Functionalist accounts of hierarchy, longstanding in the social sciences, have gained recent prominence in studies of leadership, power, and status. This chapter takes a critical look at a core implication of the functionalist perspective – namely, that steeper hierarchies help groups and organizations perform better than do flatter structures. We review previous research relevant to this question, ranging from studies of communication structures in small groups to studies of compensation systems in large corporations. This review finds that in contrast to strong functionalist assertions, the effects of steeper hierarchies are highly mixed. Sometimes steeper hierarchies benefit groups and sometimes they harm groups. We thus propose five conditions that moderate the effects of hierarchy steepness: (1) the kinds of tasks on which the group is working; (2) whether the right individuals have been selected as leaders; (3) how the possession of power modifies leaders’ psychology; (4) whether the hierarchy facilitates or hampers intra-group coordination; and (5) whether the hierarchy affects group members’ motivation in positive or deleterious ways.

Functional accounts of hierarchy propose that hierarchy increases group coordination and reduces conflict. In contrast, dysfunctional accounts claim that hierarchy impairs performance by preventing low-ranking team members from voicing their potentially valuable perspectives and insights. The current research presents evidence for both the functional and dysfunctional accounts of hierarchy within the same dataset. Specifically, we offer empirical evidence that hierarchical cultural values affect the outcomes of teams in high-stakes environments through group processes. Experimental data from a sample of expert mountain climbers from 27 countries confirmed that climbers expect that a hierarchical culture leads to improved team coordination among climbing teams, but impaired psychological safety and information sharing compared with an egalitarian culture. An archival analysis of 30,625 Himalayan mountain climbers from 56 countries on 5,104 expeditions found that hierarchy both elevated and killed in the Himalayas: Expeditions from more hierarchical countries had more climbers reach the summit, but also more climbers die along the way. Importantly, we established the role of group processes by showing that these effects occurred only for group, but not solo, expeditions. These findings were robust to controlling for environmental factors, risk preferences, expedition-level characteristics, country-level characteristics, and other cultural values. Overall, this research demonstrates that endorsing cultural values related to hierarchy can simultaneously improve and undermine group performance.

This paper discusses the small groups literature on status organizing processes in decision-making groups whose members differ in external status. This literature demonstrates that status characteristics, such as age, sex, and race determine the distribution of participation, influence, and prestige among members of such groups. This effect is independent of any prior cultural belief in the relevance of the status characteristic to the task. To explain this result, we assume that status determines evaluations of, and performance-expectations for group members and hence the distribution of participation, influence, and prestige. We stipulate conditions sufficient to produce this effect. Further, to explain the fact that the effect is independent of prior cultural belief, we assume that a status characteristic becomes relevant in all situations except when it is culturally known to be irrelevant. Direct experiment supports each assumption in this explanation independently of the others. Subsequent work devoted to refining and extending the theory finds among other things that, given two equally relevant status characteristics, individuals combine all inconsistent status information rather than reduce its inconsistency. If this result survives further experiment it extends the theory on a straightforward basis to multi-characteristic status situations.

Few empirical efforts have been devoted to differentiating status and power, and thus significant questions remain about differences in how status and power impact social encounters. We conducted 5 studies to address this gap. In particular, these studies tested the prediction that status and power would have opposing effects on justice enacted toward others. In the first 3 studies, we directly compared the effects of status and power on people's enactment of distributive (Study 1) and procedural (Studies 2 and 3) justice. In the last 2 studies, we orthogonally manipulated status and power and examined their main and interactive effects on people's enactment of distributive (Study 4) and procedural (Study 5) justice. As predicted, all 5 studies showed consistent evidence that status is positively associated with justice toward others, while power is negatively associated with justice toward others. The effects of power are moderated, however, by an individual's other orientation (Studies 2, 3, 4, and 5), and the effects of status are moderated by an individual's dispositional concern about status (Study 5). Furthermore, Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that status and power interact, such that the positive effect of status on justice emerges when power is low and not when power is high, providing further evidence for differential effects between power and status. Theoretical implications for the literatures on status, power, and distributive/procedural justice are discussed.

Despite a long history in social sciences such as anthropology and sociology, status has not received its deserved status in psychology and related domains such as management. This chapter attempts to bring greater clarity to the conceptualization of status and to highlight its distinctions from related bases of social hierarchy, such as power, dominance, and influence. To accomplish these goals, we first review current conceptual thinking on status and other related bases of social hierarchy. We then present a review of recent empirical evidence that supports differentiation among these bases of social hierarchy, focusing primarily on empirical work that differentiates status and power. We then propose an integrative framework that organizes the many related, yet distinct constructs that describe social hierarchy. Throughout, we are attentive to the fundamental question of why distinguishing status from these related aspects of social hierarchy matters oth for research and for a better understanding of social life.

Pay distribution research is relatively scarce in the compensation literature, yet pay distributions are viewed as critically important by organizational decision makers. This study is a direct test of the relationship between one form of pay distribution--pay dispersion--and performance conducted in a field setting where individual and organizational performance could be reliably observed and measured. Findings suggest more compressed pay dispersions are positively related to multiple measures of individual and organizational performance.

Past research on the relationship between top management team (TMT) compositional diversity and organizational performance has paid insufficient attention to the nature of TMT team processes in interaction with TMT diversity. We fill this gap by studying how three team mechanisms (collaborative behavior, accurate information exchange, and decision-making decentralization) moderate the impact of TMT diversity on financial performance of 33 information technology firms. We focus on two fundamentally different forms of TMT diversity: functional-background (FB) and locus-of-control (LOC). We argue that the former has the potential to enhance decision quality and organizational performance, whereas the latter might trigger relational conflict, and is, therefore, potentially detrimental to firm effectiveness. The ultimate aim of our study is to analyze which team processes help to transform distributed FB knowledge into high-quality decisions and organizational effectiveness, and which help avoid the potential detrimental effects of LOC diversity. We find that a TMTs collaborative behavior and information exchange are necessary conditions to unleash the performance benefits of FB diversity, but do not interact with LOC diversity. In addition, decentralized decision making spurs the effectiveness of functionally diverse teams, while at the same time reinforces the negative consequences of LOC diversity on firm performance.

This paper considers the effect of team structure on a team's engagement in learning and continuous improvement. We begin by noting the uncertain conceptual status of the structure concept in the small groups literature and propose a conceptualization of team structure that is grounded in the long tradition of work on formal structure in the sociology and organization theory literatures. We then consider the thesis that, at least in self-managed teams dealing with stable tasks, greater team structure---i.e., higher levels of specialization, formalization, and hierarchy---can promote learning by encouraging information sharing, reducing conflict frequency, and fostering a climate of psychological safety; that is, we examine a mediated model in which the effect of structure on learning and improvement in teams is mediated by psychological safety, information sharing, and conflict frequency. This model was largely supported in a study of self-managed production teams in a Fortune 100 high-technology firm, although the observed pattern of mediation was more complex than anticipated. Higher structure was also associated with actual productivity improvements in a subsample of these teams. The theory and results of this study advance our understanding of team learning and underscore the importance of team structure in research on team processes and performance.

This paper reviews the scholarly literature on the effects of social hierarchy---differences in power and status among organizational actors---on collective learning in organizations and groups. We begin with the observation that theories of organization and group learning have tended to adopt a rational system model, a model that emphasizes goal-directed and cooperative interactions between and among actors who may differ in knowledge and expertise but are undifferentiated with respect to power and status. Our review of the theoretical and empirical literatures on power, status, and learning suggests that social hierarchy can complicate a rational system model of collective learning by disrupting three critical learning-related processes: anchoring on shared goals, risk taking and experimentation, and knowledge sharing. We also find evidence to suggest that the stifling effects of power and status differences on collective learning can be mitigated when advantaged actors are collectively oriented. Indeed, our review suggests that higher-ranking actors who use their power and status in more ocialized ways can play critical roles in stimulating collective learning behavior. We conclude by articulating several promising directions for future research that were suggested by our review.

The monitoring role performed by the board of directors is an important corporate governance control mechanism, especially in countries where external mechanisms are less well developed. The gender composition of the board can affect the quality of this monitoring role and thus the financial performance of the firm. This is part of the "business case" for female participation on boards, though arguments may also be framed in terms of ethical considerations. While the issue of board gender diversity has attracted growing research interest in recent years, most empirical results are based on U.S. data. This article adds to a growing number of non-U.S. studies by investigating the link between the gender diversity of the board and firm financial performance in Spain, a country which historically has had minimal female participation in the workforce, but which has now introduced legislation to improve equality of opportunities. We investigate the topic using panel data analysis and find that gender diversity - as measured by the percentage of women on the board and by the Blau and Shannon indices - has a positive effect on firm value and that the opposite causal relationship is not significant. Our study suggests that investors in Spain do not penalise firms which increase their female board membership and that greater gender diversity may generate economic gains.

This study develops and tests a contingency theory on the functions of status hierarchy steepness in teams. Findings from a field study among 438 employees working in 72 work teams across diverse business settings demonstrate that task complexity moderates the relationships between status hierarchy steepness, different types of team conflict, and team performance. Steeper status hierarchies were negatively related to both process and task conflict, and hence increased team performance in teams working on tasks with lower complexity but did not yield such clear conflict and performance effects in teams working on more complex tasks. By showing that various levels of task complexity determine whether status hierarchy steepness has a conflict-regulating function that drives team performance, this research generates valuable insights about the context dependency of team responses to status hierarchy steepness.

In order to be effective, managers at all levels of the firm must engage in resource management activities, and these efforts are synchronized and orchestrated by top management. Using a specific type of strategic resource, commitment-based human resource systems, we examine the effect of CEO resource orchestration in a multi-industry sample of 190 Korean firms. Our results demonstrate that CEO emphasis on strategic HRM is a significant antecedent to commitment-based HR systems. Furthermore, our results also suggest that CEO emphasis on strategic HRM has its primary effects on firm performance through commitment-based HR systems. This finding underscores the importance of middle managers in operationalizing top management's strategic emphasis, lending empirical support to a fundamental tenet of resource orchestration arguments . Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The rapid and continuous growth of the Internet industry is highly important to China’s economy. Based on Porter’s diamond model and using data from 2002 to 2016, we construct a cultivation factor index of China’s Internet industrial competitiveness and its four composite indicators. We study the evolvement of the indexes over 15 years and analyze events that were key to the growth of cultivation factors of China’s Internet industrial competitiveness. The findings are as follows: (1) the cultivation factor index of Internet industrial competitiveness grows fast in waves, with alternating periods of steady growth and leap growth; (2) innovation in technology application, not technology itself, promotes the rapid increase of index; and (3) the influence of environmental opportunities and governments polices is demonstrated in evolvement of the index.

This paper describes how a team of entrepreneurs is formed in a high-tech start-up, how the team copes with crisis situations during the start-up phase, and how both the team as a whole and the team members individually learn from these crises. The progress of a high-tech university spin-off has been followed up from the idea phase until the post-start-up phase. Adopting a prospective, qualitative approach, the basic argument of this paper is that shocks in the founding team and the position of its champion co-evolve with shocks in the development of the business.

The chief executive officer (CEO) is generally regarded as the most powerful organizational member. Attributions regarding the potential effect of a strong CEO on firm financial performance are common in both the academic literature and popular press. The oft-made assumption is that a powerful CEO will impact firm performance. The anticipated direction of this influence, however, has not been uniformly established. Moreover, we are not aware of any direct empirical assessment of the relationship between CEO power and firm financial performance. We are also intrigued by the potential for reciprocal effects—firm performance impacts the level of CEO’s power. Our review of the literature demonstrates no empirical attention to this possibility. This study relies on a four-wave panel design to assess the nature of the relationship between CEO power and firm performance. Results of LISREL analysis demonstrate that aspects of CEO power and financial performance are, in fact, interrelated. Performance was found to be both an antecedent condition and outcome of CEO power.

This study provides a meta-analysis of research on the associations between relationship conflict, task conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. Consistent with past theorizing, results revealed strong and negative correlations between relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. In contrast to what has been suggested in both academic research and introductory textbooks, however, results also revealed strong and negative (instead of the predicted positive) correlations between task conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. As predicted, conflict had stronger negative relations with team performance in highly complex (decision making, project, mixed) than in less complex (production) tasks. Finally, task conflict was less negatively related to team performance when task conflict and relationship conflict were weakly, rather than strongly, correlated.

This paper considers the role of team learning in organizational learning. I propose that a group-level perspective provides new insight into how organizational learning is impeded, hindering effective change in response to external pressures. In contrast to previous theoretical perspectives, I suggest that organizational learning is local, interpersonal, and variegated. I present data from an exploratory study of learning processes in 12 organizational teams engaged in activities ranging from strategic planning to hands-on manufacturing of products. These qualitative data are used to investigate two components of the collective learning process—reflection to gain insight and action to produce change—and to explore how teams allow an organization to engage in both radical and incremental learning, as needed in a changing and competitive environment. I find that team members' perceptions of power and interpersonal risk affect the quality of team reflection, which has implications for their team's and their organization's ability to change.

78 Most research has studied power and status in isolation. 78 We explored how power and status interact. 78 We orthogonally crossed power and status and assessed behavior. 78 Power without status led to demeaning behavior toward others.

This chapter aims to illuminate the interpersonal dynamics of stratification, first defining it and related terms such as hierarchy, status, power, subordination, and oppression. Current research typically promotes either the advantages or disadvantages, respectively, of being at the top or the bottom of the social heap, revealing short and long term effects of hierarchy. Overall, however, the social psychology of stratification demonstrates both personal gains and losses to individuals, no matter what their hierarchical context.

Across two field studies, we investigate the impact of team power on team conflict and performance. Team power is based on the control of resources that enables a team to influence others in the company. We find across both studies that low-power teams outperform high-power teams. In both studies, higher levels of process conflict present in high-power teams explain this effect fully. In our second study, we show that team interpersonal power congruence (i.e., the degree to which team members self-views of their individual power within the team align with the perceptions of their other team members) ameliorates the relationship between team power and process conflict, such that when team interpersonal power congruence is high, high-power teams are less likely to experience performance-detracting process conflict.

Power is an inherent characteristic of social interaction, yet research has yet to fully explain what power and power dispersion may mean for conflict resolution in work groups. We found in a field study of 42 organizational work groups and a laboratory study of 40 negotiating dyads that the effects of power dispersion on conflict resolution are contingent on the level of interactants' power, thereby explaining contradictory theory and findings on power dispersion. We found that when members have low power, power dispersion is positively related to conflict resolution, but when members have high power, power dispersion is negatively related to conflict resolution (i.e., power equality is better). These findings can be explained by the mediating role of intragroup power struggles. Together, these findings suggest that power hierarchies function as a heuristic solution for conflict and contribute to adaptive social dynamics in groups with low, but not high, levels of power.

We review the new and growing body of work on power in teams and use this review to develop an emergent theory of how power impacts team outcomes. Our paper offers three primary contributions. First, our review highlights potentially incorrect assumptions that have arisen around the topic of power in teams and documents the areas and findings that appear most robust in explaining the effects of power on teams. Second, we contrast the findings of this review with what is known about the effects of power on individuals and highlight the directionally oppositional effects of power that emerge across different levels of analysis. Third, we integrate findings across levels of analysis into an emergent theory which explains why and when the benefits of power for individuals may paradoxically explain the potentially negative effects of power on team outcomes. We elaborate on how individual social comparisons within teams where at least one member has power increase intra-team power sensitivity, which we define as a state in which team members are excessively perceptive of, affected by, and responsive to resources. We theorize that when power-sensitized teams experience resource threats (either stemming from external threats or personal threats within the team), these threats will ignite internal power sensitivities and set into play performance-detracting intra-team power struggles. This conflict account of power in teams integrates and organizes past findings in this area to explain why and when power negatively affects team-level outcomes, and opens the door for future research to better understand why and when power may benefit team outcomes when power 檚 dark side for teams is removed.

Abstract 1 What is An Organization? 2 Organizational Homogeneity 3 Organizational Hierarchy 4 Homogeneity and Hierarchy are Mutually Reinforcing 5 Performance Implications of Organizing Preferences 6 Summary

This article examines the role of entrepreneurial teams in processes of entrepreneurial discovery. It addresses two main questions. The first investigates the implications of economic theory for the possibility of team entrepreneurship. Because leading economic theories focus almost exclusively upon individual decision-makers, we propose a broader notion of entrepreneurship that includes enterprising teams as well as individuals. We define entrepreneurship as a profit-seeking problem-solving process that takes place under conditions of structural uncertainty. The second question examines the conditions that are conducive to joint entrepreneurial action and the formation of entrepreneurial teams. We suggest that bounded structural uncertainty and perceived strong interdependence arising from common interest can jointly “prime” team entrepreneurship.

Research on organizational diversity, heterogeneity, and related concepts has proliferated in the past decade, but few consistent findings have emerged. We argue that the construct of diversity requires closer examination. We describe three distinctive types of diversity: separation, variety, and disparity. Failure to recognize the meaning, maximum shape, and assumptions underlying each type has held back theory development and yielded ambiguous research conclusions. We present guidelines for conceptualization, measurement, and theory testing, highlighting the special case of demographic diversity.

We develop the construct of board capital, composed of the breadth and depth of directors 'human and social capital, and explore how board capital affects strategic change. Building upon resource dependence theory, we submit that board capital breadth leads to more strategic change, while board capital depth leads to less. We also recognize CEO power as a moderator of these relationships. Our hypotheses are tested using a random sample of firms on the S & P 500. We find support for the effect of board capital on strategic change, and partial support for the moderating effect of CEO power.

61Paper examines relative desirability of power and status.61Men desire power more than women do but women desire status more than men do.61Legitimacy affects desirability of status but not power.

Abstract Although hierarchies are thought to be beneficial for groups, empirical evidence is mixed. We argue and find in 7 studies spanning methodologies and samples that different bases of hierarchical differentiation have distinct effects on lower ranking group members' disruptive competitive behavior because status hierarchies are seen as more mutable than are power hierarchies. Greater mutability means that more opportunity exists for upward mobility, which motivates individuals to compete in hopes of advancing their placement in the hierarchy. This research provides further evidence that different bases of hierarchy can have different effects on individuals and the groups of which they are a part and explicates a mechanism for those effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

61This research examines the interaction of power and legitimacy on conformity.61Legitimate power decreases conformity, consistent with prior research.61However, illegitimate power increases conformity.

We consider boards as human groups in the uppermost echelon of corporations and examine how an informal hierarchy that tacitly forms among a firm's directors affects firm financial performance. This informal hierarchy is based on directors' deference for one another. We argue that the clarity of the informal hierarchy can help coordinate boardroom interactions and thereby improve the likelihood of the board's contributing productively to the firm's performance. We further identify a set of internal and external contingencies affecting the functioning of the informal hierarchy. Our analysis of seven-year panel data on 530 U.S. manufacturing firms provides support for our arguments.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486299

Knowledge sharing has long been recognized as an effective way of making full use of the information and knowledge owned by group members. Although there are still few studies in exploring the relationship between status and knowledge sharing, extant literature has demonstrated contradictory conclusions concerning the effect of status. From a motivational perspective, this study aimed to explore how status would influence group members’ knowledge sharing behavior under different circumstances. Specifically, we speculated that the effect of status on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior was contingent on status stability within groups. When the difference in status was stable, high-status members would demonstrate more knowledge sharing behavior than low-status members. However, when the status difference was unstable, the condition would be reversed. Furthermore, we posited that the extent to which a group member would be influenced by status might depend on his or her concern for status. We predicted that individual status, status stability, and concern for status would have a three-way interaction effect on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior. A 2 (Status: high vs. low) × 2 (Status stability: stable vs. unstable) between-group experiment was conducted to test our hypotheses. A total of 113 college students participated in the experiment and were directed to finish two tests on a computer program. Each participant had two simulated teammates. After the first round of test, “artificial” performance was fed back to each participant. In the second round, each participant was given 12 chances to share answers with his or her teammates. After the test, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the computer. In this study, we used performance rating to manipulate individual status in groups and manipulated status stability by changing the task type in the second round of test. Knowledge sharing behavior was measured by the times each participant agreed to share his or her answer. We used SPSS 17.0 to analyze our data. Most of our hypotheses were supported by the results. First, status stability would interact with individual status to have a significant effect on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior. F-test showed that in a high status stability condition, high-status members demonstrated more knowledge sharing behavior than low-status members did. However, in a low status stability condition, low-status members tended to share more knowledge with others than high-status members did. It was also revealed that high-status members were more likely to share their knowledge when the status difference was stable than when it was unstable condition. In addition, when the status difference was stable within group, individual’s concern for status would interact with one’s status to impact his or her knowledge sharing behavior, such that the more concern the low-status members had for their status, the less they would share their knowledge within the group. Overall, we discuss individual’s dual motives at different status levels as well as the relationship between group members’ status and knowledge sharing behavior. It contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, it optimizes ecological validity of group study and makes a contribution to explore the interaction process within group. Second, by introducing status stability as a contextual factor, we integrate contradictory theories and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the effect of status. What is more, we supplement the study of status by investigating status from a motivational perspective. The findings have practical implications for group knowledge management.

ABSTRACT B. Schneider's (1987) attraction-selection-attrition model and J. Pfeffer's (1983) organization demography model were used to generate individual-level and group-level hypotheses relating interpersonal context to recruitment, promotion, and turnover patterns. Interpersonal context was operationalized as personal dissimilarity and group heterogeneity with respect to age, tenure, education level, curriculum, alma mater, military service, and career experiences. For 93 top management teams in bank holding companies examined over a 4-yr period, turnover rate was predicted by group heterogeneity. For individuals, turnover was predicted by dissimilarity to other group members, but promotion was not. Team heterogeneity was a relatively strong predictor of team turnover rates. Furthermore, reliance on internal recruitment predicted subsequent team homogeneity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Social interdependence theory is a classic example of the interaction of theory, research, and practice. The premise of the theory is the way that goals are structured determines how individuals interact, which in turn creates outcomes. Since its for mulation nearly 60 years ago, social interdependence theory has been modified, extended, and refined on the basis of the increasing knowledge about, and application of, the theory. Researchers have conducted over 750 research studies on the relative merits of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts and the conditions under which each is appropriate. Social interdependence theory has been widely applied, especially in education and business. These applications have resulted in revisions of the theory and the generation of considerable new research. The authors critically analyze the new developments resulting from extensive research on, and wide-scale applications of, social interdependence theory.

How do founding team members allocate task positions when launching new ventures? Answering this question is important because prior work shows both that founding team members often have correlated expertise, thus making task position allocation problematic; and initial occupants of task positions exert a lingering effect on venture outcomes. We draw on status characteristics theory to derive predictions on how co-founders specific expertise cues and diffuse status cues drive initial task position allocation. We also examine the performance consequences of mismatches between the task position and position occupant. Qualitative fieldwork combined with a quasi-experimental simulation game and an experiment provides causal tests of the conceptual framework. We find that co-founders whose diffuse status cues of gender (male), ethnicity (white) or achievement (occupational prestige or academic honors) indicated general ability were typical occupants of higher ranked positions, such as CEO role, within the founding team. In addition, specific expertise cues that indicated relevant ability predicted task position allocation. Founding teams created more financially valuable ventures when task position occupants diffuse status cues were typical for the position; nonetheless position occupants with high diffuse status cues also appropriated more of the created value. Our results inform both entrepreneurship and status characteristics literature.

In the present chapter, we advance a reciprocal influence model of social power. Our model is rooted in evolutionist analyses of primate hierarchies, and notions that the capacity for subordinates to form alliances imposes important demands upon those in power, and that power heuristically reduces the likelihood of conflicts within groups. Guided by these assumptions, we posit a set of propositions regarding the reciprocal nature of power, and review recent supporting data. With respect to the acquisition of social power, we show that power is afforded to those individuals and strategic behaviors related to advancing the interests of the group. With respect to constraints upon power, we detail how group‐based representations (a fellow group member's reputation), communication (gossip), and self‐assessments (an individual's modest sense of power) constrain the actions of those in power according to how they advance group interests. Finally, with respect to the notion that power acts as a social interaction heuristic, we examine how social power is readily and accurately perceived by group members and gives priority to the emotions, goals, and actions of high‐power individuals in shaping interdependent action. We conclude with a discussion of recent studies of the subjective sense of power and class‐based ideologies.

Current understanding of the effect of team tenure on team processes suggests that psychological safety climate and climate strength increase as team tenure increases. However, theoretical and empirical work contradicts this assumption. Specifically, team development theories suggest that teams encounter various interpersonal experiences throughout their tenure, making a linear relationship an unlikely description of team tenure relationship with psychological safety climate and climate strength. The primary purpose of this research is to develop and test theory that captures the complex way in which psychological safety climate and climate strength develop as a function of team tenure. We found that team tenure had a curvilinear relationship with psychological safety climate and climate strength. Shorter-tenured teams exhibited a negative relationship between team tenure and psychological safety climate and climate strength, whereas longer-tenured teams exhibited a positive relationship between team tenure and psychological safety climate and climate strength. Moreover, we considered whether the nonlinear effect of team tenure translates to affect member performance via psychological safety climate. We found that psychological safety climate was positively related to creative performance regardless of climate strength, whereas psychological safety climate was positively associated with job performance in strong climates but unassociated in weak climates.

Younger employees are often promoted into supervisory positions in which they then manage older subordinates. Do companies benefit or suffer when supervisors and subordinates have inverse age differences? In this study, we examine how average age differences between younger supervisors and older subordinates are linked to the emotions that prevail in the workforce, and to company performance. We propose that the average age differences determine how frequently older subordinates and their coworkers experience negative emotions, and that these emotion frequency levels in turn relate to company performance. The indirect relationship between age differences and performance occurs only if subordinates express their feelings toward their supervisor, but the association is neutralized if emotions are suppressed. We find consistent evidence for this theoretical model in a study of 61 companies with multiple respondents.

ABSTRACT A wealth of research has found that power leads to behavioral approach and action. Four experiments demonstrate that this link between power and approach is broken when the power relationship is illegitimate. When power was primed to be legitimate or when power positions were assigned legitimately, the powerful demonstrated more approach than the powerless. However, when power was experienced as illegitimate, the powerless displayed as much approach as, or even more approach than, the powerful. This moderating effect of legitimacy occurred regardless of whether power and legitimacy were manipulated through experiential primes, semantic primes, or role manipulations. It held true for behavioral approach (Experiment 1) and two effects associated with it: the propensity to negotiate (Experiment 2) and risk preferences (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that how power is conceptualized, acquired, and wielded determines its psychological consequences and add insight into not only when but also why power leads to approach.

No abstract is available for this item.

Abstract The authors review team research that has been conducted over the past 10 years. They discuss the nature of work teams in context and note the substantive differences underlying different types of teams. They then review representative studies that have appeared in the past decade in the context of an enhanced input-process-outcome framework that has evolved into an inputs-mediators-outcome time-sensitive approach. They note what has been learned along the way and identify fruitful directions for future research. They close with a reconsideration of the typical team research investigation and call for scholars to embrace the complexity that surrounds modern team-based organizational designs as we move forward.

Abstract Procedures for examining whether treatment effects on an outcome are mediated and/or moderated have been well developed and are routinely applied. The mediation question focuses on the intervening mechanism that produces the treatment effect. The moderation question focuses on factors that affect the magnitude of the treatment effect. It is important to note that these two processes may be combined in informative ways, such that moderation is mediated or mediation is moderated. Although some prior literature has discussed these possibilities, their exact definitions and analytic procedures have not been completely articulated. The purpose of this article is to define precisely both mediated moderation and moderated mediation and provide analytic strategies for assessing each.

A theoretical framework is proposed to understand the structure of networks of strategic linkages in global industries. It is argued that global industry structure should be understood in terms of firm membership in `strategic groups' and `strategic blocks'. Strategic groups are based on similarities in the strategic capabilities of firms. Strategic blocks, on the other hand, are based on similarities in their strategic linkages. Two types of strategic blocks are proposed complementary blocks composed of firms from different strategic groups, and pooling blocks composed of firms from the same strategic group. It is further proposed that in equilibrium, each strategic block will have access to a similar set of strategic capabilities Empirical support for these arguments is drawn from the global automobile industry during the period 1980-90. The implications of strategic blocks for intra-industry performance differences are discussed in the concluding section of this paper

Do outside directors on corporate boards make a difference in firm performance during institutional transitions? What leads to the practice of appointing outside directors in the absence of legal mandate? This article addresses these two important questions by drawing not only on agency theory, but also resource dependence and institutional theories. Taking advantage of China's institutional transitions, our findings, based on an archival database covering 405 publicly listed firms and 1211 company--years, suggest that outsider directors do make a difference in firm performance, if such performance is measured by sales growth, and that they have little impact on financial performance such as return on equity (ROE). The results also document a bandwagon effect behind the diffusion of the practice of appointing outsiders to corporate boards. The article not only highlights the need to incorporate multiple theories beyond agency theory in corporate governance research, but also generates policy implications in light of the recent trend toward having more outside directors on corporate boards in emerging economies.

This article provides researchers with a guide to properly construe and conduct analyses of conditional indirect effects, commonly known as moderated mediation effects. We disentangle conflicting definitions of moderated mediation and describe approaches for estimating and testing a variety of hypotheses involving conditional indirect effects. We introduce standard errors for hypothesis testing and construction of confidence intervals in large samples but advocate that researchers use bootstrapping whenever possible. We also describe methods for probing significant conditional indirect effects by employing direct extensions of the simple slopes method and Johnson-Neyman technique for probing significant interactions. Finally, we provide an SPSS macro to facilitate the implementation of the recommended asymptotic and bootstrapping methods. We illustrate the application of these methods with an example drawn from the Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions, showing that the indirect effect of intrinsic student interest on mathematics performance through teacher perceptions of talent is moderated by student math self-concept.

This paper proposes an expectation states theory of the legitimation of power and prestige orders in task groups. Valued status positions are a reward for those whose distribution members develop expectations. The more differentiated these expectations, the more likely that the power and prestige order will be treated as legitimate. Applying our formulation to various types of group structures we derive a set of theoretical assertions that relate the initial status composition of a group to the likelihood that its power and prestige order becomes legitimatized. These predict, among other things, that legitimation of structure is more likely to develop in heterogeneous status consistent groups than in groups that are initially homogeneous, and it is more likely to develop in the latter groups than in heterogeneous status inconsistent groups. If verified, these predictions will provide an explanation for the difficulty that those who operate from a disadvantaged external status position, such as women and minorities in mixed sex or bi-racial groups, often face in trying to wield directive power over their members even when they are task leaders.

In 1885, Sir Francis Galton first defined the term 090008regression090009 and completed the theory of bivariate correlation. A decade later, Karl Pearson developed the index that we still use to measure correlation, Pearson''s r. Our article is written in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Galton''s first discussion of regression and correlation. We begin with a brief history. Then we present 13 different formulas, each of which represents a different computational and conceptual definition of r. Each formula suggests a different way of thinking about this index, from algebraic, geometric, and trigonometric settings. We show that Pearson''s r (or simple functions of r) may variously be thought of as a special type of mean, a special type of variance, the ratio of two means, the ratio of two variances, the slope of a line, the cosine of an angle, and the tangent to an ellipse, and may be looked at from several other interesting perspectives.

An interpretation of the correlation coefficient is presented that describes the coefficient in terms of the proportion of matches in an idealized data set. This characteristic is then expressed as the result of the definition of the Pearson product-moment correlation. An expression is derived to relate the correlation coefficient to the proportion of times a second variable falls within a set range of the first. Both a simulation and a real data example are presented to show how this would be reflected in data.

ABSTRACT This study addresses an important but so far neglected topic in group research by analyzing the influence of team familiarity and team leader tenure on a special kind of team performance, namely team errors, i.e. errors that occur in the interactions of team members. Based on a panel data set of teams from the National Basketball Association, we find a U-shaped relationship between team familiarity and team errors. While increases in team member familiarity initially reduce team errors, they increase if team members become too familiar. Moreover, our study also identifies a U-shaped relationship between team leader tenure and team errors, which also indicates that if team leader tenure exceeds a critical point team errors increase. Our study contributes to error research in that we discuss a so far neglected error category. Moreover, we also contribute to research on group familiarity and group leaders in that we extent the current focus on group performance with a perspective on errors.

ABSTRACT One hundred eighty male managers participated as age-homogeneous 4-person teams in a validated all-day decision-making simulation. Fifteen teams consisted of 28- to 35-year-old participants (young), 15 teams were in the 45-55 age range (middle-aged), and 15 teams consisted of 65- to 75-year-old (older) persons. More than 40 objective performance measures (loading on 12-15 factors) were calculated on the basis of team decision making, planning, and other indicators. Performance by young and middle-aged teams was generally similar. Older teams made fewer decisions and were less strategic and less responsive to incoming information. Their overview of the task was less broad; action diversity and information search was reduced. However, older teams used opportunities and handled a simulated emergency as effectively as their younger and middle-aged counterparts. Alternative explanations for the obtained differences are presented.

Power differences are ubiquitous in social settings. However, the question of whether groups with higher or lower power disparity achieve better performance has thus far received conflicting answers. To address this issue, we identify 3 underlying assumptions in the literature that may have led to these divergent findings, including a focus on static hierarchies, an assumption that those at the top of hierarchies are competent at group tasks, and an assumption that equality is not possible. We employ a multimethod set of studies to examine these assumptions and to understand when power disparity will help or harm group performance. First, our agent-based simulation analyses show that by unpacking these common implicit assumptions in power research, we can explain earlier disparate findings-power disparity benefits group performance when it is dynamically aligned with the power holder's task competence, and harms group performance when held constant and/or is not aligned with task competence. Second, our empirical findings in both a field study of fraud investigation groups and a multiround laboratory study corroborate the simulation results. We thereby contribute to research on power by highlighting a dynamic understanding of power in groups and explaining how current implicit assumptions may lead to opposing findings. (PsycINFO Database Record.

Legitimacy is a psychological property of an authority,institution,or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that it is appropriate,proper,and just.Because of legitimacy,people feel that they ought to defer to decisions and rules,following them voluntarily out of obligation rather than out of fear of punishment or anticipation of reward.Being legitimate is important to the success of authorities,institutions,and institutional arrangements since it is difficult to exert influence over others based solely upon the possession and use of power.Being able to gain voluntary acquiescence from most people,most of the time,due to their sense of obligation increases effectiveness during periods of scarcity,crisis and conflict.The concept of legitimacy has a long history within social thought and social psychology,and it has emerged as increasingly important within recent research on the dynamics of political,legal,and social systems.

Past research suggests that power asymmetry within teams can have a stifling effect on team learning and performance. We argue here that this effect is contingent on whether power advantages within a team are used to advance individual or collective interests. This study considers the moderating role of one factor that can influence the individual or collective orientation of team members-the type of performance feedback that a team receives. We propose that whereas individual feedback reinforces the negative effects of power asymmetry on team learning, group feedback fosters a collective orientation within a team that transforms power differences into a stimulus for team learning. Analysis of multisource, multimethod data obtained from 218 individuals in 46 teams provided support for these hypotheses. Results also suggested that team learning mediated the relationship between power asymmetry and team performance. These findings suggest that power asymmetry can be a resource for and not just an obstacle to team learning in power-asymmetric teams.

Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.

The effects of power legitimacy on self-regulation during goal pursuit were examined. Study 1 focused on goal-setting and goal-striving. Specifically, it examined how much time legitimate and illegitimate powerless individuals needed to set goals, and how many means they generated to pursue these goals. Study 2 examined persistence in the face of difficulties. Consistently across these studies illegitimacy improved self-regulation in powerless individuals. Illegitimate powerless individuals behaved similarly as control participants. They took less time to decide on a course of action, used more flexible means to strive for goals, and persisted longer in the face of difficulties, compared to their legitimate counterparts. The implications of these findings are discussed.

ABSTRACT We develop a conceptual model to theorize the impact of high versus low power distance cultural contexts on group creativity and individual group member creativity. High power distance cultural contexts manifest in group social environments where status differentiation among individuals is expected and accepted. This hierarchical social environment is substantially different from the relatively equal social environment in low power distance cultural contexts. Building on this premise, we theorize how and why power distance cultural contexts may (1) impact group creativity by influencing the divergent and convergent processes at the group level and (2) impact the creativity of individual group members by influencing an individual's cognitive task involvement and impression management motives. Further, we identify contextual factors and individual differences that may moderate the impact of power distance. This conceptual model advances our understanding of how creative processes in groups may differ in different cultural contexts as well as suggests ways to foster group creativity in non-Western high power distance cultural contexts. Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract Research summary: In this study, we revisit the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) by conducting a replication of Waddock and Graves (1997). Using 1990 KLD ratings as the CSP measure, the original study reports a positive bidirectional relationship between CSP and CFP. However, our replication analyses with a larger sample over a longer time period indicate that the findings of the original study may not be generalizable to different samples. We argue that our replication casts doubt on the original study and can serve as a starting point to reconsider the CSP-CFP relationship. Based on the findings of our replication, we discuss the differences between the replication results and the original findings, and then suggest several approaches to revise and extend the original study .Managerial summary: Advocates of corporate social performance (CSP) have long argued that oing good leads to doing well. However, the evidence to support this argument is not strongly convincing, and managers hence doubt whether better CSP leads to improved corporate financial performance (CFP). In this article, we directly examine the relationship between CSP and CFP. Our article reports that CSP may not have a positive influence on CFP. Instead, our article shows the complexity of the relationship between CSP and CFP. Therefore, we cannot simply argue that doing good will necessarily lead to doing well . Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.