), 施俊琦2 1 浙江工商大学工商管理学院, 杭州 310018
2 中山大学岭南(大学)学院, 广州 510275
收稿日期:2018-06-08出版日期:2019-07-25发布日期:2019-05-22通讯作者:金杨华E-mail:jinyanghua@163.com基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金青年项目资助(71502164)Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy
ZHU Yue1, XIE Jiangpei1, JIN Yanghua1(), SHI Junqi2 1 School of Business Administration, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2 Lingnan (University) College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Received:2018-06-08Online:2019-07-25Published:2019-05-22Contact:JIN Yanghua E-mail:jinyanghua@163.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 近年来团队权力分布差异与团队冲突间关系受到了学界较大关注, 但相关研究结果仍存在分歧。通过对70个工作团队的调查, 探讨了团队权力分布差异对团队冲突(任务冲突、关系冲突)作用的边界条件。结果发现, 程序公平调节了两者间关系：当程序公平较高时, 团队权力分布差异与任务冲突、关系冲突负相关; 当程序公平较低时, 团队权力分布差异与任务冲突、关系冲突正相关。此外, 被中介的调节模型分析显示, 团队合法性感知中介了程序公平的上述调节作用。
图/表 7
图1整体研究模型
图1整体研究模型表1变量描述性统计与相关系数
| 变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 性别多样化 | 0.18 | 0.21 | ||||||||||||
| 2 年龄多样化 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| 3 教育水平多样化 | 0.26 | 0.18 | -0.03 | 0.09 | ||||||||||
| 4 团队类型1 | 0.37 | 0.49 | -0.17 | 0.07 | 0.26 | |||||||||
| 5 团队类型2 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.19 | 0.08 | -0.15 | -0.71** | ||||||||
| 6 团队类型3 | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.00 | -0.07 | -0.04 | -0.28* | -0.33** | |||||||
| 7 平均团队权力水平 | 3.37 | 0.46 | -0.04 | 0.09 | -0.02 | 0.19 | 0.11 | -0.34** | ||||||
| 8 团队权力分布差异 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.14 | -0.13 | -0.19 | -0.11 | 0.14 | -0.06 | -0.08 | |||||
| 9 程序公平 | 5.23 | 0.41 | 0.17 | -0.02 | -0.18 | 0.03 | 0.19 | -0.28* | 0.38** | 0.12 | (0.80) | |||
| 10 团队合法性感知 | 5.53 | 0.55 | 0.23 | 0.08 | -0.17 | 0.03 | 0.18 | -0.13 | 0.17 | 0.36** | 0.72** | (0.89) | ||
| 11 任务冲突 | 2.68 | 0.77 | -0.14 | 0.14 | -0.12 | 0.15 | -0.14 | -0.10 | 0.11 | -0.01 | -0.12 | -0.20 | (0.86) | |
| 12 关系冲突 | 2.44 | 0.76 | -0.21 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.15 | -0.17 | -0.09 | 0.15 | 0.01 | -0.17 | -0.24* | 0.84** | (0.94) |
表1变量描述性统计与相关系数
| 变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 性别多样化 | 0.18 | 0.21 | ||||||||||||
| 2 年龄多样化 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||||||||||
| 3 教育水平多样化 | 0.26 | 0.18 | -0.03 | 0.09 | ||||||||||
| 4 团队类型1 | 0.37 | 0.49 | -0.17 | 0.07 | 0.26 | |||||||||
| 5 团队类型2 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.19 | 0.08 | -0.15 | -0.71** | ||||||||
| 6 团队类型3 | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.00 | -0.07 | -0.04 | -0.28* | -0.33** | |||||||
| 7 平均团队权力水平 | 3.37 | 0.46 | -0.04 | 0.09 | -0.02 | 0.19 | 0.11 | -0.34** | ||||||
| 8 团队权力分布差异 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.14 | -0.13 | -0.19 | -0.11 | 0.14 | -0.06 | -0.08 | |||||
| 9 程序公平 | 5.23 | 0.41 | 0.17 | -0.02 | -0.18 | 0.03 | 0.19 | -0.28* | 0.38** | 0.12 | (0.80) | |||
| 10 团队合法性感知 | 5.53 | 0.55 | 0.23 | 0.08 | -0.17 | 0.03 | 0.18 | -0.13 | 0.17 | 0.36** | 0.72** | (0.89) | ||
| 11 任务冲突 | 2.68 | 0.77 | -0.14 | 0.14 | -0.12 | 0.15 | -0.14 | -0.10 | 0.11 | -0.01 | -0.12 | -0.20 | (0.86) | |
| 12 关系冲突 | 2.44 | 0.76 | -0.21 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.15 | -0.17 | -0.09 | 0.15 | 0.01 | -0.17 | -0.24* | 0.84** | (0.94) |
表2分层回归对中介效应和调节效应的检验
| 变量 | 团队合法 性感知 | 团队任务冲突 | 团队关系冲突 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | |
| 控制变量 | |||||||||
| 性别多样化 | 0.24 (0.23) | -0.30 (0.46) | -0.07 (0.43) | -0.00 (0.42) | -0.34 (0.42) | -0.53 (0.44) | -0.29 (0.40) | -0.23 (0.40) | -0.50 (0.40) |
| 年龄多样化 | 0.94 (0.84) | 2.73 (1.66) | 1.73 (1.54) | 2.23 (1.55) | 2.83 (1.49) | 1.98 (1.59) | 1.41 (1.44) | 1.85 (1.45) | 2.34 (1.42) |
| 教育水平多样化 | -0.16 (0.28) | -0.78 (0.56) | -1.09 (0.52) | -1.10* (0.51) | -1.02* (0.49) | 0.46 (0.53) | 0.13 (0.49) | 0.12 (0.48) | 0.19 (0.47) |
| 团队类型1 | 0.16 (0.23) | -0.29 (0.44) | -0.08 (0.41) | -0.02 (0.41) | -0.17 (0.39) | -0.65 (0.42) | -0.43 (0.39) | -0.38 (0.38) | -0.51 (0.37) |
| 团队类型2 | 0.17 (0.22) | -0.56 (0.43) | -0.42 (0.40) | -0.37 (0.40) | -0.36 (0.38) | -0.83 (0.41) | -0.69 (0.37) | -0.64 (0.37) | -0.64 (0.36) |
| 团队类型3 | 0.23 (0.24) | -0.65 (0.48) | -0.62 (0.44) | -0.52 (0.44) | -0.62 (0.42) | -0.80 (0.46) | -0.77 (0.41) | -0.68 (0.41) | -0.77 (0.40) |
| 平均团队权力水平 | -0.13 (0.12) | 0.25 (0.23) | 0.13 (0.22) | 0.10 (0.21) | 0.15 (0.20) | 0.40 (0.22) | 0.28 (0.20) | 0.25 (0.20) | 0.29 (0.19) |
| 主效用 | |||||||||
| 团队权力分布差异 | 0.27 (0.88) | -0.28 (0.83) | 0.28 (0.89) | 0.63 (0.85) | 0.82 (0.84) | 0.24 (0.77) | 0.74 (0.83) | 1.02 (0.81) | |
| 程序公平 | 1.00** (0.13) | -0.37 (0.26) | -0.58* (0.25) | -0.20 (0.34) | -0.15 (0.33) | -0.39 (0.25) | -0.61 (0.23) | -0.27 (0.32) | -0.23 (0.31) |
| 团队合法性感知 | -0.40 (0.25) | -0.46 (0.24) | -0.36 (0.24) | -0.40 (0.23) | |||||
| 调节效用 | |||||||||
| 团队权力分布差异× 程序公平 | -6.06** (1.78) | -6.11** (1.76) | 1.79 (3.40) | -6.41** (1.67) | -6.45** (1.65) | -0.04 (3.23) | |||
| 团队权力分布差异× 团队合法性感知 | -6.57* (2.46) | -5.34* (2.34) | |||||||
| R2 | 0.56 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| ΔR2 | 0.14** | 0.03 | 0.07* | 0.16** | 0.02 | 0.05* | |||
表2分层回归对中介效应和调节效应的检验
| 变量 | 团队合法 性感知 | 团队任务冲突 | 团队关系冲突 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | |
| 控制变量 | |||||||||
| 性别多样化 | 0.24 (0.23) | -0.30 (0.46) | -0.07 (0.43) | -0.00 (0.42) | -0.34 (0.42) | -0.53 (0.44) | -0.29 (0.40) | -0.23 (0.40) | -0.50 (0.40) |
| 年龄多样化 | 0.94 (0.84) | 2.73 (1.66) | 1.73 (1.54) | 2.23 (1.55) | 2.83 (1.49) | 1.98 (1.59) | 1.41 (1.44) | 1.85 (1.45) | 2.34 (1.42) |
| 教育水平多样化 | -0.16 (0.28) | -0.78 (0.56) | -1.09 (0.52) | -1.10* (0.51) | -1.02* (0.49) | 0.46 (0.53) | 0.13 (0.49) | 0.12 (0.48) | 0.19 (0.47) |
| 团队类型1 | 0.16 (0.23) | -0.29 (0.44) | -0.08 (0.41) | -0.02 (0.41) | -0.17 (0.39) | -0.65 (0.42) | -0.43 (0.39) | -0.38 (0.38) | -0.51 (0.37) |
| 团队类型2 | 0.17 (0.22) | -0.56 (0.43) | -0.42 (0.40) | -0.37 (0.40) | -0.36 (0.38) | -0.83 (0.41) | -0.69 (0.37) | -0.64 (0.37) | -0.64 (0.36) |
| 团队类型3 | 0.23 (0.24) | -0.65 (0.48) | -0.62 (0.44) | -0.52 (0.44) | -0.62 (0.42) | -0.80 (0.46) | -0.77 (0.41) | -0.68 (0.41) | -0.77 (0.40) |
| 平均团队权力水平 | -0.13 (0.12) | 0.25 (0.23) | 0.13 (0.22) | 0.10 (0.21) | 0.15 (0.20) | 0.40 (0.22) | 0.28 (0.20) | 0.25 (0.20) | 0.29 (0.19) |
| 主效用 | |||||||||
| 团队权力分布差异 | 0.27 (0.88) | -0.28 (0.83) | 0.28 (0.89) | 0.63 (0.85) | 0.82 (0.84) | 0.24 (0.77) | 0.74 (0.83) | 1.02 (0.81) | |
| 程序公平 | 1.00** (0.13) | -0.37 (0.26) | -0.58* (0.25) | -0.20 (0.34) | -0.15 (0.33) | -0.39 (0.25) | -0.61 (0.23) | -0.27 (0.32) | -0.23 (0.31) |
| 团队合法性感知 | -0.40 (0.25) | -0.46 (0.24) | -0.36 (0.24) | -0.40 (0.23) | |||||
| 调节效用 | |||||||||
| 团队权力分布差异× 程序公平 | -6.06** (1.78) | -6.11** (1.76) | 1.79 (3.40) | -6.41** (1.67) | -6.45** (1.65) | -0.04 (3.23) | |||
| 团队权力分布差异× 团队合法性感知 | -6.57* (2.46) | -5.34* (2.34) | |||||||
| R2 | 0.56 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| ΔR2 | 0.14** | 0.03 | 0.07* | 0.16** | 0.02 | 0.05* | |||
图2程序公平对团队权力分布差异与任务冲突间关系的调节作用
图2程序公平对团队权力分布差异与任务冲突间关系的调节作用
图3程序公平对团队权力分布差异与关系冲突间关系的调节作用
图3程序公平对团队权力分布差异与关系冲突间关系的调节作用
图4团队合法性感知对团队权力分布差异与任务冲突间关系的调节作用
图4团队合法性感知对团队权力分布差异与任务冲突间关系的调节作用
图5团队合法性感知对团队权力分布差异与关系冲突间关系的调节作用
图5团队合法性感知对团队权力分布差异与关系冲突间关系的调节作用参考文献 56
| [1] | Aiken L. S., & West S. G . ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. |
| [2] | Aime F., Humphrey S., DeRue D. S., & Paul J. B . ( 2014). The riddle of hierarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57( 2), 327-352. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0756URL |
| [3] | 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 |
| [4] | 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. Organization Science, 27( 1), 123-140. |
| [5] | Bentler P. M., & Chou C. P . ( 1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16( 2), 78-117. |
| [6] | Bezrukova K., Spell C. S., & Perry J. L . ( 2010). Violent splits or healthy divides? Coping with injustice through faultlines. Personnel Psychology, 63( 3), 719-751. doi: 10.1111/peps.2010.63.issue-3URL |
| [7] | Bian R., Che H., & Yang H . ( 2007). Item parceling strategies in Structural Equation Modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 15( 3), 567-576. |
| [ 卞冉, 车宏生, 阳辉 . ( 2007). 项目组合在结构方程模型中的应用. 心理科学进展, 15( 3), 567-576.] | |
| [8] | 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/a0026651URL |
| [9] | Blader S. L., & Tyler T. R, . ( 2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94( 2), 445-464. doi: 10.1037/a0013935URL |
| [10] | Bloom M. , ( 1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42( 1), 25-40. |
| [11] | Bunderson J. S., van der Vegt, G. S.., 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 |
| [12] | 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 |
| [13] | Chen G., Mathieu J., & Bliese P. D . ( 2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol.3, pp.273-303). Oxford, England: Elsevier. |
| [14] | Chun J. S., & Choi J. N . ( 2014). Members' needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99( 3), 437-450. doi: 10.1037/a0036363URL |
| [15] | Colquitt J. A . ( 2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86( 3), 386-400. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386URL |
| [16] | De Cremer D. , ( 2006). When authorities influence followers’ affect: The interactive effect of procedural justice and transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15( 3), 322-351. doi: 10.1080/13594320600627662URL |
| [17] | 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: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741URL |
| [18] | De Hoogh, A. H. B. Greer L. L & Den Hartog, D. N. ., ( 2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26( 5), 687-701. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001URL |
| [19] | De Wit F. R., Greer L. L., & Jehn K. A . ( 2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 2), 360-390. doi: 10.1037/a0024844URL |
| [20] | Ehrhart M. G . ( 2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57( 1), 61-94. doi: 10.1111/peps.2004.57.issue-1URL |
| [21] | Ellemers N., Wilke H., & van Knippenberg A . ( 1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64( 5), 766-778. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766URL |
| [22] | 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 |
| [23] | Grant A. M., & Berry J. W . ( 2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54( 1), 73-96. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.59215085URL |
| [24] | Greenberg J. , ( 2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.3, pp.272-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. |
| [25] | 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 |
| [26] | Greer L. L., de Jong B. A., Schouten M. E., & Dannals J. E . ( 2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103( 6), 591-613. doi: 10.1037/apl0000291URL |
| [27] | 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 |
| [28] | 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/a0020373URL |
| [29] | Halevy N., Chou Y. E., & Galinsky A. D . ( 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 |
| [30] | 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: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096URL |
| [31] | 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/pspi0000017URL |
| [32] | Hurd I. , ( 1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53( 2), 379-408. doi: 10.1162/002081899550913URL |
| [33] | Jehn K. A . ( 1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40( 2), 256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638URL |
| [34] | Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., & Neale M. A . ( 1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 4), 741-763. doi: 10.2307/2667054URL |
| [35] | Kerwin S., Jordan J. S., & Turner B. A . ( 2015). Organizational justice and conflict: Do perceptions of fairness influence disagreement? Sport Management Review, 18( 3), 384-395. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.10.005URL |
| [36] | Koopmann J., Lanaj K., Wang M., Zhou L., & Shi J. Q . ( 2016). Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 940-957. doi: 10.1037/apl0000097URL |
| [37] | 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.xURL |
| [38] | LeBreton J. M., & Senter J. L . ( 2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11( 4), 815-852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642URL |
| [39] | Leung K., Chiu W.-h., & Au Y.-f . ( 1993). Sympathy and support for industrial actions: A justice analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78( 5), 781-787. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.781URL |
| [40] | Liao H. & Zhuang, A. J.. ,( 2012). The development and methodology of multilevel model. In X. P. Chen, S. Y. Xu, & J. L. Farn (Ed.), Empirical methods in organizational and management research (2ne edition) (pp. 442-476). Beijing, China: Peking University Press. |
| [ 廖卉, 庄瑷嘉 . (2012). 多层次理论模型的建立以研究方法. 见陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立. 组织与管理研究的实证方法 (第二版) (pp. 442-476). 北京: 北京大学出版社.] | |
| [41] | Lin X. W., & Leung K. , ( 2014). What signals does procedural justice climate convey? The roles of group status, and organizational benevolence and integrity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35( 4), 464-488. doi: 10.1002/job.1899URL |
| [42] | Little T. D., Cunningham W. A., Shahar G., & Widaman K. F . ( 2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9( 2), 151-173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1URL |
| [43] | Liu D., Zhang Z. & Wang, M.. , ( 2012). Moderated mediation and mediated moderation. In X. P. Chen, S. Y. Xu, & J. L. Farn (Ed.), Empirical methods in organizational and management research (2ne edition) (pp. 550-587). Beijing,China: Peking University Press. |
| [ 刘东, 张震, 汪默 . (2012). 被调节的中介和被中介的调节:理论构建和模型检验. 见陈晓萍, 徐淑英, 樊景立. 组织与管理研究的实证方法(第二版) (pp. 550-587). 北京: 北京大学出版社.] | |
| [44] | Ma L., Yang B. Y., Wang X. L., & Li Y. , ( 2017). On the dimensionality of intragroup conflict: An exploratory study of conflict and its relationship with group innovation performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28, 538-562. |
| [45] | 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: 10.1080/19416520802211628URL |
| [46] | Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., & Zaccaro S. J . ( 2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26( 3), 356-376. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4845785URL |
| [47] | Naumann S. E., & Bennett N. , ( 2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43( 5), 881-889. |
| [48] | Pelled L. H., Eisenhardt K. M., & Xin K. R . ( 1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44( 1), 1-28. doi: 10.2307/2667029URL |
| [49] | Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P . ( 2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452URL |
| [50] | Smith A., Houghton S. M., Hood J. N., & Ryman J. A . ( 2006). Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance? Journal of Business Research, 59( 5), 622-629. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.012URL |
| [51] | Sturm R. E., & Antonakis J. , ( 2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41( 1), 136-163. |
| [52] | 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/apl0000056URL |
| [53] | Tyler T. R . ( 2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038URL |
| [54] | Tyler T. R., & Lind E. A . ( 1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191. |
| [55] | Van der Vegt G., 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 |
| [56] | 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/a0018921URL |
相关文章 5
| [1] | 张勇, 刘海全, 王明旋, 青 平. 挑战性压力和阻断性压力对员工创造力的影响：自我效能的中介效应与组织公平的调节效应[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(4): 450-461. |
| [2] | 张书维. 社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 794-813. |
| [3] | 隋杨;王辉;岳旖旎;Fred Luthans. 变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响：心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1217-1230. |
| [4] | 凌文辁,杨海军,方俐洛. 企业员工的组织支持感[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(02): 281-287. |
| [5] | 李超平,时勘. 分配公平与程序公平对工作倦怠的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(05): 677-684. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4477
