Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (3) : 366-382     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00366
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle
JI Hao1,2,XIE Xiao-Yun2(),XIAO Yong-Ping3,GAN Xiao-Le3,FENG Wen2
1 Business School, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
2 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3 The Department of Business Administration, Jiangx Institute of Economic Administrators, Nanchang 330088, China
Download: PDF(805 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Whether power hierarchy benefits or hurts team performance is a paradoxical question in the current literature. While functionalists contend that power hierarchy is likely to resolve conflicts and promote coordination within teams, in turn improving team performance, dysfunctionalists argue that power hierarchy can entail struggle and conflicts, in turn impairing team performance. This study suggests that this discrepancy can be reconciled by considering the effect of hierarchical consistency. Hierarchical consistency describes the degree of alignment between power hierarchy and status hierarchy within a team. We propose that hierarchical consistency may moderate the relationship between power hierarchy and team performance. Specifically, when status hierarchy and power hierarchy are aligned, power hierarchy will produce elevated team performance. Meanwhile, when status hierarchy and power hierarchy are misaligned, power hierarchy is likely to attenuate team performance. Furthermore, we suggest that the interaction of power hierarchy and hierarchical consistency may impact team performance via the mediating effect of power struggle.
We tested our hypotheses through a multimethod approach that included survey, experiment, and archival data analysis. In Study 1, we collected data from 46 student teams in a four-week entrepreneurial practice program. The power and status of the team members were measured using the round-robin method, where each team member was asked to rate his or her teammates’ power and status. The data were collected through surveys at the beginning of the third week of the entrepreneurial practice program. Team performance was measured based on the overall profit of each team earned from this program. The financial data were collected at the end of the entrepreneurial practice program. In Study 2, we conducted a 2 (power hierarchy: power differentiation vs. power equality) × 2 (hierarchical consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) between-subject design with a multiparty negotiation task. Overall, 192 undergraduates and postgraduates participated in our experiment, and they were randomly assigned into 64 three-person groups. Each group was randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. Finally, in Study 3, data from 203 observations from 169 listed companies in the Internet industry were collected to retest the moderating effect of hierarchical consistency on the relationship between power hierarchy and team performance. In this study, we measured power hierarchy based on the difference in equity among TMT members, hierarchical consistency was calculated through the absolute difference between TMT members’ equity and team tenure, and team performance was measured based on return on equity (ROE).
We used hierarchical linear regression, ANOVA, a fixed effect model, and bootstrapping methods to test our hypotheses. As predicted, we found that the effects of power hierarchy on team performance are contingent on the degree of hierarchical consistency in Study 1. That is, when status hierarchy and power hierarchy were aligned, the power hierarchy was positively related to team performance; yet when status hierarchy and power hierarchy were misaligned, power hierarchy was not significantly related to team performance. The results of Study 2 showed that power struggle played a mediating role between hierarchical consistency combined with power hierarchy and team performance. Specifically, power hierarchy was likely to attenuate power struggle in the presence of a high level of hierarchical consistency, and hence improved the team’s performance. However, power hierarchy had no significant impact on power struggle and team performance in the presence of a low level of hierarchical consistency. In Study 3, we found that power hierarchy was not significantly related to team performance when hierarchical consistency was high, while power was negatively related to team performance when hierarchical consistency was low.
Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, our findings help to reconcile the antithetical arguments and evidence in research on the relationship between power hierarchy and team performance. Although power hierarchy can increase team performance in the presence of high hierarchical consistency, it is likely to decrease team performance in the presence of low hierarchical consistency. Second, this study suggests that the legitimacy of a power hierarchy may be influenced by its alignment with a status hierarchy. Third, this study extends the research on hierarchical consistency. While contemporary studies focus on the effects of power and status consistency at an individual level, this study is among the first to introduce hierarchical consistency into group-level research and empirically test its important effect on the relationship between power hierarchy and team performance.

Keywords power hierarchy      hierarchical consistency      power struggle      team performance.     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Xiao-Yun XIE     E-mail: xiexy@zju.edu.cn
Issue Date: 22 January 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Hao JI
Xiao-Yun XIE
Yong-Ping XIAO
Xiao-Le GAN
Wen FENG
Cite this article:   
Hao JI,Xiao-Yun XIE,Yong-Ping XIAO, et al. Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(3): 366-382.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00366     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I3/366
  
  
团队1 权力平等&
层级一致
团队2 权力不平等&
层级一致
团队成员 权力 地位 团队成员 权力 地位
A A
B B
C C
团队3 权力平等&
层级不一致
团队4 权力不平等&
层级不一致
团队成员 权力 地位 团队成员 权力 地位
A A
B B
C C
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 团队规模 7.65 1.10 -
2 平均年龄 20.67 0.41 -0.14 -
3 熟悉度多样性 0.66 0.22 0.23 0.25 -
4 性别多样性 0.35 0.19 0.37* 0.03 0.08 -
5 团队权力均值 3.37 0.38 -0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 -
6 团队地位均值 3.63 0.38 -0.02 -0.16 0.02 0.09 0.78** -
7 权力层级 0.29 0.12 -0.09 -0.17 0.02 -0.14 -0.30** -0.20 -
8 层级一致性 -0.34 0.18 0.14 0.23 0.04 0.10 0.14 -0.42** -0.20 -
9 团队绩效 293.66 483.93 0.20 -0.17 0.16 0.13 -0.12 0.01 -0.17 -0.16
  
变量 团队绩效
M1 M2 M3
控制变量
团队规模 0.10 0.09 0.00
平均年龄 -0.41 -0.58 -0.81
熟悉度多样性 0.77 0.97 1.13
性别多样性 0.41 0.58 1.04
团队权力均值 -0.62 0.33 0.51
团队地位均值 0.42 -0.91 -1.12
主效应
权力层级 -2.39 -1.88
层级一致性 -1.95 -2.05
调节效应
权力层级 × 层级一致性 12.20*
R2 0.12 0.20 0.28
F 0.85 1.12 1.56
ΔR2 0.12 0.08 0.09*
  
  
议题 选项 资源(咨询师A) 资源(咨询师B) 资源(咨询师C) 资源
总数
议题1:
项目启动时间
1周后 100 0 0 100
2周后 75 25 25 125
3周后 50 50 50 150
4周后 25 75 25 125
5周后 0 100 0 100
议题2:
对顾客进行访谈的次数
2次 0 75 25 100
4次 50 50 50 150
6次 75 0 25 100
议题3:
对客户进行培训的时长
9小时 0 0 100 100
12小时 25 25 75 125
15小时 50 50 50 150
18小时 75 25 25 125
21小时 100 0 0 100
  
团队1 权力平等&
层级一致
团队2 权力不平等&
层级一致
团队
成员
一票
决定权
测试
成绩
团队
成员
一票
决定权
测试
成绩
A 2 A 3
B 2 B 2
C 2 C 1
团队3 权力平等&
层级不一致
团队4 权力不平等&
层级不一致
团队
成员
一票
决定权
测试
成绩
团队
成员
一票
决定权
测试
成绩
A 2 A 3
B 2 B 2
C 2 C 1
  
  
  
变量 团队绩效
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4
控制变量
平均年龄 -0.10 -0.08 -0.11 -0.06
主效应
权力层级 0.38 -0.11 0.24
层级一致性 0.74** 0.27 0.31
调节效应
权力层级×层级一致性 0.94* 0.04
中介效应
权力争夺 -0.46**
R2 0.02 0.20 0.25 0.71
F 1.47 4.90** 4.97** 27.83**
ΔR2 0.02 0.17** 0.06** 0.45**
  
层级一致性 间接效应 LLCI ULCI
层级不一致 -0.35 -0.91 0.14
层级一致 0.56 0.11 1.10
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 TMT团队规模 4.14 1.34 -
2 性别多样性 0.31 0.20 0.16* -
3 平均任期 3.45 1.94 0.00 -0.11 -
4 教育水平多样性 0.59 0.35 -0.04 -0.13 -0.10 -
5 权力层级 16.19 10.79 -0.30** 0.01 0.01 0.10 -
6 层级一致性 -0.64 0.36 -0.29** 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.21** -
7 净资产收益率 -0.21 2.24 -0.11 -0.12 -0.03 0.13 -0.00 0.05
  
变量 公司绩效(净资产收益率)
M 1 M 2 M 3
控制变量
数据年份 已控制 已控制 已控制
TMT团队规模 -0.24 -0.29 -0.15
性别多样性 -2.64 -2.06 -3.27
平均任期 -1.43** -1.22* -1.26*
教育水平多样性 2.07 2.12 1.63
主效应
权力层级 -0.12* -0.08
层级一致性 0.43 1.86
调节效应
权力层级 × 层级一致性 0.21*
R2 0.34 0.48 0.58
F 1.76 2.31* 2.99*
  
  
[1] Adams J. S. ( 1965). Inequity in social exchange. In B. Leonard (Ed. ), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Volume 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
[2] &Anderson C., Brown C.E . ( 2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55-89.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308510000031
[3] Anicich E. M., Fast N. J., Halevy N., &Galinsky A. D . ( 2016). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27( 1), 123-140.
[4] Anicich E. M., Swaab R. I., &Galinsky A. D . ( 2015). Hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in high-stakes teams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112( 5), 1338-1343.
pmid: 25605883 url: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1408800112
[5] Avgerinos E., &Gokpinar B. , ( 2017). Team familiarity and productivity in cardiac surgery operations: The effect of dispersion, bottlenecks, and task complexity. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 19( 1), 19-35.
[6] Baldassarri D., &Grossman G. ( 2011). Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108( 27), 11023-11027.
url: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1105456108
[7] Bendersky C., &Hays N.A . ( 2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 323-340.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734
[8] Berger J., Cohen B. P., &Zelditch M . ( 1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37( 3), 241-255.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093465?origin=crossref
[9] Blader S. L., Shirako A., &Chen Y. R . ( 2016). Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42( 6), 723-737.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167216636628
[10] Blader S.L., &Chen Y.R . ( 2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102( 5), 994-1014.
pmid: 22229456 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0026651
[11] Blader S.L., &Chen Y.R . ( 2014). What’s in a name? Status, power, and other forms of social hierarchy. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status( pp. 71-95). New York: Springer.
url: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_4.pdf
[12] Bloom M . ( 1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 25-40.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256872
[13] Boone C., &Hendriks W. ( 2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional- background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55( 2), 165-180.
url: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1535872
[14] Brislin R.W . ( 1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of crosscultural psychology( pp. 349-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
[15] Bunderson J.S., &Boumgarden P .( 2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21( 3), 609-624.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1090.0483
[16] Bunderson J. S., van der Vegt G., Cantimur Y., &Rink F . ( 2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59( 4), 1265-1289.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2014.0601
[17] Bunderson J.S., &Reagans R.E . ( 2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22( 5), 1182-1194.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0590
[18] Busenitz L. W., Plummer L. A., Klotz A. C., Shahzad A., &Rhoads K . ( 2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985-2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38( 5), 981-1000.
[19] Campbell K., &Mínguez-Vera A . ( 2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83( 3), 435-451.
url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y
[20] Cantimur Y., Rink F., & van der Vegt , G. S. ( 2016). When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25( 5), 658-673.
url: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1148030
[21] Chadwick C., Super J. F., &Kwon K . ( 2015). Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment-based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36( 3), 360-376.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.2217/pdf
[22] Chen X., He J., &Chen M. H . ( 2018). What drives internet industrial competitiveness in china the evolvement of cultivation factors index. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54( 8), 1872-1884.
url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1435414
[23] Clarysse B., &Moray N. ( 2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research- based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19( 1), 55-79.
url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883902602001131
[24] Daily C.M., &Johnson J.L . ( 1997). Sources of CEO power and firm financial performance: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Management, 23( 2), 97-117.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-04361-001
[25] 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.
pmid: 12940412 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
[26] Deutsch M . ( 1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2( 2), 129-152.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001872674900200204
[27] Deutsch M . ( 2014). Cooperation, competition, and conflict. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch,(Eds.), Morton Deutsch: A pioneer in developing peace psychology
[28] Edmondson A.C . ( 2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13( 2), 128-146.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530
[29] Eisenhardt K.M., &Bourgeois L.J . ( 1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31( 4), 737-770.
[30] Fast N. J., Halevy N., &Galinsky A. D . ( 2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48( 1), 391-394.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002210311100196X
[31] Fiske A.P . ( 1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99( 4), 689-723.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
[32] Fiske S.T . ( 2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & L. G (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology(pp. 941-982). New York, NY: Wiley.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026/full
[33] Greer L. L. ( 2014). Power in teams: Effects of team power structures on team conflict and team outcomes. In N. M. Ashkanasy, O. B. Ayoko & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (pp. 93-108). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Edgar Publishing.
[34] Greer L. L., Caruso H. M., &Jehn K. A . ( 2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116( 1), 116-128.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S074959781100046X
[35] Greer L.L., &van Kleef G.A . ( 2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 6), 1032-1044.
pmid: 20822207 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0020373
[36] Greer L. L., van Bunderen L., &Yu S. Y . ( 2017). The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 103-124.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308517300084
[37] Greve H.R., &Mitsuhashi H. ( 2007). Power and glory: Concentrated power in top management teams. Organization Studies, 28( 8), 1197-1221.
[38] Gruenfeld D.H., &Tiedens L.Z . ( 2010). Organizational preferences and their consequences. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology(pp. 1252-1287). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-03506-033
[39] Halevy N., Chou E. Y., Galinsky A. D., &Murnighan J. K . ( 2012). When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the national basketball association. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3( 4), 398-406.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550611424225
[40] Halevy N., Chou Y. E., &Galinsky D. A . ( 2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1( 1), 32-52.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2041386610380991
[41] Harper D.A . ( 2008). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23( 6), 613-626.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902608000062
[42] Harrison D.A., &Klein K.J . ( 2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32( 4), 1199-1228.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
[43] Haynes K.T., &Hillman A. ( 2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31( 11), 1145-1163.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.859/full
[44] Hays N.A . ( 2013). Fear and loving in social hierarchy: Sex differences in preferences for power versus status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 6), 1130-1136.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103113001546
[45] Hays N.A., &Bendersky C . ( 2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108( 6), 867-882.
pmid: 25822034 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/pspi0000017
[46] Hays N.A., &Goldstein N.J . ( 2015). Power and legitimacy influence conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 17-26.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103115000505
[47] He J., &Huang Z . ( 2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54( 6), 1119-1139.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2009.0824
[48] Hitt M. A., Ireland R. D., &Stadter G . ( 1982). Functional importance and company performance: Moderating effects of grand strategy and industry type. Strategic Management Journal, 3( 4), 315-330.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291097-0266
[49] Huang S., &Cummings J.N . ( 2011). When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in Knowledge- Intensive teams. Small Group Research, 42( 6), 669-699.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046496411410073
[50] Hu Q.J., &Xie X.Y . ( 2015). Group members’ status and knowledge sharing: A motivational perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47( 4), 545-554.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxb201504010
[50] [ 胡琼晶, 谢小云 . ( 2015). 团队成员地位与知识分享行为:基于动机的视角. 心理学报, 47( 4), 545-554.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxb201504010
[51] Jackson S. E., Brett J. F., Sessa V. I., Cooper D. M., Julin J. A., &Peyronnin K . ( 1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76( 5), 675-689.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/76/5/675/
[52] James L.R . ( 1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229.
url: http://content.apa.org/journals/apl/67/2/219
[53] Johnson D.W., &Johnson R.T . ( 2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131( 4), 285-358.
pmid: 17191373 url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358
[54] Jung H., Vissa B., &Pich M . ( 2017). How do entrepreneurial founding teams allocate task positions? Academy of Management Journal, 60( 1), 264-294.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2014.0813
[55] Keltner D., van Kleef G. A., Chen S., &Kraus M. W . ( 2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151-192.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260107000032
[56] Kilduff G. J., Willer R., &Anderson C . ( 2016). Hierarchy and its discontents: Status disagreement leads to withdrawal of contribution and lower group performance. Organization Science, 27( 2), 373-390.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2016.1058
[57] Koopmann J., Lanaj K., Wang M., Zhou L., &Shi J . ( 2016). Team Tenure and member performance: The roles of psychological safety climate and climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 7), 940-957
url: http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2014/1/16677.abstract
[58] Kunze F., &Menges J.I . ( 2017). Younger supervisors, older subordinates: An organizational-level study of age differences, emotions, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38( 4), 461-486.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/job.v38.4
[59] Lammers J., Galinsky A. D., Gordijn E. H., &Otten S . ( 2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19( 6), 558-564.
pmid: 18578845 url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02123.x
[60] Lepine J. A., Piccolo R. F., Jackson C. L., Mathieu J. E., &Saul J. R . ( 2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61( 2), 273-307.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
[61] Luan K., Hu Q. J., &Xie X. Y . ( 2017). Status effects on teams. In E. Salas, R. Rico, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes( pp. 195-217). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[62] Ma D., Rhee M., &Yang D . ( 2013). Power source mismatch and the effectiveness of interorganizational relations: The case of venture capital syndication. Academy of Management Journal, 56( 3), 711-734.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2010.0832
[63] Magee J.C., &Galinsky A.D . ( 2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2( 1), 351-398.
url: http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/19416520802211628
[64] Mannix E.A . ( 1993). Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on coalition formation in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55( 1), 1-22.
url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597883710216
[65] Mathieu J., Maynard M. T., Rapp T., &Gilson L . ( 2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34( 3), 410-476.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-06508-003
[66] Muller D., Judd C. M., &Yzerbyt V. Y . ( 2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89( 6), 852-863.
pmid: 16393020 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
[67] Nohria N., &Garcia-Pont C. ( 1991). Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12( S1), 105-124.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28ISSN%291097-0266
[68] Peng M.W . ( 2010). Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25( 5), 453-471.
url: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.390/pdf
[69] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J., &Podsakoff N. P . ( 2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 5), 879-903.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
[70] Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D., &Hayes A. F . ( 2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42( 1), 185-227.
pmid: 26821081 url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00273170701341316
[71] Ridgeway C.L., &Berger J. ( 1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51( 5), 603-617.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095487?origin=crossref
[72] Rodgers J.L., &Nicewander W.A . ( 1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 42( 1), 59-66.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2685263
[73] Ronay R., Greenaway K., Anicich E. M., &Galinsky A. D . ( 2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23( 6), 669-677.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611433876
[74] Rovine M.J., &von Eye A. ( 1997). A 14th way to look at a correlation coefficient: Correlation as the proportion of matches. The American Statistician, 51( 1), 42-46.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2684692
[75] Sieweke J. &Zhao B. ( 2015). The impact of team familiarity and team leader experience on team coordination errors: A panel analysis of professional basketball teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36( 3), 382-402.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-04113-001
[76] Stewart G.L . ( 2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32( 1), 29-55.
[77] Streufert S., Pogash R., Piasecki M., &Post G. M . ( 1990). Age and management team performance. Psychology and Aging, 5( 4), 551-559.
pmid: 2278679 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0882-7974.5.4.551
[78] Tarakci M., Greer L. L., &Groenen, P. J. F . ( 2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101( 3), 415-429.
pmid: 26524111 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/apl0000056
[79] Tyler T.R . ( 2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57( 1), 375-400.
pmid: 16318600 url: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
[80] van Bunderen L., Greer L. L., &van Knippenberg D . ( 2018). When inter-team conflict spirals into intra-team power struggles: The pivotal role of team power structures. Academy of Management Journal, 61( 3), 1100-1130.
[81] van der Vegt , G. S., de Jong S. B., Bunderson J. S., &Molleman E . ( 2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21( 2), 347-361.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452
[82] van Dijke M., De Cremer D., &Mayer D. M . ( 2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95( 3), 488-502.
pmid: 20476828 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0018921
[83] Willis G. B., Guinote A., &Rodríguez-Bailón R . ( 2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46( 2), 416-419.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022103109002625
[84] , , Yuan F., &Zhou J .( 2015). Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36( 7), 990-1007.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/job.v36.7
[85] Zhao X.P., &Murrell A.J . ( 2016). Revisiting the corporate social performance-financial performance link: A replication of waddock and graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37( 11), 2378-2388.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/smj.2016.37.issue-11
[1] FANG Yanran,WEI Wei,LUO Ping,LIU Xiaodong,SHI Junqi,ZHAN Yujie. Daily negative affect and emotional labor strategies[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(3): 353-365.
[2] SHEN Yimo,MA Chenlu,BAI Xinwen,ZHU Yanhan,LU Yunlin,ZHANG Qinglin,LIU Jun. Linking abusive supervision with employee creativity: The roles of psychological contract breach and Zhongyong thinking style[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 238-247.
[3] DU Jing,CUI Yumeng. Take precautions: Impact of informal information before organizational change on employee resistance to change[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 248-258.
[4] WANG Haibo,YAN Ming,WU Haibo,LI Jinrong,WANG Xiaohui. Hostile retaliation or identity motivation? The mechanisms of how newcomers’ role organizational socialization affects their workplace ostracism[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(1): 128-140.
[5] HOU Nan,PENG Jian. Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, active implementation and job performance: An investigation on the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(1): 117-127.
[6] SHAO Jianping, HAN Xue, LIU Wumei. The influence and mechanism of external environment resource scarcity on employees remuneration preference[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1428-1437.
[7] Shengming LIU,Lifan CHEN,Simai WANG. Modesty brings gains: The effect of humble leader behavior on team creativity from a team communication perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(10): 1159-1168.
[8] Weiguo LIU, Yanran FANG, Junqi SHI, Shenjiang MO. The impact of supervisor’s creativity expectation on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 667-677.
[9] ZHU Yu, LYU Yang, WANG Yanfei, WANG Lixuan.  Coaching leadership effect on employees' creativity: Multilevel moderated mediator analysis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 327-336.
[10] LIANG Yongyi, YAN Ming, CHU Xiaoping.  The double-edge sword effects of leader group prototypicality in the multi-team context[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(1): 58-68.
[11] CHENG Ken, LIN Yinghui.  Congruence in organizational support and new generation employees’ turnover intention: The mediating role of employee well-being[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1570-1580.
[12] MAO Jianghua, LIAO Jianqiao, HAN Yi, LIU Wenxing.  The mechanism and effect of leader humility: An interpersonal relationship perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1219-1233.
[13] SHEN Yimo, CHOU Wanju, WEI Lihua, ZHANG Qinglin.  Benevolent leadership and subordinate innovative behavior: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1100-1112.
[14] LIU Chao, LIU Jun, ZHU Li, WU Shouqiang.  The causes of abusive supervision from the perspective of rule-adaptation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 966-979.
[15] ZHOU Xiang-Xian,JIN Zhi-Cheng. The Influence of Involvement on Information Processing of Rational Advertising Appeals[J]. , 2009, 41(04): 357-366.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech