierarchy. Hierarchy steepness and centralization are distinct concepts, as steepness focuses on the overall differences of status within a team whereas centralization aims attention at the concentration of status in a few individuals. However, the two concepts are highly correlated. This is shown by research of Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Cantimur, and Rink (in press), who demonstrated that hierarchy steepness and centralization have a correlation of r = 0.72. Therefore, it can be expected that the results that were found in teams with a centralized structure may also apply to teams with a steep hierarchical structure.
Berdahl and Anderson (2005) found evidence that leadership centralization was negatively related to group performance when groups worked on additive tasks. The authors explain that because of the additive nature of the tasks, performance was likely to increase the more each group member contributed to the project. However, centralization led to only a few members actively contributing and leading the group‟s activities. These results may be applied to this research. Whereas additive tasks benefit from the aggregation of the contributions of all the group members, this is not the case for all tasks. Berdahl and Anderson showed that leadership centralization leads to fewer members contributing to the decision-making process. Furthermore, Anderson and Kilduff (2009) stated that groups give influence to those members who possess superior task and social competence. Therefore, it is likely that in a status hierarchy the team members with the highest level of task and social competence will be ranked higher and will have more control. Especially for teams working on simple tasks for which decision-making is relatively easy and straight-forward, it is likely that the team will benefit from the task competence and social competence of these high-ranked individuals. This is underlined by Anderson and Brown (2010, p.14), who state that for simple, predictable, and routine tasks, groups are “better off giving disproportionate control to their most talented and capable members, who make more of the decisions for the group”.
9 were advantageous, leading to faster solutions 78% of the time and to fewer errors 90% of the time. In contrast, when groups worked on more complex tasks, less centralized structures led to faster solutions 100% of the time and to fewer errors 60% of the time.
As described, the high correlation between centralization and hierarchy steepness suggests that the results that were found in teams with a centralized structure are likely to also apply to teams with a steep hierarchical structure Thus, when simple tasks have to be executed teams can profit from a steeper status hierarchy because of an increase in both the accuracy and the efficiency of the team decision making. Providing more influence to high-status members will increase the accuracy of decisions as members with more task competence will gain more control, as well as the efficiency of the decision process since hierarchical structures allow a clearer chain of command in a team (Shaw, 1964). Thus, when tasks are simple, high-status members who are the most capable team members will be able to reach better solutions in a faster way. Consequently, I propose that hierarchical structures are more advantageous in teams in which tasks are simple. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Status hierarchy steepness is positively related to team performance when tasks are simple.
Research has shown that conflict within organizational teams is often detrimental for performance. For example, Halevy (2008) links intra-team conflict to a decreased ability of the team members to implement mutually beneficial trade-offs. This can be connected to a decreased level of team performance since an „extension of the pie‟ is in this case less likely to occur. Furthermore¸ De Dreu and Weingart (2003) suggest that as conflict becomes more intense, cognitive load increases. This hinders the information processing in a team, which causes team performance to suffer. Thus, intra-team conflict takes needed resources away from the performance of tasks. The authors state that this is the case for both task conflicts and relationship conflicts. Moreover, process conflict is linked to interference with task content quality and misdirected focus to irrelevant discussions of member ability (Jehn, 1997). Hence, task, relationship and process conflict in a team are each related to a decrease in team performance.
10 Status hierarchy steepness Intra-team conflict Task simplicity Team performance Thus, large status differences in a team lead to a decrease in intra-team conflict when task simplicity is high, caused by the avoidance of conflict to enlarge the pie of resources and by the clearer work procedures. This low level of intra-team conflict in turn will increase the team performance, as in this way mutually beneficial trade-offs and information processing are facilitated and irrelevant discussions concerning member ability are decreased. This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Intra–team conflict mediates the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance, only at high levels of task simplicity.
My hypotheses are visualized in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model
METHOD Sample and procedure
11 perform organizationally relevant tasks, (b) shared one or more common goals, (c) interacted socially, (d) exhibited task interdependencies (i.e., work flow, goals, outcomes), (e) maintained and managed boundaries, and (f) were embedded in an organizational context that set boundaries, constrained the team, and influenced exchanges with other units in the broader entity.
Although my teams had to meet these common requirements, the teams did operate in different sectors and faced different task contexts. I gathered teams from the private and the non-profit sector. Thirty-three teams worked in the private sector (e.g. corporate services, trade and ICT) and 36 teams operated in the non-profit sector (e.g. education, healthcare and governmental services). Furthermore, team members fulfilled different member roles in their teams. The work teams included member roles such as policy advisors, technicians, teachers, HR advisors, and account managers.
The data was gathered with four other HRM students as part of a master research project. Students introduced the research project to the team leaders of the organizational work teams. After team leaders agreed to participate with the project, an appointment was made to distribute the first survey versions among the supervisors and the team members. Preferably all team members and the team leader would attend this meeting. In this way a short clarification concerning the research project could be given and the first employee questionnaires and the leader questionnaire could be filled in in our presence in order to minimize communication among the team members. Then, the second employee questionnaires were distributed, which were filled in approximately a week after the first employee questionnaires. The students visited the companies again to gather the second employee questionnaires.
12 Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was clearly guaranteed in the questionnaires and during the meeting. Moreover, respondents were blind to the objectives of the study. Although the initial sample comprised 72 work teams, there were 3 work teams for which no supervisor responses were available. I therefore tested my hypotheses utilizing the data of 69 work teams in 41 organizations resulting in 447 team member responses and 69 supervisor responses. The overall response rate among the participating work teams was 89 %. The average team size was 7.26 (SD = 2.93). The average age of the team members was 42.49 years (SD = 12.31). Fifty-four percent of the respondents were female and 47.9 % of the team members possessed a vocational qualification or higher. Team members had an average work team tenure of 5.74 years (SD = 6.51). The average age of the team leaders was 45.16 years (SD = 9.21). Seventy percent of these team leaders were male and 69.6 % of the leaders had a vocational qualification or higher. Leaders had an average work team tenure of 5.64 years (SD = 5.68).
Measures
Hierarchy steepness. I measured the status of each employee within the organizational work
teams by means of peer-ratings. Individuals were asked to evaluate the status of all the team members, including their own, which was subdivided in the questionnaire into the perceived amount of respect, prominence and influence each member possesses in the eyes of the other members (Anderson et al., 2001). I averaged the ratings for each member to form an overall measure of status for each individual. I then operationalized status hierarchy steepness by calculating the standard deviation of all individual members‟ status scores within the same work team. Whereas lower values indicated relatively flatter status hierarchies, higher values indicatedsteeper hierarchies.
Task simplicity. Task simplicity was assessed with the following 4-item measure, adapted
from the job complexity scale of Morgeson and Humphrey (2006): ‘My work is simple and
uncomplicated’, „My work requires that I can only perform one task or activity at the same time’, „My work consists of the execution of relatively simple tasks’ and ‘My work consists of relatively uncomplicated tasks’. The items were rated on a 7-point response scale ranging
13 teams on the variable task simplicity could be utilized for the subsequent statistical analyses. Together the items formed a reliable total representation of task simplicity, Cronbach‟s alpha was .80.
Intra-team conflict. This research focused on three types of intra-team conflict; task conflict,
relationship conflict and process conflict. I adapted the items of the intra-team conflict scale developed by Jehn (1995) to measure the perceived relationship conflict and task conflict in the team. I measured the amount of process conflict by adapting Shah and Jehn‟s (1993) intra-team conflict scale. Examples of these items are „How much friction is there among members
in your team?‟ (representing relationship conflict), „How much conflict about the work you do is there in your team? (representing task conflict) and „How much conflict is there about delegation of tasks within your work unit?’ (representing process conflict). Since these three
measures of intra-team conflict are highly correlated (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999), I expected the variables to provide the same results. Therefore, I combined these conflict types into one single construct. The items measured the frequency of intra-team conflict on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 = very little and 7 = very much. The seven items were averaged for each individual and then were aggregated to the team level. Cronbach‟s alpha of this construct was .90.
Team performance. Team performance was measured by means of the responses of team
leaders, who indicated their perceptions of the performance of their teams. Six items were selected from the research of Ancona and Caldwell (1992). Some sample items include ‘How
does this team score on the attainment of goals?’, ‘How does this team score on productivity?’ and „How does this team score on the quality of the work?‟. Supervisors
indicated the degree of their agreement with these items by using a 7-point response format (1 = far below average, 7 = far above average). The reliability of this variable was confirmed by a high Cronbach‟s alpha of .87.
Control variables. Previous research has proven the importance of statistically controlling for
14 Kozlowski & Bell, 2003) and team tenure and performance (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), I also included these variables as control variables in my research.
RESULTS Data analysis
In this research, I investigated a moderated mediation model, which can be defined as “a research model in which the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some other variable” (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007, p.193). I assessed if an indirect relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance through the level of intra-team conflict existed, and if the strength of this relationship depended of the level of task simplicity.
I have tested my hypotheses at the team level of analysis utilizing moderated ordinary least square (OLS) regression. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991) I standardized all the predictor variables, after which the interaction effects were computed by multiplying the corresponding standardized predictor variables.
15 moderator, namely at the mean, one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean. Since I was testing if an indirect effect existed with a high level of my moderator task simplicity, I specifically analyzed the moderator value at one standard deviation above the mean.
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations and Pearson zero-order correlations between the variables are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from this table, there was a significant negative
correlation between team size and team performance (r = -0.33, p < .01). Thus, teams consisting of more team members score significantly lower on team performance.
16 Table 1
Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD) and Correlations Matrix
17
Hypotheses
Table 2 provides an overview of the results of the regression analyses and the results of the Preacher-Hayes macro.
By analyzing the current literature, I haveformulated several hypotheses. Firstly, I hypothesized that hierarchy steepness will be negatively related to intra-team conflict when tasks are simple. The results show that the interaction term of hierarchy steepness and task simplicity was not significantly related to intra-team conflict, after adding the control variables and main effects (B=
-.05, n.s.). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. The relationship between hierarchy steepness, task
simplicity and intra-team conflict is graphically depicted in Figure 2.
Secondly, a positive relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance when tasks are simple was hypothesized.Contrary to my expectations, the cross product of hierarchy steepness and task simplicity was not significantly related to team performance, after the control variables and main effects were taken into account (B = -.06, n.s.). This results in a rejection of Hypothesis 2. For a graphical depiction of this finding, see Figure 3.
Finally, I hypothesized that intra–team conflict mediates the relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance, only at high levels of task simplicity. As described, the second hypothesis was tested by regressing team performance on the control variables, the main effects of hierarchy steepness and task simplicity and the cross product of hierarchy steepness and task simplicity. Then, I tested my overall moderated mediation model by adding the mediating
Preacher-18 Hayes macro, which has provided bootstrapped 95 % confidence intervals for three different levels of my moderator task simplicity.In case a confidence interval does not contain zero, the conditional indirect effect is significantly different from zero at α = .05. Table 2 shows that no conditional indirect effect was observed for high levels of task simplicity, since the bootstrapped 95 % confidence interval of the Preacher-Hayes macro with a moderator value of + 1 SD
contained zero (-.018, .146), thus rejecting Hypothesis 3. Moreover, no significant indirect effect was observed for average levels of task complexity (-.012, .138) and low levels of task
19 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 Low High In tr a -t eam c on fl ict
Status hierarchy steepness
Task simplicity high Task simplicity low
1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 Low High T eam per for m anc e
Status hierarchy steepness
Task simplicity high Task simplicity low Figure 2
Intra-team conflict predicted by status hierarchy steepness moderated by task simplicity
Figure 3
20 Table 2
Regression Analyses Results and Conditional Indirect Relationships
Intra-team conflict Team performance
Predictor Model 1 Model 1 Model 2
B SE B SE B SE Controls Team size -.02 .10 -.28** .10 -.29** .10 Team tenure .06 .09 -.16 .09 -.15 .09 Mean status -.15 .10 -.06 .09 -.07 .10 Main effects Hierarchy steepness .15 .10 -.07 .10 -.05 .10 Task simplicity -.06 .10 -.10 .10 -.11 .10 Two-way interactions
Hierarchy steepness * task
simplicity -.05 .09 -.06 .09 -.07 .09
Mediator
Intra-team conflict -.10 .10
Conditional indirect relationship
Moderator Value 95 % Confidence Interval (BCA)
-1 SD -.015, .154
M -.012, .138
+1 SD -.018, .146
Note. N = 69. Unstandardized regression coefficients are depicted.
21
DISCUSSION
Findings
As extant research lacks in the specific investigation of informal hierarchies, the study presented here has specifically focused on these status hierarchies and their consequences. I have looked at this in-depth by analyzing the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance and the possible influence that task simplicity and intra-team conflict might have on this relationship.
22 what extent the tasks on their job were simple and easy to perform. However, individuals are inclined to overestimate their own contributions in their job (Zhou & George, 2003). Furthermore, self-evaluation is especially problematic for individuals performing poorly, since these persons are inclined to mistakenly rate their ability much higher than is accurate. This is described as the Dunning-Kruger effect (Dunning & Kruger, 1999). These individual tendencies can be linked to the incorrect assessment of task simplicity, as persons overestimating their contributions and abilities in their work may be likely to perceive their work as more complex and difficult to perform than an objective measure would indicate. Thus, the accuracy of the team task simplicity scores may be affected.
Secondly, I focused on the link between status hierarchy steepness and team performance by hypothesizing that steep informal hierarchical structures would be positively related to team performance when tasks are simple. Previous research did identify a link between status hierarchy steepness and team performance, although these findings were mixed (Christie & Barling, 2010; Halevy, Chou, Galinsky, & Murnighan, 2010). However, in this research no link was found between these two constructs at all levels of task simplicity. This may be explained by the sample teams of the previous studies. Former research focused on highly interdependent sports teams. The salience of status increases when tasks are interdependent (Christie & Barling, 2010). Although the definition of organizational work teams that I utilized emphasized task interdependencies, the average level of task interdependencies in my sample teams is likely to fall below the level of sport teams, plausibly decreasing the link between the magnitude of status differences and other work team related variables such as team performance.
23 variety in measurement sources has resulted in the reduction of possible common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003), other results for team performance might have been obtained when objective measures of performance were utilized. This may have resulted in the generally adopted view of a negative relationship between intra-team conflict and team performance, since intra-team conflict has been linked to objective measures of team performance in various studies (e.g. Wall & Nolan, 1986; Jehn, 1997).
Theoretical Implications
The various unexpected findings and the tentative explanations for these findings indicate that still a considerable amount of work has to be done to fully grasp the concept of informal status hierarchies. However, I believe that although additional studies may supplement my findings, this research adds to the limited literature directed at status on the team level.
As stated, extant research on informal hierarchies is scarce. The implications of status have often been neglected (Bunderson & Reagans, 2010) while the research that has been executed in this area predominantly analyzed the effects of status hierarchy on the individual level instead of the group level (Christie & Barling, 2010). Furthermore, previous studies directed at status differences in teams almost exclusively have focused on proxies of status such as dominance (Lee & Ofshe, 1981), prizes and awards for individual performance (Perretti & Negro, 2006) and pay disparities (Keltner et al., 2003) while very little studies have looked at status attribution through the eyes of the other team members. Since status can be determined by the amount of respect, prominence and influence one receives from other individuals, identifying status by peer-ratings can be seen as the most accurate and direct way of measuring this construct. Thus, this research contributes to the theory focused on hierarchies by specifically examining informal status hierarchies and utilizing a reliable method of measuring these status differences, namely through the eyes of others.
24 the relationship between hierarchical structures and team performance (e.g. Shaw, 1964; Anderson & Brown, 2010). This research has not supported this proposed moderating role. Hence, my findings indicate that for informal status hierarchies this moderating role for task simplicity does not hold. Furthermore¸ the proposed mediating influence of intra-team conflict described in various studies (e.g. De Waal, 1989; Fiske, 2010) had not been validated in this study. Thus, my study has advanced the current literature on status hierarchies by examining the widely proposed roles of task simplicity and intra-team conflict as respectively moderator and mediator. Naturally, my research has certain weaknesses which warrant some caution in the interpretation of the results. Therefore, future research should substantiate my findings.
All in all, this study has facilitated examining hierarchies in a renewing manner, namely by specifically focusing on status hierarchies at the team level, based on team members‟ perceptions of status differences.
Strengths, Weaknesses and Future Directions
Several strengths of this study can be identified. A first strength in this study is the utilization of peer ratings, self-report measures and team leader ratings to measure the variables. The diversity in measurement methods in my research decreases the chance that common method bias may distort the findings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, the described accuracy and directness of the utilized measure for informal status differences can be seen as a great strength of this research.
25 Furthermore, measurements were taken in two different periods when collecting the data. By measuring variables at two points in time, the chance that response biases such as the daily mood of the team members may distort the findings was decreased (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Finally, since research has shown that there may be an overlap of the means and SDs of an attribute (Harrison & Klein, 2007), I accounted for the mean level of status within the team when testing for the diversity of status. In this way, I prevented that the overlap of means and SDs may influence my results. Additionally, based on previous studies I have taken the team size and team tenure into account in my analyses, thereby reducing omitted variable bias (Wooldridge & Jeffrey, 2009).
It is important to note certain limitations of this study as these may indicate discretion in the interpretation of the results. Firstly, the within-team response in my sample did not equal 100%, which may give rise to sampling bias as the team members responding may be systematically different from the non-responding team members (Newman & Sin, in press). For instance, members of a team experiencing more intra-team conflict may be less willing to fill in details concerning their opinion about their team members than team members working in a harmonious team as this information might be more sensitive.
Another possible limitation might lay in the fact that team performance was assessed by means of supervisory ratings. It may be that these subjective measures of team performance differ from objective measures. Studies have shown that subjective performance evaluation may be influenced by several rating errors. For instance, leniency errors or severity errors are possible to occur. This is the case when ratings are influenced by the personality of the rater, who may be highly critical or highly lenient, regardless of the true level of performance. Furthermore, a halo error might take place when raters use a rating assigned to one job dimension to rate several other dimensions, regardless of the true level of performance on those dimensions. The tendency for these rating errors is not consistent across jobs (Heneman, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012) and therefore may have influenced my results.
26 study comparing data quality of questionnaires with a length of 10, 20, and 30 minutes has shown that questions asked later in the questionnaire bear the risk of provided answers that are faster, shorter, and more uniform than answers to questions positioned near the beginning of the questionnaire (Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009). Therefore, it may be the case that the questionnaire length has affected the quality of the answers given.
Finally, some characteristics of status hierarchies are not taken into account in this study, although they may influence the link between status hierarchy steepness and other team related variables. Status hierarchies may differ in terms of legitimacy and stability of the status hierarchy. Legitimacy can be defined as “the belief that authorities, institutions, and social arrangements are appropriate, proper, and just” (Tyler, 2006, p. 376). Research has shown that hierarchies are least likely to enhance performance when the hierarchy is seen as illegitimate (Halevy et al., 2011). This factor may have influenced my results. For instance, I expected status hierarchy steepness to have a positive influence on team performance when tasks are simple because of an increase in efficiency. These positive effects on team performance may be hindered when team members do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the status differences. Furthermore, the stability of a hierarchy might influence the intragroup status, power, and dominance competitions (Kilduff & Anderson, 2010) and might therefore additionally affect the relationship between status hierarchy steepness and both intra-team conflict and team performance.
27 of the findings. Finally, a shorter questionnaire specifically focusing on the variables of this research model might produce more accurate data.
Beyond addressing these study limitations, this research also provides some interesting theoretical directions for future research, especially given the scarcity of studies focused specifically on informal hierarchies. As described, status may differ in terms of legitimacy and stability Future research that expands my proposed model to include these effects may provide more clarity in this field of study.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
The findings reported in this study are informative for those who are interested in the consequences of informal status hierarchies. Although research on formal hierarchies has showed a relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance which may be moderated or mediated by several factors (Halevy et al., 2011), my findings imply that no link exists between the magnitude of status differences in a team and team performance at all levels of task simplicity. New studies that take into account the mentioned limitations and recommendations for future research are necessary to consolidate the findings. In case this new research restates a non-significant relationship between status hierarchy steepness and team performance for all levels of task simplicity, this may show managers and team leaders concerned with status differences that these differences play a less significant role than previously assumed by literature related to this subject.
28
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity in performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 30: 55-89.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality traits and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81: 116–132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96: 491–503.
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, Vol. 51(6): 1173–1182.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. 2012. The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals' status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23(2): 308-322.
Berdahl, J. L., & Anderson, C. 2005. Men, women, and leadership centralization in groups over time. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9: 45–57.
Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E, 2010. Power, status, and learning in organizations.
Organization Science, 22(5): 1182–1194.
29 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 Sociology
Review, 56: 179–188.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. 2008. The affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93: 945-958.
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: 741–749. De Waal, F. B. M. 1989. Peacemaking among primates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Dewar, R., & Werbel, J. 1979. Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 426-448.
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. 1990. Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16: 541–553.
Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6): 1121-1134.
Fiske, S. T. 2010. Stratification. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology: 941–982. New York, Wiley.
Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. 2009. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73: 349–360.
30 Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1): 32– 52.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Galinsky, A., & Murnighan, J. K. 2010. Differentiating their way to the top: Hierarchy, cooperation and team performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Heneman, H., Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. 2012. Staffing organizations. 7th edition. Middleton, WI: Mendota House.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. 1975. Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 272–280.
Jehn, K. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282.
Jehn, K. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 530-557.
Jehn, K. A. & Bezrukova, K. 2004. A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-27.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741-763.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110 (2): 265-284.
Kilduff, G. J., & Anderson, C. 2010. Status disagreement: Consequences for group performance
and group member behavior. Unpublished manuscript.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
31 Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & van Dijk, E. 2010. Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46: 515–524.
Leavitt, H. J. 2005. Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more
effectively. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lee, M. T., & Ofshe, R. 1981. The impact of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44: 73-82.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annuals, 2: 351–398.
Maznevski, M. L. 1994. Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47(5): 531-552.
Miura, S. 2013. Conceptions of hierarchy. Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1321-1339.
Newman, D. A., & Sin, H. P. in press. How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity to SDwg, CVwg, rwg(j), rwg(j)*, and ICC to systematic nonresponse.
Organizational Research Methods.
Perretti, F., & Negro, G. 2006. Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 759-777.
Peters, T. 2010. The Tom Peters seminar: Crazy times call for crazy organizations. New York: Random House LLC.
32 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. 1993. Do friends perform better than acquaintances: The inter-action of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2: 149-166.
Shaw, M. E. 1964. Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology: 111–147. New York: Academic Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, C. G., & Tannenbaum, A. S. 1963. Organizational control structure: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 16: 299–316.
Stewart, G. L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1): 29-55.
Tyler, T. R. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57: 375–400.
Van der Vegt, G. S. & Bunderson, J. S. Learning and performance in multi-functional teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 532-547. Wall, V., & Nolan, L. 1986. Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented groups. Human Relations, 39: 1033–1052.
33 Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2009. Omitted variable bias: The simple case. Introductory
Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
