When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance

References

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, A. W., Chizhik, E. W., & Goodman, J. A. (2009). Lower-status participation and influence: Task structure matters. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 365–381. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01604.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665. doi:10.2307/2393475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 55–89). New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 of the United States of America, 112, 1338–1343. doi:10.1073/pnas.1408800112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468. doi:10.2307/2088276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2011). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42, 127–176. doi:10.1177/1046496410389194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belliveau, M. A., O’Reilly, C. A., & Wade, J. B. (1996). Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1568–1593. doi:10.2307/257069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendersky, C., Bear, J., Behfar, K., Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Identifying gaps between the conceptualization of conflict and its measurement. In O. B. Ayoko, N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research (pp. 79–90). Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323–340. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, M., Jr (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255. doi:10.2307/2093465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York, NY: Elsevier Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63, 379–405. doi:10.2307/2657555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M., Jr (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1281–1299. doi:10.2307/3069401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, M. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 25–40. doi:10.2307/256872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & R. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariale statistics (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591. doi:10.2307/3556637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21, 609–624. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 40–52. doi:10.2307/258353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond 0073tatus: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 920–934. doi:10.1037/a0019856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. M., Bennis, W. G., & Wolkon, G. H. (1961). The effects of continued practice on the behaviors of problem-solving groups. Sociometry, 24, 416–431. doi:10.2307/2785922
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00049-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 207–224. doi:10.2307/2392469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Church, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: The role of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 4–22. doi:10.1108/eb022847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328. doi:10.1002/job.71
   Web of Science ®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, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., & Van Dijk, E. (2010). Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 515–524. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, H., Stevens, J. M. G., & Vervaecke, H. (2006). Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. Animal Behaviour, 71, 585–592. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.05.015
   Web of Science ®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, 360–390. doi:10.1037/a0024844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depken, C. A. (2000). Wage disparity and team productivity: Evidence from major league baseball. Economics Letters, 67, 87–92. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00249-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewar, R., & Werbel, J. (1979). Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 426–448. doi:10.2307/2989921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 766–778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fein, M. L. (2012). Human hierarchies: A general theory. London: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517. doi:10.2307/2392936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gould, R. (2003). Collision of wills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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, UK: Edward Edgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). The pivotal role of emotion in intragroup process conflict. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & C. Anderson (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 10, pp. 23–45). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, L. L., Schouten, M. E., De Jong, B., & Dannals, J. (2014, July). A meta-analysis of the effects of hierarchy on team performance. Paper presented at the 27th International Association for Conflict Management Conference (IACM), Leiden.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032–1044. doi:10.1037/a0020373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groysberg, B., Polzer, J. T., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2011). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22, 722–737. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld, D. H., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2010). Organizational preferences and their consequences. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 1252–1287). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. (1955). The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Science, 1, 233–250. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1.3-4.233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350–365. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90021-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32–52. doi:10.1177/2041386610380991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 398–406. doi:10.1177/1948550611424225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What is the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, J., & Huang, Z. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1119–1139. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z.-X., & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 41–65. doi:10.1002/job.540
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557. doi:10.2307/2393737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25005-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465–495. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.2307/3069453
   Web of Science ®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, 741–763. doi:10.2307/2667054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. doi:10.2307/2392547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50. doi:10.1037/h0057189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lorsch, J. W., & Morse, J. (1974). Organizations and their members: A contingency approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793. doi:10.2307/3069415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough, E. F., III, & Leifer, R. (1983). Research notes. Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 727–735. doi:10.2307/255918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B., & Glenz, A. (2013). Team faultline measures: A computational comparison and a new approach to multiple subgroups. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 393–424. doi:10.1177/1094428113484970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. L. Nye & M. Brower (Eds.), What’s so social about social cognitions? Social cognition in small groups (pp. pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overbeck, J. R., Correll, J. C., & Park, B. (2005). The internal sorting process of group status: The problem of too many stars. In M. Hunt-Thomas, E. Mannix, & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 7, pp. 169–199). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Passos, A. M., & Caetano, A. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 231–244. doi:10.1108/02683940510589028
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, J. L. (2001). Less epistemology; More government and social status. Human Relations, 54, 85–89. doi:10.1177/0018726701541011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification processes in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31, 966–987. doi:10.1177/0149206305279898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. H. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 669–677. doi:10.1177/0956797611433876
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46, 612–625. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.5.612.12052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances?: The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149–165. doi:10.1007/BF01884769
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, M. E. (1954). Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 211–217. doi:10.1037/h0054191
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siegel, P. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Pay disparities within top management groups: Evidence of harmful effects on performance of high-technology firms. Organization Science, 16, 259–274. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Status hierarchies and the organization of collective action. Sociological Theory, 30, 149–166. doi:10.1177/0735275112457912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirot, E. (2000). An evolutionarily stable strategy for aggressiveness in feeding groups. Behavioral Ecology, 11, 351–356. doi:10.1093/beheco/11.4.351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneddon, L. U., Hawkesworth, S., Braithwaite, V. A., & Yerbury, J. (2006). Impact of environmental disturbance on the stability and benefits of individual status within dominance hierarchies. Ethology, 112, 437–447. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2005.01192.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. M. G., Vervaecke, H., De Vries, H., & Van Elsacker, L. (2005). The influence of the steepness of dominance hierarchies on reciprocity and interchange in captive groups of bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behaviour, 142, 941–960. doi:10.1163/1568539055010075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25, 1581–1591. doi:10.1177/0956797614537280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 402–414. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevor, C. O., Reilly, G., & Gerhart, B. (2012). Reconsidering pay dispersion’s effect on the performance of interdependent work: Reconciling sorting and pay inequality. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 585–610. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.0127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L. (1979). Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 82–98. doi:10.2307/2989877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R., Jr (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338. doi:10.2307/2094477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1979). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 877–893. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21, 347–361. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 345–375. doi:10.1108/10444060710833469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, H. A., Thomas, G. M., & Zelditch, M., Jr (1986). Legitimation, endorsement, and stability. Social Forces, 64, 620–643. doi:10.1093/sf/64.3.620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street Corner Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 585–608. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Withey, M., Daft, R. L., & Cooper, W. H. (1983). Measures of Perrow’s work unit technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 45–63. doi:10.2307/256134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar