Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in the Valuing of Power Among Team Members: a Contingency Approach Toward Examining the Effects of Power Values Diversity and Relationship Conflict

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the conditional effects of power values diversity and relationship conflict.

Design/Methodology/Approach

We utilized a time-lagged survey design and multilevel modeling to investigate 60 teams working on a project task over the course of 4 months.

Findings

When participative safety climate was high, the presence of high power values diversity was particularly helpful for reducing relationship conflict. In turn, decreased relationship conflict tended to increase team performance. Additionally, when workload sharing was low, high relationship conflict was especially harmful to team performance.

Implications

Results support the consideration of team participative safety climate to better understand the conditions under which power values diversity is likely to lessen relationship conflict and subsequently increase team performance. Findings also highlight the importance of avoiding low workload sharing, in the presence of prominent relationship conflict, to increase team performance.

Originality/Value

By examining relationship conflict as a mediator and participative safety climate as a moderator of power values diversity’s effects, we make a novel contribution to extant literature by helping to elucidate both how and under what conditions differences in power values, among team members, can influence team performance. Relatedly, we answer the call for more research that adopts a contingency approach toward examining the effects of values diversity and relationship conflict. In doing so, we help to identify the conditions under which power values diversity and relationship conflict are likely to differentially influence important team outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 792–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta- analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2012). The cost of status enhancement: performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 308–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 348–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviours. European Journal of Personality, 18(3), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: the critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter-and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same context domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., & Bostrom, R. (1997). Group development (I): a review and synthesis of development models. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(2), 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1032–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 437–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., Hirschfeld, R. R., & Vogel, B. (2011). Dispersion-composition models in multilevel research a data-analytic framework. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 718–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Meuse, K. P., & Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an instrument for measuring attitudes toward and perceptions of workplace diversity: an initial report. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. doi:10.1002/9780470696712.ch13.

  • Erez, A., LePine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7, 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: the influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135–1151.

  • Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: a referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes a group-level examination. Journal of Management, 41(3), 841–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on group performance. Research on managing groups and teams, 10, 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 359–393.

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: improving team composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: a conceptual examination of the use of seeding to maximize and minimize trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885–892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 1, pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219–229.

  • Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Sashittal, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 256–282.

  • Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: the effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. (2012). Managing conflict in groups and teams: conflict about conflict. Looking back, moving forward: a review of group and team-based research (research on managing groups and teams), 15, 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta- analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Noble, D. (2012). Exploring the role of supervisor trust in the associations between multiple sources of relationship conflict and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson Jr., L. R. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 47–62). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: a taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the team climate inventory: development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozolowski, S. W., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M. A., ... & Bligh, M. C. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 513–553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Kay Stevens, C. (2005). When opposites attract: a multi- sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 935–958.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: a new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 1, 143–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manata, B. (2016). Exploring the association between relationship conflict and group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(2), 93–104.

  • Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 106–129.

  • Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., González-Navarro, P., & Thompson, L. F. (2012). Investigating face-to-face and virtual teamwork over time: when does early task conflict trigger relationship conflict? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 159–171.

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process-performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 605–619.

  • Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of applied psychology, 91(1), 97–108.

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meindl, J. R. (1993). Reinventing leadership: a radical, social psychological approach. Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research, 12, 159–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: the role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human relations, 56(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltokorpi, V., & Hasu, M. (2014). How participative safety matters more in team innovation as team size increases. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.

  • Rapp, T. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Evaluating an individually self-administered generic teamwork skills training program across time and levels. Small Group Research, 38(4), 532–555.

  • Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values. Human Relations, 63(11), 1743–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: how violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Fowlkes, J. E. (2006). Measuring team performance ‘in the wild’: Challenges and tips. Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges, 245–272.

  • Salas, E., Priest, H. A., Stagl, K. C., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2007). Work teams in organizations: a historical reflection and lessons learned. Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology, 407–438.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: applying of theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: the Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259–290.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 137–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey, 161–193.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Basic values: how they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: the better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: how they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature, 14, 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116.

  • Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: a longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31(3), 421–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software].

  • Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 323–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. J. F. (2010). The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 110–119.

  • Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: a meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bidirectional relations in personality-job performance research. Human Performance, 12(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: a meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend: exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–77). New York: Psychology Press.

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: theory and research (pp. 197–217). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  • Wang, P., Rode, J. C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., & Chen, W. (2013). A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 334–360.

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

  • Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40(2), 247–262.

  • Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 97–129.

  • Woehr, D. J., Arciniega, L. M., & Poling, T. L. (2013). Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs a review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: the ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 98–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank Maria D. Alipour, Eden B. King, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial/Organizational Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Kent K. Alipour & Susan Mohammed

  2. School of Labor and Employment Relations, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Sumita Raghuram

Authors
  1. Kent K. Alipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Mohammed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sumita Raghuram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent K. Alipour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alipour, K.K., Mohammed, S. & Raghuram, S. Differences in the Valuing of Power Among Team Members: a Contingency Approach Toward Examining the Effects of Power Values Diversity and Relationship Conflict. J Bus Psychol 33, 231–247 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9488-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9488-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation