Rules can maintain harmony? The influence of team pro-social rule breaking climate on team performance from the perspective of harmony management

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00066

Abstract

Abstract:

In Chinese organizations, it is not uncommon that employees deviate from established rules in order to help others or to enhance work efficiency. Accordingly, such pro-social rule breaking (PSRB) has attracted strong and increasing research attention. However, while scholars have studied the antecedents and outcomes of PSRB at the individual level, no relevant research has explored the notion of team PSRB climate and its effects on team outcomes. By building on harmony management theory, our study proposes and tests a mediated moderation model that explored when and why team PSRB climate influences team performance.
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a three-wave field study from three major construction companies in China. All the data were collected on-site through paper and pencil surveys. At each time point, three researchers visited the companies and distributed the questionnaires to the team leaders and their subordinates. The participants completed the surveys and placed them in sealed envelopes, which were then collected by the research team. All participants received a small gift in exchange for their participation. We received complete responses from 74 team leaders and their 334 subordinates.
The results provided support for our theoretical model and showed that (1) the interaction between team PSRB climate and task interdependence significantly predicted team harmony, such that the negative relationship between team PSRB climate and team harmony was stronger when task interdependence was high rather than low; (2) team harmony was significantly positively related to team performance; (3) team harmony mediated the interactive effect of team PSRB climate and task interdependence on team performance, such that the indirect effect was negative when task interdependence was high.
In summary, our study makes three key contributions. First, we extend the literature by conceptualizing PSRB at the team level and by describing the theoretical foundations for the emergence of team PSRB climate. Specifically, we argue that a team’s PSRB climate develops through processes of social interaction as team members observe, communicate, and share their PSRB experiences. Second, we provide novel insights into the mechanisms through which team PSRB climate influences team performance. Our results suggest that team harmony plays an important role for the effects of team PSRB climate. Third, we identify an important boundary condition for the effects of team PSRB climate. Specifically, our results indicate that it is crucial to consider the moderating effect of task interdependence to yield a more complete and accurate understanding of whether and when teams will experience more or less disharmony as a result of their PSRB climate.

Key words: team pro-social rule breaking climate, team harmony, task interdependence, team performance

CAI Yahua, CHENG Jialin, LI Jinsong. (2022). Rules can maintain harmony? The influence of team pro-social rule breaking climate on team performance from the perspective of harmony management. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(1), 66-77.

Figures/Tables 5

References 65

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[2]	Bachrach D. G., Powell B. C., Collins B. J., & Richey R. J. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396-1405. pmid: 17100493
[3]	Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355-373. doi: 10.1177/109442819814001 URL
[4]	Bryant P. C., Davis C. A., Hancock J. I., & Vardaman J. M. (2010). When rule makers become rule breakers: Employee level outcomes of managerial pro-social rule breaking. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(2), 101-112. doi: 10.1007/s10672-009-9114-6 URL
[5]	Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 URL
[6]	Chen C. C., Ünal A. F., Leung K., & Xin K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 903-934. doi: 10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0 URL
[7]	Chen Y. S., Wang L., Liu X., Chen H., Hu Y. Y., & Yang H. L. (2019). The trickle-down effect of leaders’ pro-social rule breaking: Joint moderating role of empowering leadership and courage. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2647-2656. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02647 URL
[8]	Chua, R. Y. J. (2013). The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1545-1577. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0971 URL
[9]	Courtright S. H., Thurgood G. R., Stewart G. L., & Pierotti A. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825-1846. doi: 10.1037/apl0000027 pmid: 25938722
[10]	Crawford, J. L., & Haaland, G. A. (1972). Predecisional information seeking and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(1), 112-119. doi: 10.1037/h0032870 URL
[11]	Dahling J. J., Chau S. L., Mayer D. M., & Gregory J. B. (2018). Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 21-42. doi: 10.1002/job.v33.1 URL
[12]	Dean Jr, J. W., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects of organizational inertial. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 776-804.
[13]	Denison D. R., Hart S. L., & Kahn J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1005-1023.
[14]	Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL
[15]	Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 243-261. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004 URL
[16]	Griffin M. A., Neal A., & Parker S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 URL
[17]	Guo, G. X., & Cheng, B. (2021). Effects of customer empowering behaviors on employees’ career growth: Perspective of self-determination theory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(2), 215-228. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00215 URL
[18]	Huang Y. L., Lu X. X., & Wang X. (2014). The effects of transformational leadership on employee’s pro-social rule breaking. Canadian Social Science, 10(1), 128-134.
[19]	Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Lingking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1102-1127. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.1142 URL
[20]	James L. R., Demaree R. G., & Wolf G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied of Psychology, 69(1), 85-98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 URL
[21]	King D. D., Newman A., & Luthans F. (2016). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 782-786. doi: 10.1002/job.v37.5 URL
[22]	Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74
[23]	Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley.
[24]	Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x pmid: 26158912
[25]	Leung K., Brew F. P., Zhang Z.-X., & Zhang Y. (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 795-816. doi: 10.1177/0022022110363474 URL
[26]	Leung K., Koch P. T., & Lu L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 201-220. doi: 10.1023/A:1016287501806 URL
[27]	Liang C. G., Han W., Liu P., Zhang J. B., & Xu S. Q. (2020). Dual coupling theory of constraints-agency and certainty-uncertainty. Chinese Journal of Management, 17(1), 40-49.
[28]	Liden R. C., Erdogan B., Wayne S. J., & Sparrowe R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[29]	Li P. F., Ge J., & Xi Y. M. (2014). Leadership studies in hexie management theory: A review and research agenda. Chinese Journal of Management, 11(11), 159-1600.
[30]	Li R., Tian X. M., & Ling W. Q. (2015). Mechanisms of how managerial openness and supervisor-subordinate guanxi impact on employee pro-social rule breaking. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 35(2), 342-357.
[31]	Liu, X. G., & Wang, Z. H. (2018). Influence mechanism of managerial pro-social rule breaking on employee behavior from the perspective of opposition between favor and reason: A cross-levels and longitudinal study. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 191-203. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00191 URL
[32]	Lovelace K., Shapiro D. L., & Weingart L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793.
[33]	Lun V. M.-C. (2012). Harmonizing conflicting views about harmony in Chinese culture. In X. Huang, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp.467-480). USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[34]	Lun, V. M.-C., & Bond, M. H. (2006). Achieving relationship harmony in groups and its consequence for group performance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 195-202. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.2006.9.issue-3 URL
[35]	Luo, X. P., & Zhang, X. Q. (2018). Study on professional executive compensation management in private enterprises based on Hexie management theory. Soft Science, 26(5), 94-99.
[36]	Maltarich M. A., Kukenberger M., Reilly G., & Mathieu J. (2018). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 6-37.
[37]	March J. G., Schulz M., & Zhou, X. G. (2000) The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[38]	Martin A. W., Lopez S. H., Roscigno V. J., & Hodson R. (2013). Against the rules: Synthesizing types and processes of bureaucratic rule-breaking. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 550-574. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0223 URL
[39]	Mayer D. M., Caldwell J., Ford R. C., Uhl-Bien M., & Gresock A. R. (2007). Should I serve my customer or my supervisor? A relational perspective on pro-social rule breaking. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
[40]	Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1), 5-28. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277790 URL
[41]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5^th ed.). Los Angeles:Author.
[42]	Owens B. P., Johnson M. D., & Mitchell T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517-1538. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0795 URL
[43]	Podsakoff P. M., Mackenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P. (2018). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. doi: 10.1146/psych.2012.63.issue-1 URL
[44]	Saavedra R., Earley P. C., & van Dyne L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61 URL
[45]	Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[46]	Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008. Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from http://quantpsy.org/.
[47]	Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. pmid: 10740960
[48]	Solow D., Vairaktarakis G., Piderit S. K., & Tsai M.-C. (2002). Managerial insights into the effects of interactions on replacing members of a team. Management Science, 48(8), 1060-1073. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1060.164 URL
[49]	Sun J. Q., Tian X. M., & Liu Y. (2016). Employees’ pro-social rule breaking in organizations. Journal of Soochow University Philosophy & Social Science Edition, 6, 114-121.
[50]	Ünal A. F., Chen C. C., & Xin K. R. (2017). Justice climates and management team effectiveness: The central role of group harmony. Management and Organization Review, 13(4), 821-849. doi: 10.1017/mor.2017.54 URL
[51]	van der Vegt G., Emans B., & van de Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633-655. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600403 URL
[52]	van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29(5), 729-751 doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00033-3 URL
[53]	Vardaman J. M., Gondo M. B., & Allen D. G. (2014). Ethical climate and pro-social rule breaking in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 108-118. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.05.001 URL
[54]	Wageman, R. (1999). The meaning of interdependence. In M. Turner (Eds.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 197-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[55]	Wang Q., Xi Y. M., & Shang Y. F. (2003). The core of the theory of “hexie” management: The interpretation of the theme of “hexie”. Management Review, 15(9), 24-30.
[56]	Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organization. MA: Addison-Wesley.
[57]	Xi Y. M., Liu P., Kong F., & Ge J. (2013). HeXie management theory: Origins, implications and prospects. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27(2), 1-8.
[58]	Xi Y. M., Shang Y. S., Jin H., & Han W. (2009). Reflection on hexie management theory and its application. Chinese Journal of Management, 6(1), 12-18.
[59]	Xi Y. M., Xiao H. W., & Wang H. T. (2005). HeXie management theory and its new development in the principles. Chinese Journal of Management, 2(1), 23-32.
[60]	Xi Y. M., Xiong C., & Liu P. (2020). Review and discussion on the application of hexie management theory. Journal of Management World, 2, 195-212.
[61]	Xu C. L., Duan W. C., Sun Y. H., & Du Y. W. (2014). Theme discrimination and optimization of hexie management mechanism for innovation team. Chinese Journal of Management, 11(3), 390-395.
[62]	Xu, S. Y., & Zhu, J. Q. (2017). Ethical leadership and pro-social rule breaking: A dual process model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(1), 106-115. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00106 URL
[63]	Yan S. Z., Xu H. H., & Zhang P. (2018). Research of influence on employee pro-social rule breakings of differential leaders. Business Management Journal, 44(8), 35-39.
[64]	Zhu, J. Q., & Xu, S. Y. (2015). Counter-productive work behavior and pro-social rule breaking behavior: Based on compensatory ethics view. Economic Management, 37(10), 75-85.
[65]	Zhu J. Q., Xu S. Y., Ouyang K., Herst D., & Farndale E. (2018). Ethical leadership and employee pro-social rule-breaking behavior in China. Asian Business & Management, 17(1), 59-81.

Model	c²	df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Four-factor model	58.79	38	0.94	0.91	0.09	0.09
Three-factor model	162.15	41	0.67	0.55	0.16	0.21
Two-factor model	202.37	43	0.56	0.44	0.18	0.24
Single factor model	294.62	64	0.31	0.14	0.23	0.29

Model	c²	df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Four-factor model	58.79	38	0.94	0.91	0.09	0.09
Three-factor model	162.15	41	0.67	0.55	0.16	0.21
Two-factor model	202.37	43	0.56	0.44	0.18	0.24
Single factor model	294.62	64	0.31	0.14	0.23	0.29

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Team size	4.51	2.43
2. Leader gender	1.65	0.48	0.22
3. Leader age	44.56	6.61	-0.08	-0.18
4. Leader education	3.60	0.74	0.03	-0.34^**	0.07
5. Members gender	1.58	0.34	0.05	0.20	0.03	-0.04
6. Members age	40.24	5.88	-0.05	-0.17	0.61^**	0.21	0.10
7. Members education	4.27	0.76	-0.03	-0.02	0.27^*	0.49^**	-0.05	0.13
8. Team PSRB climate	2.44	0.80	0.09	0.14	-0.09	-0.02	0.13	-0.13	-0.10
9. Task interdependence	4.81	1.11	0.13	-0.12	0.16	0.14	-0.14	0.10	0.15	-0.11
10. Team harmony	5.85	0.68	-0.17	-0.07	0.05	-0.14	-0.04	0.16	-0.06	-0.13	0.20
11. Team performance	6.03	0.60	-0.14	-0.09	0.12	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.12	-0.01	-0.04	0.43^**

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Team size	4.51	2.43
2. Leader gender	1.65	0.48	0.22
3. Leader age	44.56	6.61	-0.08	-0.18
4. Leader education	3.60	0.74	0.03	-0.34^**	0.07
5. Members gender	1.58	0.34	0.05	0.20	0.03	-0.04
6. Members age	40.24	5.88	-0.05	-0.17	0.61^**	0.21	0.10
7. Members education	4.27	0.76	-0.03	-0.02	0.27^*	0.49^**	-0.05	0.13
8. Team PSRB climate	2.44	0.80	0.09	0.14	-0.09	-0.02	0.13	-0.13	-0.10
9. Task interdependence	4.81	1.11	0.13	-0.12	0.16	0.14	-0.14	0.10	0.15	-0.11
10. Team harmony	5.85	0.68	-0.17	-0.07	0.05	-0.14	-0.04	0.16	-0.06	-0.13	0.20
11. Team performance	6.03	0.60	-0.14	-0.09	0.12	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.12	-0.01	-0.04	0.43^**

Variables	Team Harmony, T2			Team performance T3
Variables	b	SE	t	b	SE	t
Intercept term	5.78	1.04	5.55^***	2.82	1.96	1.43
Team size (T1)	-0.05	0.02	-2.80^**	-0.01	0.02	-0.37
Leader gender (T1)	-0.11	0.17	-0.64	-0.06	0.19	-0.30
Leader age (T1)	-0.01	0.02	-0.63	0.02	0.01	1.38
Leader education (T1)	-0.18	0.16	-1.15	0.15	0.10	1.44
Team members gender (T1)	0.21	0.29	0.72	0.15	0.20	0.75
Team members age (T1)	0.02	0.01	2.14^*	-0.02	0.01	-2.40^*
Team members education (T1)	0.02	0.13	0.14	0.03	0.03	1.10
Team PSRB climate (T1)	-0.09	0.06	-1.57	0.05	0.05	0.87
Task interdependence (T1)	0.13	0.06	2.23^*	-0.09	0.09	-1.02
Team PSRB climate (T1) × task interdependence (T1)	-0.22	0.08	-2.96^**	0.12	0.06	1.83
Team harmony (T2)				0.47	0.09	5.57^***
Residual variance	0.36	0.11	3.33^**	0.27	0.05	5.48^***