心理学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (3): 366-382.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00366
季浩1,2, 谢小云2(), 肖永平3, 甘小乐3, 冯雯2
收稿日期:
2017-12-21
发布日期:
2019-01-22
出版日期:
2019-03-25
通讯作者:
谢小云
E-mail:xiexy@zju.edu.cn
基金资助:
JI Hao1,2, XIE Xiao-Yun2(), XIAO Yong-Ping3, GAN Xiao-Le3, FENG Wen2
Received:
2017-12-21
Online:
2019-01-22
Published:
2019-03-25
Contact:
XIE Xiao-Yun
E-mail:xiexy@zju.edu.cn
摘要:
本研究致力于探讨在权力与地位不一致的背景下, 权力层级与团队绩效研究的分歧。本研究提出权力层级与团队绩效的关系取决于团队的层级一致性——权力与地位的匹配度。具体地, 当层级一致(权力与地位匹配)时, 权力层级促进团队绩效; 当层级不一致(权力与地位不匹配)时, 权力层级抑制团队绩效。本研究结合问卷、实验和二手数据方法来验证假设, 研究1通过对46个大学生创业实践团队的两阶段问卷调查, 发现层级一致性对权力层级与团队绩效的关系具有调节作用。此后, 研究2通过一项涉及64个团队的实验来揭示因果关系, 发现权力争夺在权力层级和层级一致性的交互与团队绩效的关系中起中介作用。最后研究3通过203个观测值的互联网公司二手数据重复验证了层级一致性的调节作用, 并提升了本研究的生态效度。本研究为权力层级的研究做出了一定的贡献, 并为团队管理提供了启示。
中图分类号:
季浩, 谢小云, 肖永平, 甘小乐, 冯雯. (2019). 权力层级与团队绩效关系:权力与地位的一致与背离. 心理学报, 51(3), 366-382.
JI Hao, XIE Xiao-Yun, XIAO Yong-Ping, GAN Xiao-Le, FENG Wen. (2019). Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(3), 366-382.
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 | 中 | 中 | A | 高 | 高 |
B | 中 | 中 | B | 中 | 中 |
C | 中 | 中 | C | 低 | 低 |
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 | 中 | 高 | A | 高 | 低 |
B | 中 | 中 | B | 中 | 中 |
C | 中 | 低 | C | 低 | 高 |
表1 权力层级与层级一致性的组合
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 | 中 | 中 | A | 高 | 高 |
B | 中 | 中 | B | 中 | 中 |
C | 中 | 中 | C | 低 | 低 |
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 | 中 | 高 | A | 高 | 低 |
B | 中 | 中 | B | 中 | 中 |
C | 中 | 低 | C | 低 | 高 |
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 |
表2 变量均值、标准差和相关系数
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* |
表3 多元回归分析结果
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 |
表4 实验任务材料
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 | 中 | A | 3 | 高 |
B | 2 | 中 | B | 2 | 中 |
C | 2 | 中 | C | 1 | 低 |
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 | 高 | A | 3 | 低 |
B | 2 | 中 | B | 2 | 中 |
C | 2 | 低 | C | 1 | 高 |
表5 权力层级与层级一致性的操作
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 | 中 | A | 3 | 高 |
B | 2 | 中 | B | 2 | 中 |
C | 2 | 中 | C | 1 | 低 |
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 | 高 | A | 3 | 低 |
B | 2 | 中 | B | 2 | 中 |
C | 2 | 低 | C | 1 | 高 |
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** |
表6 多层回归分析结果
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 |
表7 被中介的调节效应分析结果
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 |
表8 变量均值、标准差和相关系数
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* |
表9 固定效应模型回归分析结果
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408800112 URL pmid: 25605883 |
[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.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105456108 URL |
[7] |
Bendersky C., &Hays N.A . ( 2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 323-340.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0734 URL |
[8] |
Berger J., Cohen B. P., &Zelditch M . ( 1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37( 3), 241-255.
doi: 10.2307/2093465 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/0146167216636628 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/a0026651 URL pmid: 22229456 |
[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.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_4 URL |
[12] |
Bloom M . ( 1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 25-40.
doi: 10.2307/256872 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0899 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0483 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0601 URL |
[17] |
Bunderson J.S., &Reagans R.E . ( 2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22( 5), 1182-1194.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0590 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1148030 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/smj.2217 URL |
[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. |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00113-1 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/s0149-2063(97)90039-8 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 URL pmid: 12940412 |
[26] |
Deutsch M . ( 1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2( 2), 129-152.
doi: 10.1177/001872674900200204 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.013 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.005 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/a0020373 URL pmid: 20822207 |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.005 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002033 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/1948550611424225 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/2041386610380991 URL |
[41] |
Harper D.A . ( 2008). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23( 6), 613-626.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.002 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.2307/20159363 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/smj.859 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.08.007 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/pspi0000017 URL pmid: 25822034 |
[46] |
Hays N.A., &Goldstein N.J . ( 2015). Power and legitimacy influence conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 17-26.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.010 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0824 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.2307/2486299 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/1046496411410073 URL |
[50] | Hu Q.J., &Xie X.Y . ( 2015). Group members’ status and knowledge sharing: A motivational perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47( 4), 545-554. |
[ 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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00545 URL |
|
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675 URL |
[52] |
James L.R . ( 1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219 URL |
[53] |
Johnson D.W., &Johnson R.T . ( 2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131( 4), 285-358.
doi: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358 URL pmid: 17191373 |
[54] |
Jung H., Vissa B., &Pich M . ( 2017). How do entrepreneurial founding teams allocate task positions? Academy of Management Journal, 60( 1), 264-294.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0813 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003-2 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1058 URL |
[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
doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.74 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/job.2129 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02123.x URL pmid: 18578845 |
[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.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x URL |
[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.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0832 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1021 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 URL pmid: 16393020 |
[67] |
Nohria N., &Garcia-Pont C. ( 1991). Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12( S1), 105-124.
doi: 10.1002/smj.4250120909 URL |
[68] |
Peng M.W . ( 2010). Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25( 5), 453-471.
doi: 10.1002/smj.390 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316 URL pmid: 26821081 |
[71] |
Ridgeway C.L., &Berger J. ( 1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51( 5), 603-617.
doi: 10.2307/2095487 URL |
[72] |
Rodgers J.L., &Nicewander W.A . ( 1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 42( 1), 59-66.
doi: 10.1080/00031305.1988.10475524 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1177/0956797611433876 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1080/00031305.1997.10473586 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/job.1993 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.5.4.551 URL pmid: 2278679 |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000056 URL pmid: 26524111 |
[79] |
Tyler T.R . ( 2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57( 1), 375-400.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 URL pmid: 16318600 |
[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.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0452 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1037/a0018921 URL pmid: 20476828 |
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.009 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/job.2022 URL |
[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.
doi: 10.1002/smj.2579 URL |
[1] | 蔡亚华, 程佳琳, 李劲松. 礼之用, 和为贵?和谐管理理论视角下团队亲社会违规氛围对团队绩效的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(1): 66-77. |
[2] | 佘卓霖, 李全, 杨百寅, 杨斌. 工作狂领导对团队绩效的双刃剑作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(9): 1018-1031. |
[3] | 陈帅. 团队断裂带对团队绩效的影响:团队交互记忆系统的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(1): 84-94. |
[4] | 马君;张昊民;杨涛. 成就目标导向、团队绩效控制对员工创造力的跨层次影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(1): 79-92. |
[5] | 涂乙冬;陆欣欣;郭玮;王震. 道德型领导者得到了什么?道德型领导、团队平均领导?部属交换及领导者收益[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1378-1391. |
[6] | 莫申江,谢小云. 团队学习、交互记忆系统与团队绩效:基于IMOI范式的纵向追踪研究[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(07): 639-648. |
[7] | 张志学,Paul ,S. ,Hempel,韩玉兰,邱静. 高技术工作团队的交互记忆系统及其效果[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(02): 271-280. |
[8] | 刘雪峰,张志学. 模拟情境中工作团队成员互动过程的初步研究及其测量[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(02): 253-259. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||