No abstract

No abstract

This questionnaire study among 343 members of 41 work teams in a financial services organization examined the effects of individual team members' perceived task interdependence and perceived goal interdependence on innovative behavior in teams characterized by different levels of group diversity. Multilevel analyses revealed that individual's perceived task and goal interdependence were not related to innovative behavior in homogeneous teams. In heterogeneous teams, however, task interdependence was strongly and positively related to innovative behavior for individuals who perceived high levels of goal interdependence, and unrelated to innovative behavior for those who perceived low levels of goal interdependence.

Hierarchy is a reality of group life, for humans and for most other group-living species. However, there remains considerable debate about whether and when hierarchy can promote group performance and member satisfaction. We suggest that progress in this debate has been hampered by a lack of clarity about hierarchy and how to conceptualize it. Whereas prevailing conceptualizations of hierarchy in the group and organization literature have focused on inequality in member power or status (i.e., centralization or steepness), we build on the ethological and social network traditions to advance a view of hierarchy as cascading relations of dyadic influence (i.e., acyclicity). We suggest that hierarchy thus conceptualized is more likely to capture the functional benefits of hierarchy, whereas hierarchy as inequality is more likely to be dysfunctional. In a study of 75 teams drawn from a range of industries, we show that whereas acyclicity in influence relations reduces conflict and thereby enhances both group performance and member satisfaction, centralization and steepness have negative effects on conflict, performance, and satisfaction, particularly in groups that perform complex tasks. The theory and results of this study can help to clarify and advance research on the functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy in task groups.We would like to thank Lindy Greer, Andrew Knight, Frank Walter, seminar participants at Wash. U. (GOMERs), LBS, Wharton, and Florida, and our AMJ editorial team for their invaluable comments and feedback on this manuscript.

No abstract

No abstract

This study developed a multilevel model of the interpersonal harming behavior associated with social comparison processes in work teams. We tested this model using temporally lagged data from a sample of student teams (Study 1) and cross-sectional data from a sample of work teams in a telecommunication services company (Study 2). In both studies, social relations analyses revealed that in teams with less cooperative goals, comparison to a higher performing team member was positively associated with interpersonal harming behavior, but only when expectations of future performance similarity to that member were low. The interactive relationship of social comparison and expected future performance similarity with interpersonal harming was buffered, however, in teams with more cooperative goals.

Drawing from moral exclusion theory, this article examines outcome dependence and interpersonal liking as key boundary conditions for the linkage between perceived subordinate performance and abusive supervision. Moreover, it investigates the role of abusive supervision for subordinates' subsequent, objective work performance. Across 2 independent studies, an experimental scenario study (N = 157; Study 1) and a time-lagged field study (N = 169; Study 2), the negative relationship between perceived subordinate performance and abusive supervision was found to hinge on a supervisor's outcome dependence on subordinates but not on a supervisor's liking of subordinates. Furthermore, Study 2 demonstrated (a) a negative association between abusive supervision and subordinates' subsequent objective performance and (b) a conditional indirect effect of perceived performance on subsequent objective performance, through abusive supervision, contingent on the degree of outcome dependence, although these relationships did not reach conventional significance levels when controlling for prior objective performance. All in all, the findings highlight the role of instrumentality considerations in relation to abusive supervision and promote new knowledge on both origins and consequences of such supervisory behavior.