删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

权力层级与团队绩效关系：权力与地位的一致与背离

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01
季浩1,2, 谢小云2(), 肖永平3, 甘小乐3, 冯雯2
1宁波大学商学院, 宁波 315211
2浙江大学管理学院, 杭州 310058
3江西经济管理干部学院工商管理系, 南昌 330088
收稿日期:2017-12-21出版日期:2019-03-25发布日期:2019-01-22
通讯作者:谢小云E-mail:xiexy@zju.edu.cn

基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金项目资助(71772159);国家自然科学基金项目资助(71372056)

Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle

JI Hao1,2, XIE Xiao-Yun2(), XIAO Yong-Ping3, GAN Xiao-Le3, FENG Wen2
1 Business School, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
2 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3 The Department of Business Administration, Jiangx Institute of Economic Administrators, Nanchang 330088, China
Received:2017-12-21Online:2019-03-25Published:2019-01-22
Contact:XIE Xiao-Yun E-mail:xiexy@zju.edu.cn






摘要/Abstract


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。



图1理论模型图
图1理论模型图



图2层级一致性
图2层级一致性


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

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


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

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


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*

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*



图3层级一致性对权力层级与团队绩效的调节作用(研究1)
图3层级一致性对权力层级与团队绩效的调节作用(研究1)


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

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


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

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



图4权力层级与层级一致性对团队绩效的交互作用(研究2)
图4权力层级与层级一致性对团队绩效的交互作用(研究2)



图5权力层级与层级一致性对权力争夺的交互作用(研究2)
图5权力层级与层级一致性对权力争夺的交互作用(研究2)


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**

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**


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

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


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

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


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*

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*



图6层级一致性对权力层级与团队绩效的调节作用(研究3)
图6层级一致性对权力层级与团队绩效的调节作用(研究3)







[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.2010.08.002URL
[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.1408800112URLpmid: 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.1105456108URL
[7] Bendersky C., &Hays N.A . ( 2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 323-340.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0734URL
[8] Berger J., Cohen B. P., &Zelditch M . ( 1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37( 3), 241-255.
doi: 10.2307/2093465URL
[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: 10.1177/0146167216636628URL
[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/a0026651URLpmid: 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_4URL
[12] Bloom M . ( 1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 25-40.
doi: 10.2307/256872URL
[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.1080.0899URL
[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.1090.0483URL
[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.2014.0601URL
[17] Bunderson J.S., &Reagans R.E . ( 2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22( 5), 1182-1194.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0590URL
[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-yURL
[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.2016.1148030URL
[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.2217URL
[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)00113-1URL
[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)90039-8URL
[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: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741URLpmid: 12940412
[26] Deutsch M . ( 1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2( 2), 129-152.
doi: 10.1177/001872674900200204URL
[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.13.2.128.530URL
[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.2011.07.013URL
[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.99.4.689URL
[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.socpsy002026URL
[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.2011.03.005URL
[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/a0020373URLpmid: 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.2017.10.005URL
[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.socpsy002033URL
[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: 10.1177/1948550611424225URL
[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: 10.1177/2041386610380991URL
[41] Harper D.A . ( 2008). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23( 6), 613-626.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.002URL
[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: 10.2307/20159363URL
[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.859URL
[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.2013.08.007URL
[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/pspi0000017URLpmid: 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.2015.04.010URL
[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.2009.0824URL
[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: 10.2307/2486299URL
[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: 10.1177/1046496411410073URL
[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.1041.2015.00545URL
[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: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675URL
[52] James L.R . ( 1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219URL
[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.131.4.285-358URLpmid: 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.2014.0813URL
[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)00003-2URL
[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.2016.1058URL
[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.2014.74URL
[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.2129URL
[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.xURLpmid: 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.xURL
[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.2010.0832URL
[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: 10.5465/19416520802211628URL
[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.1993.1021URL
[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: 10.1177/0149206308316061URL
[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: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852URLpmid: 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.4250120909URL
[68] Peng M.W . ( 2010). Outside directors and firm performance during institutional transitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25( 5), 453-471.
doi: 10.1002/smj.390URL
[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: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879URL
[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: 10.1080/00273170701341316URLpmid: 26821081
[71] Ridgeway C.L., &Berger J. ( 1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51( 5), 603-617.
doi: 10.2307/2095487URL
[72] Rodgers J.L., &Nicewander W.A . ( 1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 42( 1), 59-66.
doi: 10.1080/00031305.1988.10475524URL
[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: 10.1177/0956797611433876URL
[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: 10.1080/00031305.1997.10473586URL
[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.1993URL
[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: 10.1037/0882-7974.5.4.551URLpmid: 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/apl0000056URLpmid: 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.57.102904.190038URLpmid: 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.1090.0452URL
[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/a0018921URLpmid: 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.2009.10.009URL
[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.2022URL
[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.2579URL




[1]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.
[2]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.
[3]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.
[4]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.
[5]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.
[6]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.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4408
相关话题/控制 层级 成绩 测试 资源

Free考研考试FreeKaoYan.Com
欢迎来到Free考研考试，"为实现人生的Free而奋斗"

© 2020 FreeKaoYan! . All rights reserved.