This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

TEAM STRUCTURE AS PRECURSOR OF INDIVIDUALS’ SELF
CONSTRUALS — A MULTIDIMENSIONAL AND MULTI-LEVEL
INVESTIGATION

presented by

Matthias Spitzmueller

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Organizational
Behavior/Human Resource
Management

 

.XAZW

Major Professor’ s Signature
8/97/63

Date

 

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Proj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

 

t
s ~p¢r -w.

 

 

 

ink

WU

p; ‘

L‘.

N.
I-

u."

{‘3‘

m

A" '-
‘

ABSTRACT

   
   
 
 

   

‘ j 4‘ ‘ j «s mason or INDIVIDUALS’ SELF CONSTRUALS -
. . ._ .i .v WamNAL AND MULTI-LEVEL INVESTIGATION

By
Matthias Spitzmueller
“would! on teams has identified a number of structural dimensions as
' '« ~ pediotors of team functioning and team performance (Campion, Medsker, &
it”, 1993; Hackman & Wageman, 1995). What the different approaches to team
We have in common is that they all vary the extent to which individuals are tightly

coupled, loosely coupled, or decoupled from other team members. Previous research has

 

largely assumed that extreme forms of coupling are generally desirable. This has been
qwtioned, however, by more recent findings which indicate that extreme forms of
coupling in teams may also have undesirable consequences. In this dissertation, I will
attempt to resolve these discrepant findings by investigating the social psychological
consequences of different degrees of coupling in teams. Specifically, I will examine how
team structures with varying degrees of coupling relate to individuals’ self-construals,
that is, how coupling in teams predicts the extent to which individuals define themselves
as independent of others or related to others. Drawing from optimal distinctiveness theory,
Ipredict that individuals will strive to accomplish a state of optimal distinctiveness,
which can best be realized in loosely coupled team structures. Moreover, consistent with
Structural contingency theory (Moon et al., 2004), I predict that culturally-based .
Individual differences, personality variables, and cognitive ability moderate the influence

' “m Structureonindividuals’ perceptions of optimal distinctiveness. , _ ~ 7. .5"

”fad:

  

  

Datum
3mm -:
""

:fx'fll'
‘_ .
.__.-4.'
r

“v
I- R1? 'Ji"?
_ - h
. ' :- 2"r;-J

 

 

‘H athome in East Lansing. I thank Linn Van Dyne for helping me define my research
interests and for offering support when I needed it most. I thank Dan Ilgen and Hock-
Peng Sin for constructive feedback on this dissertation. I thank Remus Ilies, Fred

Morgeson, and Bob Wiseman for developing me as a scholar. I thank all PhD students in

 

the Management Department at MSU for their friendship and support over the last years
- especially David Wagner and Christopher Barnes. Thanks to Robert Davison, Dustin
Sleesman, Jonathon Miles, and Klodiana Lanaj for assisting in the data collection of this
dissertation. I thank my sister Christiane for continuing to believe in me and for her
mentoring, and Ithank my nieces Sophie and Lia for making me smile every time I see
them or hear their voices over the phone. I thank my brother Thomas for allowing me to
be the older twin. I thank my friends Andrea, Georg, Katrin, and Lars in Germany and
SWitzerland for not forgetting me despite the long distance, and I thank my friends at
MSU Harminder Singh and Jack Drew for their advice and support. I thank the members
of the numerous football teams that I have played in or against in the last years — special

thanks to the Llamas Ben Dettmar, Imad Afiawi, .lohn Smyth, Peter Alegi, Stephen

Naumann, Goran Kuljanin, Reunan Guillou, Parker Huston, Chris Cornwell, Alejandro

 

friends. I’ll always bea

~Imuianketomtmkmy wonderfulandbeaufififl.

"Mono: on ,.,,

udfarhelievinginus.

an-«te... -..

REVIEW
u! ‘ I

Woo-yum

GL1 Ci Raft-Amie} itrtnmwxipiwt .4:

U‘t‘t; .

.‘v

 

 

 

If‘VLI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . ............................................................................................... Ix
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xI
INTRODUCTION...... ............................................................................................. 1
Contributions- - , - - - _ - 4
Overview---- - - - -- - . - - -- - - , , - 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 8
Literature Review of Structure - - . - - u . - - -- - 9
Macrolevel Theories of Organizational Structure ......................................................... 10
Rational Systems Approaches ................................................................................... 10
Structuralist Approaches ........................................................................................... 11
Dialectic Approaches ................................................................................................ 13
Implications of Macrolevel Theories of Organizational Structure ........................... 15
Mesolevel Theories of Organizational Structure .......................................................... 17
Gestalt Psychology .................................................................................................... 17
Deutsch’s Social Interdependence Theory ................................................................ 18
Structural Adaptation Theory ................................................................................... 19
Implications of Structural Adaptation Theory .......................................................... 21
Team Structure .............................................................................................................. 21
Horizontal Interdependence ...................................................................................... 22
Vertical Interdependence .......................................................................................... 25
Implications of Previous Research on Team Structure ............................................. 28
Literature Review of Optimal Distinctiveness Theory- - - - - - -- - . _ - 31
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 39
Predicting Relationships between Team Structure and Optimal Distinctiveness 39
Construct Definitions .................................................................................................... 40

Using Social Interdependence Theory to Relate Team Structure to Optimal
Distinctiveness .............................................................................................................. 41
Deutsch’s Three Critical Emergent States ................................................................ 41
The three critical emergent states and optimal distinctiveness ................................. 43
Horizontal Interdependence and Optimal Distinctiveness ............................................ 45
Vertical Interdependence and Optimal Distinctiveness ................................................ 49
Horizontal Interdependence and Leader Self-Construals ............................................. 53
Vertical Interdependence and Leader Self—Construals ................................................. 55
The Case for Internal Fit— Selection of Moderator Variables _ --"__.57
Internal Fit- The Moderating Role of Culturally-based Individual Differences ..... 60

Collectivism as Moderator of the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Self—
Construals ..................................................................................................................... 6O
Moderating the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Belongingness ................ 61
Moderating the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Distinctiveness ............... 64
vi

 

 

Power Distance as Moderator of the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Self-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construals ..................................................................................................................... 65
Moderating the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Belongingness .................... 65
Moderating the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Distinctiveness ................... 66

Internal Flt - The Moderating Role of Personality Variables and Cognitive Ability
- 67

Moderating the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Self-Construals .................. 69
The Moderating Role of Extraversion ...................................................................... 69
The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability ............................................................... 7O

Moderating the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Self-Construals ....................... 72
The Moderating Role of Emotional Stability ............................................................ 72
The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability ............................................................... 75

Internal Fit and Leadership--- -- -- --76
Culturally-Based Individual Differences and Leadership ............................................. 76
Collectivism as Moderator of the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Leader
Self-Construals .......................................................................................................... 77
Power Distance as Moderator of the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Leader
SelfeConstruals .......................................................................................................... 79
Personality Variables and Leadership ........................................................................... 80
Extraversion as Moderator of the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Leader
Self-Construals .......................................................................................................... 80
Cognitive Ability as Moderator of the Effect of Vertical Interdependence on Leader
Self-Construals .......................................................................................................... 81
Predicting Relationships between Optimal Distinctiveness and Criteria .................. 82
Predicting Subjective Well—Being ................................................................................. 85
Predicting Individual Self-Efficacy .............................................................................. 89
Predicting Voice ............................................................................................................ 92
Predicting Learning ...................................................................................................... 94
Predicting Job Performance. ......................................................................................... 96
Predicting Team Identification ..................................................................................... 98

MediationHypotheses---- - - - -- - ------ 100

METHOD .......................................................................................................... 1 01

Choice of Setting ------- -- -- -- - - -- - A- ----- : - - . - 101

Participants - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --=- -- — - - ----- 103

Task ----- - -- ---- -- -- ..... 104
Overview ..................................................................................................................... 104
Team Objectives ......................................................................................................... 105
Simulation Environment ............................................................................................. 108

Research Design. - - - - - -- - - - ______ 103

Manipulation-s - - - - 109
Team Structure— Horizontal Interdependence ........................................................... 109
Team Structure— Vertical Interdependence ............................................................... 110

Procedure - - - - - - - - - ~ - ..... 112

Measures - - 113

Horizontal Interdependence .................................................................................... 1 13
Vertical Interdependence ........................................................................................ 114
vii

 

 

 

Belongingness ......................................................................................................... 1 16
Distinctiveness ........................................................................................................ 1 17
Collectivism ............................................................................................................ 119
Power Distance ....................................................................................................... 120
Extraversion and Emotional Stability ..................................................................... 120
Cognitive ability ...................................................................................................... 121
Personal Well-Being ............................................................................................... 121
Self—Efficacy ........................................................................................................... 123
Voice ....................................................................................................................... 123
Individual Learning ................................................................................................. 124
Individual Performance ........................................................................................... 124
Team Identification ................................................................................................. 125
ANALYSES AND RESULTS ............................................................................ 125
Confirmatory Factor Analysis A - AA A - -- - - A- A A - - - - . 125
Correlations between Study Variables A AA A A A A - 128

Effects of Team Structure on Self-Construals for Team Members -- - . A - A- . 133
Effects of Team Structure on Self-Construals for Leaders - . A A A - - - - 135
Internal Fit Hypotheses for Team Members- - - - A A A - - - . A . A - 138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internal Fit Hypotheses for Leaders-A A - - . - - - _ 143
Hypotheses between Optimal Distinctiveness and Criteria . - A . - - 156
Mediation Hypotheses ----- - A AA - -- A A A A . - - - _ - - 163
Supplemental Analyses“-- A A A A A AA A A A - A A - - A 167
Aggregating Data for Leaders and Team Members .................................................... 167
Team-Level Analyses ................................................................................................. 177
DISCUSSION..................- .................................................................................. 184
Implications for Research - - -- . A- - - - . _ . _ - 192
Implications for Practice ‘ - . A A - A - A A -- - A e - 200
Limitations and Future Research- -- A - A A - - A A- A A - . 204
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 216
APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 217
Appendix A: Strategy Development Session ...... A - A A . . . 217
Appendix B. High Vertical Interdependence Instructions- . . . - - __ 219
Appendix C: Low Vertical Interdependence Instructions-A A __ 220
Appendix D - Moderate Vertical Interdependence Instructions -A A 221
Appendix E: Measures Used in Laboratory Study A A A __ 222
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 228

viii

. I.“ am I“

. I‘d": .

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. MANIPULATION CHECKS FOR HORIZONTAL IN TERDEPENDENCE

AND VERTTCAL INT ERDEPENDENCE ............................................................... 116
TABLE 2. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ...................................................... 128
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND C ORRElA TIONS .................................. 130

TABLE 4. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL INTERDEPENDENCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
BELONGINGNESS - TEAM MEMBER (EXCL. TEAM LEADER) ....................... 140

TABLE 5. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL INTERDEPENDENC E AND PERCEPTIONS 0F
DIS TINC TIVENESS - TEAM MEMBER ( EX CL. TEAM LEADER) ...................... 141

TABLE 6. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
VERTICAL INTERDEPENDENCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGINGNESS -

TEAM MEMBERS (EXCL. TEAM LEADER) ......................................................... 142

TABLE 7. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
VERTICAL IN TERDEPENDENC E AND PERCEPTIONS OF DIS TINC TIVENESS —

TEAM MEMBERS (EX CL. TEAM LEADER) ......................................................... 143

TABLE 8. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL IN TERDEPENDEN C E AND LEADER PERCEPTIONS 0F

BELONGINGNESS ................................................................................................. 150

TABLE 9. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL INT ERDEPENDENCE AND LEADER PERCEPTIONS OF

DIS TIN C TIVENESS ................................................................................................ 151

TABLE 10. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
VERTICAL IN TERDEPENDEN C E AND LEADER PERCEPTIONS OF

BELONGINGNESS ................................................................................................. 152

TABLE 11. RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN
VERTICAL IN TERDEPENDEN CE AND LEADER PERCEPTIONS OF

DIS TIN C TIVENESS ................................................................................................ 153

TABLE 12. REGRESSION RESULTS TESTING THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF '
BELONGINGNESS AND DIS TINC TIVENESS ON POSITIVE, NEGATIVE AFFECT

AND SELF ~E VAL UA TIVE WELL-BEING ............................................................. 157

TABLE 13. REGRESSION RESULTS TESTING THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF
BELONGINGNESS AND DISTINCTIVENESS ON SELF -EF FICACY, VOICE, AND

TEAM IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................... 160

 

TABLE 14. REGRESSION RESULTS TESTING THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF
BELONGINGNESS AND DIS TIN C TIVENESS ON PERFORMANCE AND

LEARNING ............................................................................................................. 162

TABLE 15. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL IN TERDEPENDEN C E AND
PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGINGNESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS (INCL. TEAM

LEADER) ................................................................................................................ 169
TABLE 16. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL IN TERDEPENDEN CE AND
PERCEPTIONS OF DIS T INC TIVENESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS (INCL TEAM

LEADER) ................................................................................................................ 170

TABLE 17. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VERTICAL INT ERDEPENDEN CE AND
PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGINGNESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS (INCL. TEAM

LEADER) ................................................................................................................ 171
TABLE 18. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VERTICAL IN TERDEPENDEN C E AND
PERCEPTIONS OF DISTINCTIVENESS ALL TEAM MEMBERS (INCL. TEAM

LEADER) ................................................................................................................ 172
TABLE 19. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR
OVERALL TEAM PERFORMANCE ...................................................................... 180
TABLE 20. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR TEAM
GAINS ..................................................................................................................... 18 1
TABLE 21. RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR TEAM
LOSSES ................................................................................................................... 1 82

 

HG

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL MODEL ............................................................... 7
FIGURE 2. SUMMARY OF OVERALL MODEL — ORGANIZED BY LEVEL .................. 8

FIGURE 3. PREDICTED MODERATING EFFECT OF COLLECTIVISM ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL IN IERDEPENDENC E AND TEAM
MEMBER PERCEPT IONS OF BELONGINGNESS ................................................ 63

FIGURE 4. PREDIC TED MODERA TING EFFECT OF C OLLE C TIVISM ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL 1N TERDEPENDEN CE AND LEADER

PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGINGNESS .................................................................. 78

FIGURE 5. PREDIC TED MODERA TING INFLUENCE OF BELONGINGNESS ON
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIS TIN C TIVENESS AND OUTCOMES
(S UBJEC TIVE WELL—BEING, SELF -EF FICAC Y BELIEFS, VOICE, LEARNING,

PERFORMANCE, AND TEAM IDENTIFICATION) ............................................. 100

FIGURE 6. MODERA TING EFFECT OF TEAM MEMBER EXTRA VERSION ON
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL INT ERDEPENDEN CE AND TEAM

MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGINGNESS .............................................. 144

FIGURE 7. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF TEAM MEMBER COGNITIVE ABILITY ON
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VERTICAL IN TERDEPENDENCE AND TEAM
MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF DIS TINC TIVENESS ............................................. 148

FIGURE 8. M ODERATING EFFECT OF LEADER EXTRA VERSION ON
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HORIZONTAL IN TERDEPENDENC E AND LEADER

PERCEPTIONS OF DIS TIN C TIVENESS ............................................................... 154

FIGURE 9. MODERATING EFFECT OF BELONGINGNESS ON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN DISTINCTIVENESS AND POSITIVE AFFECT (TEAM MEMBERS AND

LEADERS) .............................................................................................................. 158

FIGURE 10. MODERATING EFFECT OF BELONGINGNESS ON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN DISTINCTIVENESS AND SELF -EF FI CAC Y ( TEAM MEMBERS AND

LEADERS) .............................................................................................................. 159

FIGURE 11. MODERA TING EFFECT OF BELONGINGNESS ON RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN DIS TINC TIVENESS AND VOICE (TEAM MEMBERS AND LEADERS)
................................................................................................................................. 161

FIGURE 12. MODERATING EFFECT OF EXTRA VERSION ON RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN HORIZONTAL INT ERDEPENDEN CE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
BELONGINGNESS (TEAM MEMBERS AND LEADERS) ..................................... 174

xi

 

FIGURE 13. MODERATING EFFECT OF POWER DISTANCE ON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN VERTICAL INT ERDEPENDENC E AND PERCEPTIONS OF
. BELONGINGNESS (TEAM MEMBERS AND LEADERS) ..................................... 175

FIGURE 14. MODERA TING EFFECT OF COGNITIVE ABILITY ON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN VERTICAL INT ERDEPENDEN CE AND PERCEPTIONS OF
DIS TINC TIVENESS (TEAM MEMBERS AND LEADERS) ................................... 176

FIGURE 15. MODERA TING EFFECT OF TEAM VARIANCE IN BELONGINGNESS
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELONGINGNESS AND OVERALL TEAM

PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................... 1 83

FIGURE 16. MODERA TING EFFECT OF TEAM VARIANCE IN BELONGINGNESS
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BELONGINGNESS AND TEAM LOSSES 184

xii

ll ‘

INTRODUCTION

Research on team structure has been studied under a variety of different
approaches. These different approaches generally focus on different dimensions of team
structure. For example, Wageman (1995) examined the role of task interdependence in
teams, Manz and Sims (1987) and Kirkman and Rosen (1999) chose to focus on team
self-management. Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van de Vliert theorized that outcome
interdependence constitutes another central dimension of team structure, and Hedlund,
Ilgen, and Hollenbeck (1998) focused on the role of the communication medium in teams
for decision making accuracy.

Johnson and colleagues recently provided a useful classification system for these
different dimensions of team structure, proposing that teams can be classified by their
degree of complexity and energy that are required to maintain their social structure
(Johnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Ilgen, Jundt, & Meyer, 2006). They asserted that tight
horizontal connections between team members, tight vertical connections between team
members and team leaders, and collective goals and rewards create the most complex
form of coupling between team members. A similar classification scheme for the
complexity of coupling has been provided in the field of organization theory by Weick
(Weick, 1976; Orton & Weick 1990), who differentiated between organizational units
which are decoupled, loosely coupled, or tightly coupled.

Research on team structure has generally advocated the use of extreme forms of
coupling in teams. For example, Wageman (1995) reported positive effects of tight
horizontal coupling for team outcomes. Similarly, Manz and Sims (1987), Kirkman and

Rosen (1999) and Spreitzer (1995) found that vertical decoupling between team members

 

and team leaders is associated with superior individual and team outcomes, such as
productivity, proactive work behaviors, customer satisfaction and job satisfaction. Indeed,
when studying the results of this research, one would expect that organizations would
have implemented or aspire to implement team structures which provide tight horizontal
coupling between team members and decoupling between team members and team

leaders.

Interestingly, however, this runs counter to common practice in organizations.
Most organizations have started to create loosely coupled teams with intermediate
degrees of horizontal coupling between team members and intermediate degrees of 1
vertical coupling between a leader and team members. Hackman (2009) provided an
insightful explanation for why organizations tend to employ loosely coupled team
structures, shying away from the extreme forms of coupling advocated by most of
previous research on team structure:

The challenge for a leader, then, is to find a balance between individual autonomy

and collective action. Either extreme is bad, though we are generally more aware

of the downside of individualism in organizations, and we forget that teams can
be just as destructive by being so strong and controlling that individual voices and

contributions and learning are lost (p. 105).

And indeed, other more recent research suggests that the preference for loosely
coupled team structures may be normative as well as descriptive. For example, using a
command and control simulation in a laboratory study, Ellis et al. (2003) showed that A
team learning was optimized in a hybrid team structure which blended a tightly coupled

functional structure with a decoupled divisional structure. Restated, team learning was

 

 

 

supa'ior in a loosely coupled team structure which avoided the disadvantages of tightly
coupled or decoupled team structures. Moreover, recent research on structural
contingency theory and structural adaptation theory (Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Johnson et
al., 2006) showed that the effectiveness of any team structure depends on the external fit
of the team structure with its environment and on the internal fit of the team structure
with team member characteristics. Again, this negates the notion that extreme forms of
coupling in teams are superior per se.

Overall, these findings call for more research on the consequences of different
degrees of coupling in teams. In this dissertation, I will adopt a different approach to
studying the consequences of different degrees of coupling in teams by focusing on the
social psychological consequences of tightly coupled, loosely coupled, and decoupled
team structures. Indeed, we know relatively little about the psychological consequences
of coupling in teams, and how these consequences affect individuals’ ability to function
effectively as team members. In particular, what is missing is a better understanding of
the influence of different degrees of coupling in teams on individuals’ self-construals,
and how this effect impacts individuals’ ability to function effectively as team members.
With the term self-construal, I am referring to “the extent to which the self is defined as
being intertwined and connected to others (an interdependent self-construal) and separate,
unique, and autonomous from others (an independent self-construal)” (Holmvall &

Bobocel, 2008, p. 150). This is a notable omission when we consider that seminal
research on organizational structure has often addressed the important role of structure as

an antecedent of individuals’ self—construals.

‘ tr.

 

 

For example, Blau noted that the structure of social positions among which people
are distributed exerts important influences on social life and on how individuals think of
themselves as members of larger collectives (Blau, 1977). Similarly, Weick posited that
organizational structures determine the level of “preoccupation with linguistic work and
the social construction of reality” (Weick, 1976, p. 13). Both Blau and Weick emphasize
the role of structure for individuals’ self-construals and for meaning creation - an

important aspect of structure which has generally not been addressed in team research (cp.

‘1!

Parker, 2003; Sewell, 1998 for noteworthy exceptions). ‘
To summarize, I argue that our understanding of team structure could be
improved by investigating the social psychological implications of different degrees of
coupling in teams, that is, by investigating how different degrees of coupling between
team members are associated with team members’ perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness. I propose that loosely coupled team structures allow individuals to attain
a state of optimal distinctiveness which maximizes individuals’ ability to function
effectively at work.
Contributions
Given the important role of team structure for meaning creation in teams, and also
noting the problems associated with previous research on team structure, I intend to make
the following contributions to research on different degrees of coupling in teams.
First, this is one of the first empirical studies which investigates loose coupling in
teams as a solution to the problems associated with extreme forms of coupling,
acknowledging the common organizational practice to create loosely coupled teams. This

dissertation adds to our understanding of team structures by proposing that individuals

 

. 4

 

 

 

require an optimal balance between elements of tightly coupled social systems and
decoupled social systems.

Second, I will explain the preference for loosel y coupled team structures by
focusing on the social psychological consequences of different degrees of coupling in
teams. Drawing on optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), I propose that team
structure will predict individuals’ self-construals, that is, perceptions of belongingness
and distinctiveness. Loosely coupled team structures will allow team members to
experience a state of optimal distinctiveness, which will in turn predict a range of
outcomes, including subjective well-being, self-efficacy, voice behaviors, learning, job
performance, and team identification. By investigating the social psychological
mechanisms through which team structure affects these outcomes, this study is
integrating a structural approach to teams with a social psychological approach to team
behavior. Blending these two approaches provides us with a powerful perspective to
examine the complex interplay of structure and cognition and behavior in teams.

Third, drawing from structural contingency theory and structural adaptation
theory (Hollenbeck et al., 2002, Moon et al., 2004), I investigate how the social
psychological implications of different configurations of team structure depend on the
internal fit of the team structure with team member characteristics. This is consistent with
early theorizing on structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961), which argued
that there is no one best way to organize, and that the effectiveness of organizational

structures depends on the environment in which the organization is operating and on the

fit of structure with internal characteristics of the organization.

 

all

i”

ml

‘81))

.14

Fourth, this study provides an account of the consequences of two different
dimensions of team structure, both of which vary the degree of coupling in teams.
Specifically, this study investigates how team structure affects optimal distinctiveness on
the individual level of analysis, and how this in turn predicts a broad range of criteria.

Finally, findings will inform practitioners on how to design work teams such that
they allow individuals to function effectively, yet at the same time also satisfy their
psychological needs for both assimilation and uniqueness.

Overview

My dissertation will be structured in the following manner. First, I will review
relevant research on organizational structure and team structure, focusing on the role of
structure for individuals’ self-construals, behavior, and ultimately, performance. This will
be followed by a summary of Optimal distinctiveness theory, which will serve as the
dominant theoretical framework to guide my hypothesis development. Second, drawing
from structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hollenbeck et al., 2002), I
will develop hypotheses on three sets of relationships, including the relationships of team
structure with individuals’ self-construals; the moderating role of individual differences
in these relationships; and the relationships of individuals’ self-construals with outcomes.
Figure 1 summarizes the overall model of this dissertation, Figure 2 organizes the the
model by levels, differentiating between team- and individual-level of analysis. Third, I
will empirically test these hypotheses utilizing data obtained from a laboratory study.

Fourth, I will discuss the theoretical and practical implications of my findings.

 

_L

Figure 1. Summary of Overall Model

 

- Collectivism
- Power
Distance

ii

 

   

 

 

Belongingness
(Leader,
Team Member.

  

 

 

 

reg)

  

 

 
  
 

Distinctiveness
(Leader,
Team Member.

 

 

 

 

 

    

Team)

-Extraversion
~Cognitive Ability
Emotional
Stability

 

 

 

 

Outcomes
-Sub]ectlve
Well-Being

- Self-Efficacy
- Voice
-Job
- Performance
- Learning

-Team
identification

 

    

    
  

f.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'-‘f-:?:;_?:f "983 ' _ _ Job; . _ ~

. gamm- _ l

INDIVIDUAL I. Jon
. P t .

, I! ”n I

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

On a general level, organizational structure describes how “large numbers of
persons are differentiated into smaller groups as well as how the independent actions of
these differentiated groups are coordinated” (Hollenbeck et al., 2002, p. 600). Drawing
from the work of Jones (1995) and Stewart and Barrick (2000), I define team structure as
the configuration of relationships with respect to the allocation of tasks, responsibilities,
and authority. This definition emphasizes the important role of interdependent
relationships between team members as the building block of team structure. It also

w

pointstotwoeenn‘aldimensionsofteamstructurewhichhavereceivedmostmm -. ..

 

 

  
 

 

previous research: First, it points to the critical role of task interdependence, which
reflects the degree to which team members initiate and receive interdependencies in order
to complete the team’s tasks by providing and receiving critical inputs such as
information and resources. Since this type of interdependence occurs between team
members on the same hierarchical level, I will refer to this type of interdependence as
horizontal interdependence. Second, Stewart and Barrick (2000) acknowledged the
important role of decision making authority in their definition of team structure. In
particular, this second dimension of team structure describes the extent to which the team
depends on one leader person to take critical decisions, or whether the team engages in a ‘
collective decision-making process. I will refer to this type of interdependence as vertical
interdependence.

In the following sections, I review the literature relevant to the current study. Due
to the focus on team structure as a precursor of individuals’ self—construals, I will only
review theories or concepts on organizational structures which are relevant to these topics
and thus inform my theory and hypothesis development. After reviewing the relevant
theories of structures on the macro and meso level of analysis, I will introduce optimal
distinctiveness theory as a theoretical framework which will guide the development of
my hypotheses on the effects of team structure for individuals’ self—construals and
performance.

Literature Review of Structure
In this section, I will review two literatures which have been influential for
research on structure as an antecedent of individuals’ self-construals in organizations.

The first of these two streams represents macrolevel research on the effects of

 

 

 

orgmizational structure on cognitive and behavioral patterns in organizations (i.e.,
Barnard, 1938; Berger & Luckman, 1966; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Davis, 1949; Giddens,
1979; Merton, 1957; Parsons, 1960; Weber, 1964). This literature has developed largely
independent of a second stream of research on structure on the meso level of analysis,
which has investigated the nature of interdependent work structures and their effects on
cognition and behavior. This research was most heavily influenced by the work of
Deutsch (1949) on social interdependence. Reviewing these two streams of research will
lay the ground for the discussion of the two subdimensions of team interdependence
which I will focus on in this dissertation: horizontal interdependence and vertical '
interdependence.
Macrolevel Theories of Organizational Structure

Research in the field of organization theory has produced a wealth of different
approaches to the topic of organizational structure. Not only is the sheer number of these
approaches difficult to manage, it is also the diversity of these approaches which makes a
concise summary of this literature practically impossible. Thus, the subsequent review of
macrolevel research on organizational structure should not be viewed as an exhaustive
summary of this literature. Instead, I will focus on selected research streams which are
central to this study, organizing these approaches in three broad categories. These three
categories will include rational systems theories, Structuralist accounts, and dialectic
approaches to the study of organizational structure.

Rational Systems Approaches

Early research in the emerging field of organization science has generally viewed

organizational structure as a vehicle to maximizing organizational efficiency. For

10

 

i
h.
'1

'_:?

‘99.,
.
.HI‘

example, Fayol (1930) suggested that organizations could become more efficient by
relying on organizational structures in which individuals with similar functional areas of
expertise are grouped together in the same organizational units. This suggestion has
influenced subsequent theorizing in organizational theory, for example the writings of
Burns and Stalker (1961) on mechanistic organizational structures or Hollenbeck et al.’s
(2002) discussion of functional structures on the group level of analysis.

Also in the tradition of rational systems theories, Weber (1946) developed a
theory of organizational bureaucracy which outlined principles of an efficient
organizational structure, including the principles of hierarchy of offices and fixed
division of labor. According to Weber, bureaucratic organizational structures as the most
efficient form of organizing have replaced more archaic work structures in which
individual abilities, skills, and preferences defined work roles, that is, they have replaced
work structures in which individual characteristics of employees were not separated from
work roles.

Structuralist Approaches

According to rational systems theories, the consequences of organizational
structures on individuals’ perceptions of their group membership and their perceptions of
interpersonal relationships with others are largely a by-product of the more important
effects of organizational structure on organizational efficiency.

This changed with the emergence of structuralism as a popular theoretical
framework in sociology (Levi—Strauss, 1958). At the most general level, structuralism
refers to any approach which emphasizes the effect of structure on social life over an

effect with the reversed causality. Thus, this approach places organizational structure

11

 

CU

pl:

l

center stage to describe how individuals construct meaning in organizational life. This
represents a major shift in organizational theorizing, evidenced by the change in
perspective from a rational systems approach with its eminent focus on organizational
efficiency, to a theoretical perspective which attempted to understand the social
psychological implications of organizational structure. I will review three theoretical
approaches within structuralism in the following paragraphs in order to exemplify this
change in perspective, namely the work of Davis (1949), Merton (1957), and Parsons
(1960).

According to Davis (1949) and Scott (2002), structure has several layers. First, a
normative structure contains values, norms, and role expectations for individuals. A
second layer of structure consists of cultural-cognitive structures which comprise shared
beliefs and understandings of central elements of organizational life. These schemas can
help employees in their collective sensemaking process as organizational members.
Finally, a behavioral component constitutes the third layer of structure.

Davis argued that the normative structure of organizations imposes important
constraints on the two other structural layers such that the cognitive schemas and
behavioral options available to employees are determined by the normative structure.
According to this perspective, team structures (as elements of the normative structure)
play an important role in the creation of meaning in organizational life by channeling
individuals’ cognition, and ultimately, their behavior.

Merton’s work on social theory and social structure has provided us with another
influential perspective in the structuralist tradition, investigating how structure can

function as an antecedent of conflict and deviant behavior in organizations (Merton,

12

 

 

Pr

.m
Lt:

 

1957). According to Merton, organizational conflict and deviance can best be understood
by investigating the structure of relations between individuals and groups. Merton
suggested that such a structuralist perspective should replace a more traditional
understanding of organizations according to which conflict and deviance are the results of
the actions of innately aggressive individuals. Thus, consistent with the general theme of
structm'alism, Merton viewed organizational structure as the primary predictor of
important cognitive and behavioral patterns in organizations.

The third and final perspective of structuralism which I am going to introduce is
Parsons’ theory of structure functionalism (Parsons, 1960). In this grand theory, he
developed a general analytic model which can be used to analyze the structure and
ultimately the viability of collectives of all sizes. He proposed that all social systems have
certain functions which have to be performed if the social system is to survive. These
functions are adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency (also frequently
referred to as AGIL paradigm). He continued to discuss the roles that individuals have to
assume in order to perform these functions, arguing that these roles are predefined by
accepted norms and standards in the respective collective. Thus, Parsons conceptualized
individual behavior as a function of predefined roles which operate in the service of
functional requirements to secure system survival.

Dialectic Approaches

Despite the important differences between rational systems approaches and
structuralist approaches to organizations, both approaches share the emphasis on the
pervasive influence of organizational structure on individuals. More recent approaches to

structure, however, have advocated a more dynamic understanding of the relationship

13

 

 

between structure and individual cognition and behavior, suggesting a complex and
reciprocal relationship between structure and meaning creation. In this section, I will
discuss two prominent dialectic approaches, namely Berger and Luckmann’s work on the
social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and Gidden’s theory of
structuration (Giddens, 1984).

Similar to research in the structuralist tradition, Berger and Luckmann emphasize
the powerful influence of institutional structures on individuals’ cognition and behavior.
They define institutions as the result of reciprocal typifications of habitualized actions by
at least two actors. Put differently, the repeated performance of certain behaviors teaches
others how to interpret this behavior, that is, others are creating lasting expectations of a
logical sequence of actions. As such, individuals are developing cognitive schemas with
which they can make sense of their environments. Thus, institutions control human
conduct by predefining patterns of conduct. These patterns channel human behavior and
cognition in specific directions, limiting the flexibility of individuals operating in
institutionalized environments.

Despite the apparent focus on the pervasive effects of institutionalized structures
on human cognition and behavior, Berger and Luckmann’s approach is also remarkably
different from structuralist approaches. What sets their approach apart from structuralist
approaches is the recognition that human behavior is just as much a product of
institutionalized structures as these structures are a product of humans, or, as Berger and
Luckmann put it, society should best be viewed as a human product just as much as
human cognition and behavior should best be viewed as a product of institutionalized

structures. By emphasizing the dialectic relationship between institutionalized structures

14

 

Iii" .- _.

and human behavior, Berger and Luckmann break with structuralistic approaches which
proposed a unidirectional effect of structure on behavior.

Further elaborating on the dialectic approach advocated by Berger and Luckmann,
Giddens (1984) proposed a theory of structuration in which he noted that structural forces
change social life into something more than random individual acts. Yet, at the same time,
he maintained that social life is also not entirely determined by social forces. Put in
different words, social life is not merely an outgrowth of micro-level activity, neither is it
a phenomenon which should be studied by considering only macro—level, structural
explanations.

Giddens argued that human agency assumes a critical role in the relationship
between structure and behavior by allowing individuals to decide whether they want to
continuously reproduce structural patterns, or break with them. By repetitively engaging
in specific behaviors, individual agents continuously reproduce structure. According to
Giddens, human agency itself, however, is also constrained by frames of meaning and
interpretation which flow from macro-level structures. Put in the words of the French
philosopher Foucault (1977), human agency occurs within a “prevailing web of power
relations” (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006, p. 217) which is ultimately structurally
determined. Thus, consistent with Berger and Luckmann, Giddens conceptualized the
relationship between structure and behavior as a complex, reciprocal relationship.
Implications of Macrolevel Theories of Organizational Structure

Overall, macrolevel theories of organizational structure have important
implications for this dissertation. First, as indicated by the early research of Fayol (1930)

and Weber (1946), structure has an important role for effective organizational functioning

 

I' ,. _ 15

t.

'3
-\-I

in:

{-A.

L

‘u
p-

5.!

u‘j‘l

ill“

and performance. This is consistent with my investigation of team structure as a predictor
of team effectiveness.

Second, structuralist and dialectic approaches speak to the pervasive influence of
structure on individual cognition and behavior. Therefore, it seems appropriate to
investigate team structure as a predictor of cognitive processes on the individual level of
analysis, especially as they relate to individuals’ self construals in the context of work.
This supports the primary objective of this study, namely to investigate how team
structure influences individuals’ self-construals, and how this effect mediates the
relationship of team structure with team performance. In fact, my investigation of the
effect of team structure on feelings of belongingness and distinctiveness can be viewed as
a logical continuation of structuralist approaches to organizations, adopting the main
arguments of structuralism to the mesolevel of analysis.

Third, more recent research on dialectic approaches to structure makes an
important contribution to organization sciences by conceptualizing structure both as a
determinant and as a consequence of behavioral patterns in organizations. This
perspective points to a mutual dependence between higher-level phenomena (i.e., team
level and organizational level structures and processes) and phenomena on a lower level
of analysis (i.e., individual cognition and behavior). Weick (1979) referred to this mutual
dependence between individual- and collective phenomena as “double interact”,
emphasizing how individual behaviors affect collective processes, which in turn
influence individual processes and behavior (cf. the systems theory of motivated work
teams of Chen and Kanfer, 2006, who use this insight to develop propositions on the

interplay between individual and team motivation).

16

 

9‘)"
A

h.-

b.
l. r
a»

'“.J
Mh~‘~

“I ll

Mesolevel Theories of Organizational Structure
Gestalt Psychology

Similar to the rich tradition of macrolevel research on organizational structure,
research on the mesolevel of analysis on structure has a long history, dating back to the
early beginnings of the discipline of psychology. Most of the early research on group
structure and interdependence (Lewin, 1936; Deutsch, 1949) draws from gestalt
psychology, an emerging school of thought established at the University of Berlin in the
early 20th century. According to gestalt psychology, studying perception and behavior
requires a focus on the “whole” or “gestalt” (Wertheimer, 1923). Applying this insight to
the context of groups, Kofflta proposed that groups should best be studied by adopting an
integrated perspective which views groups as dynamic wholes, instead of viewing them
as the summation of their parts (Koffka, 1922; 1935). Thus, focusing on the individual
members of groups would only create an incomplete and oversimplified version of reality.
Instead, Koffka argued, the emergent properties of the group as a whole and their effects
on individuals have to be considered in order to understand the full complexity of
behavior in group settings.

Gestalt psychology had far-reaching consequences for subsequent research on
groups and group structure. Most notably, it established group properties as a viable topic
of research in the emerging field of psychology. Second, by acknowledging the complex
interplay of the whole (i.e., the group) with its parts (i.e., group members), gestalt ,
psychology set the stage for subsequent research on the effects of group structure on

individuals’ cognition and interpersonal relationships. Specifically, gestalt psychology

17

 

I
A“!

1.1,",

w, 1‘

 

established the notion that individual cognition and behavior are not only a function of
factors which originate from inside the person, but also influenced by external forces
which derive from membership in social groups. As such, gestalt psychology was
foundational for the discipline of social psychology and for subsequent research on team
structure.

For example, Rusbult and Van Lange (2003) noted that “the essence of a social
psychological approach to thinking frequently is described in terms of the power of the
situation” (p. 352). As stipulated by gestalt psychology, this suggests that behavior is not
only a function of the person, but also a function of external, situational influences. Kurt
Lewin summarized this insight in his famous equation for behavior B = f (P, E),
according to which behavior is a function of personality and environmental influences
(Lewin, 1936). Lewin was also the first researcher who used the insights of gestalt
psychology to theorize on the effects of group structure on individual cognition and
behavior. He argued that structural interdependence among group members is the essence
of a group and as such the most important environmental influence on behavior and
social interaction in groups (Lewin, 1936).

Deutsch ’3 Social Interdependence Theory

In his social interdependence theory, Deutsch (1949) expanded on Lewin’s work
by investigating how the interdependence among goal structures in groups facilitates
cooperative group behavior. Deutsch differentiated between situations which are
positively and negatively interdependent, positive (negative) interdependence referring to
situations in which the goal attainment of one individual correlates positively (negatively)

with the goal attainment of one or more other individuals. As such, Deutsch

18

 

)L'.

i
(J
”'2’

conceptualized the relationship between individuals’ goals as the central component of
structure in group settings.

Moreover, Deutsch developed testable predictions on the effects of interdependent
goal structures on group behavior, proposing that positive interdependence in goal
structures would result in positive team processes and cooperative interpersonal behavior.
Specifically, he proposed that positive goal interdependence would result in three critical
psychological states: substitutability, cathexis, and inducibility. Substitutability refers to
the extent to which individuals feel collectively accountable for the work of their group
such that they can substitute for each other’s work if necessary. Cathexis describes how
individuals can become psychologically invested in their groups, and inducibility refers
to the extent to which individuals are open to influence others and to be influenced by
others in group settings. By outlining these three critical team processes, Deutsch
provided an excellent example of how team structure impacts psychological processes in
a group setting. This will also guide my theorizing on the influence of team structure on
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness.

Structural Adaptation Theory

Social interdependence theory has been highly influential for subsequent research
on group structure, evidenced by the more than 300 citations for the early formulations of
social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949). In fact, this influence can still be felt
today, with more recent approaches to team structure drawing heavily from social
interdependence theory. For example, the formulation of structural adaptation theory
(Johnson, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, ll gen, Jundt, & Meyer, 2006) was influenced by the

writings of Deutsch on cooperative and competitive reward structures.

19

 

'3'

‘04

rp-
Hill

I? l

LU:

3'.

t.
1“”

ru-

According to structural adaptation theory, social systems can be classified by their
degree of complexity, as is common with physical systems. By drawing from the second
law of thermodynamics, Johnson and colleagues argued that complex social systems
require more energy in order to maintain their level of complexity than is the case with
simple social systems. This is because complex systems tend to break down over time
and develop into more simple and chaotic systems, thus requiring continuous investment
to maintain their higher complexity and order.

Johnson et al. (2006) identified three structural dimensions along which the
complexity of teams could be estimated. These three dimensions are reward structures
(Deutsch, 1949), departrnentation, and centralization (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Wagner,
2000). Consistent with social interdependence theory, cooperative reward structures
induce individuals to engage in promotive interaction and mutually-supportive behavior.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, this represents a move into a direction
of decreasing entropy by creating more complex, interdependent work structures which
inhibit individual self-serving behavior for the benefit of the group. Conversely,
competitive reward structures promote contrient interaction and reduce the extent to
which individuals are willing to share valuable information with each other.

Following a similar line of argument, functional work structures create high levels
of interdependence among team members by creating narrow, specialized roles which are
tightly coupled with each other such that the exchange of resources and information is
regulated by official procedures which are binding for team members. As such, functional
structures, too, promote interdependence in teams by increasing system complexity.

Divisional structures, on the other hand, equip team members with personal freedom and

20

.7“.
it“.

(1‘ v.

M ii

discretion over their work, creating loosely coupled team structures on a lower level of
system complexity.

Finally, in centralized team structures leaders retain decision making authority.
This creates high levels of interdependence between team members and their respective
team leader such that individuals have little influence on decisions, but are affected to a
large extent by those decisions. This tight form of vertical coupling reduces system
entropy by raising the amount of order and complexity in teams. Thus, similar to
cooperative reward structures and functional team structures, centralized team structures
characterize social systems operating on a higher level of complexity and
interdependence. The opposite effect can be observed in decentralized team structures, in
which individual team members have extensive decision making autonomy regarding
their work, thus representing a social system which operates on a high level of entropy.
Implications of Structural Adaptation Theory

Structural adaptation theory provides us with a theoretically- grounded framework
of team structure which identifies centralization, departmentation, and reward structure as
three conceptually-meaningful dimensions of team structure. Second, as discussed by
Johnson et a1. (2006), these three dimensions all represent continua which can be used to
describe the level of social complexity of teams, ranging from social systems with high
entropy and loose coupling between team members (i.e., decentralized, divisional
structures with competitive rewards) to social systems characterized by a high degree of
complexity and tight coupling (i.e., centralized, functional structures with cooperative
rewards).

Team Structure

21

 

1..
all!

:0 rl

till

In this dissertation, I have chosen to focus on departrnentation (horizontal
interdependence) and centralization (vertical interdependence) as the two most relevant
dimensions of team structure. Both of these dimensions determine how tasks and
responsibilities are allocated among team members, and thus have powerful effects on
individuals’ cognition and behavior in teams. Next, I will review research on these two
central dimensions of team structure, starting with horizontal interdependence. This will
be followed by a review of research on vertical interdependence. It is important to note
that structural adaptation theory constitutes only one of many theoretical frameworks
which have been used to approach the topic of team structure (or subdimensions thereof).
Given the wealth of different approaches to the topic of team structure, it is not surprising
to find that many of these approaches differ fundamentally in important aspects, for
example in their definitions of core constructs and their respective operationalization.

Thus, the following sections of this dissertation have two primary goals. First, I
attempt to highlight conceptual differences which exist between different approaches to
the two dimensions of team. structure which I address in my dissertation. Summarizing
these differences is important because this discussion has important implications for the
operationalization and measurement of the two dimensions of team structure. The second
goal of the following literature review is to provide a concise summary of substantive
research which is relevant for this study.

Horiwntal Interdependence

Construct definition and operationalization. Over the past twenty-five years,

numerous definitions and operationalizations of task/horizontal interdependence have

been proposed (Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Kiggundu, 1983;

22

 

iii

:11;

Eli:

 

Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Wageman, 1995; Wageman & Gordon, 2005). All of these

definitions share the general notion that horizontal interdependence refers to the extent to

which a task requires collective action in order to be completed successfully (Wageman,
1995). Interestingly, however, even though most of this research draws from the early
research of Thompson ( 1967) on different types of task interdependence, different
measures have been proposed which differ in central dimensions. Most notably, they
differ in how they conceptualize functional specialization as a defining element of
task/horizontal interdependence. Wageman and her colleagues (Wageman, 1995;
Wageman & Gordon, 2005) argued that cross-training and simultaneous and
interchangeable work on the task are a defining element of task interdependence. As such,
they argued that high task interdependence would be associated with low levels of
functional specialization since all team members will become more familiar with each
other’s work in highly interdependent work structures.

This operationalization, however, is in stark contrast to how other research has
conceptualized task/horizontal interdependence. Hollenbeck et a1. (2002), Kiggundu
(1983), Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), and Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, and
Oosterhof (2003) all emphasize that high task interdependence is generally associated
with high functional specialization in teams which create critical contingencies for other
team members. This view is more consistent with the conceptual definition of reciprocal
interdependence provided by Thompson (1967). It reflects the notion that individuals get
tightly yoked to others as part of a complex social system of horizontal interdependence
Which forces individual team members to focus on aspects of the team task which they,

and only they, can perform at a certain point of time. Thus, this definition is also more

23

 

cm
LAI

"
‘Ca

1.

consistent with the way that structural adaptation dreary has defined functional
Specialization as a tightly coupled form of departmentation.

Substantive research on horizontal interdependence. Research indicates that the
tight coupling among individuals in horizontally interdependent structures generally
emphasizes the importance of interpersonal processes. For example, a recent meta-
analysis on teamwork processes by LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008)
found that team level processes play a more critical role in tasks characterized by high
horizontal interdependence, such as in a functional structure. That is, the relationship
between team level processes such as strategy formulation, coordination and conflict
management were higher when horizontal interdependence was high relative to when
teams were less tightly coupled. Similarly, Drach-Zahavy (2004) argued that decreased
horizontal interdependence among individuals in teams will be associated with decreased
team support as individuals no longer feel accountable for the team as a whole.

The flip side of this finding is that structures with high horizontal interdependence
generally de-emphasize therole of individual differences. Indeed, Hollenbeck et al.
(2002) found that individual differences predicted team performance in a higher scope,
divisional task characterized by low horizontal interdependence, but not in a narrower
functional task. They showed that team member cognitive ability was a strong predictor
of team performance when the divisional structure is aligned with its environment, that is,
in a dynamic task environment. In addition, team level emotional stability emerges as a
critical factor in a divisional structure in a task environment which is not aligned with

team structure.

24

 

1M]

101

‘-

LU?

I In

Other research indicates that there may also be a downside to employing
functional structures. For example, Janz, Colquitt, and Noe (1997) argued that horizontal
interdependence constrains the different ways in which individuals can perform their
work such that the positive influence of autonomy on work motivation gets neutralized.

Overall, previous research on horizontal interdependence illustrates how tight
yoking among individuals on a horizontal level enhances the impact of team level
constructs on team outcomes, while at the same time weakening the influence of
individual-level constructs on team outcomes. As such, horizontal interdependence
strengthens the identity of the team as a gestalt. Moreover, the previously discussed
findings illustrate how horizontal interdependence in teams makes the team particularly
salient for team members’ cognition and behavior, as evidenced by the findings of Drach-
Zahavy (2004) and Gilson et a1. (2005).

Vertical Interdependence

Construct definition and operationalization. Vertical interdependence refers to the
extent to which team members depend on one formal leader who has unilateral authority
to make decisions for the team (Hollenbeck et al., 1995; Bonnachio & Dalal 2006). Low
vertical interdependence exists in situations in which self-managing teams resolve their
own discrepancies via either consensus or, if this breaks down, voting procedures.
Previous research has produced a remarkable diversity of operationalizations of vertical
interdependence in teams (or related concepts such as team self-management, team
empowerment, and team autonomy). Unfortunately, however, these approaches did not
acknowledge that interdependence and autonomy can exist both on the individual and

team level of analysis. As such, what is intended to reflect a team level construct often

25

rm-
' l

ilk“:

 

measures an individual-level phenomenon, and vice versa. For example, Uhl—Bien and
Graen (1998) pointed out that “although studies of self-managing activities have
addressed self-managing activities at both the individual and team level, the literature has
not been clear about the distinction between the two” (p. 341). Similarly, Langfred
(2000) noted that “the fact that autonomy can reside at both the individual and group
level in a work group is often neglected in studies of self-management or group
autonomy” (p. 564). Kirkman and Rosen’s (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997; 1999) work on
team empowerment presents a notable exception to this general tendency,
conceptualizing team empowerment as a dynamic motivational construct on the team
level of analysis.

Moreover, research on vertical interdependence has mostly produced measures
which contain normatively—laden descriptions of what constitutes effective team self-
management. Partly, this is due to the fact that this research has generally attempted to
document the positive consequences of vertical autonomy for group functioning and
performance even before a valid measure of vertical interdependence had been developed.
In doing so, this research has generally confounded the structural dimension of vertical
interdependence/autonomy with its psychological consequences.

I provide two examples to illustrate this point: First, the self-management leader
behaviors proposed by Manz and Sims (1987) all relate to leader activities which are
expected to result in superior performance for teams characterized by high vertical

autonomy, such as encouraging self-reinforcement, self-criticism, self-goal-setting, or
self-evaluation. Similarly, the operationalization of team empowerment provided by

Kirkman and Rosen (1997; 1999) contains normative descriptions of desirable team

26

.9
unfit

W and emergent states. Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, and Gibson (2004) noted that
team empowerment “increases task motivation that is due to team members’ collective,
positive assessment of their organizational tasks” (p. 176), operationalizing team
empowerment as perceived potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact. Among
those four dimensions, autonomy is the only dimension which describes a structural
characteristic. As stated previously, this Operationalization confounds the structural
dimension of vertical interdependence with its psychological consequences.

Substantive research on vertical interdependence. Research indicates that low
vertical interdependence (that is, team self-management or team empowerment) is
generally beneficial for teams. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) reported that empowered
teams were more productive and proactive than teams high on vertical interdependence.
Similarly, they found that empowered teams were associated with better customer service,
higher job satisfaction, and higher organizational and team commitment. At this point,
however, it is important to reiterate that some of these effects may not necessarily be a
function of structural independence, but rather a team motivational state brought upon by
an external leader or the organizational culture. As such, we can only speculate over the
true nature of the relationship between vertical interdependence as a structural
characteristic and team outcomes.

Other research points to the critical challenges which self-managing teams face.
Specifically, the fact that self-managing teams operate without a strong leader with
decision making authority can potentially loosen the coupling of the team with the overall
organization. For example, Tesluk and Mathieu (1999), Druskat and Wheeler (2003) and

Mathieu, Gilson, and Ruddy (2006) all noted that self-managing teams rely on the

27

 

0“»!

'3
i\v\

Eff
lit];
dict
it:
My]
em

inn

KL.

 

‘5.
,Ii‘N

"MI

 

boundary-spanning role of an external leader in order to be well-connected with the
overall organization. In particular, what is needed is an external leader who can reduce
resource dependencies, provide critical and timely information, and ensure that the
team’s goals are consistent with objectives of the larger business unit or the overall
organization. Otherwise, a lack of effective external leader support can result in self-
managing teams that feel ‘abandoned’ by their organization (Mathieu et al., 2006).
Implications of Previous Research on Team Structure

Teams could be tightly coupled or loosely coupled on both horizontal
interdependence and vertical interdependence. On the one extreme, teams may be high on
horizontal interdependence and high on vertical interdependence. This means that team
members would have little freedom to decide on how to perform their work and they
would have little impact on team decisions which will mainly be taken by a strong,
hierarchical leader. It is easy to see how the tight yoking of individuals to one another in
this example emphasizes the team as “figure”, and “individuals” as ground. There are
other teams, however, where individual team members have large discretion over their
work and where team members have impact on the decision making process. In this
example, individuals are loosely coupled — the individual assumes the role of “figure”,
and the team reverts to the “ground”.

Thus, both tightly coupled team structures (i.e., structures with high horizontal
and vertical interdependence) and decoupled team structures (i.e., structures with low
horizontal and vertical interdependence) impose important freedoms and restrictions on
individuals at the same time. Generally, decoupled structures allow individuals to

maintain their personal identities to a larger extent, whereas tightly coupled structures

28

 

3"“
HA-

WT-

an“

p

(Ira
r

[w

emphasize and enforce a collective group identity. At the same time, however, tightly
coupled structures give individuals the freedom to assume a more specialized role which
ennphasizes their individual preferences and abilities, whereas tightly coupled team
structures force team members to assume a narrower role in which they easily lose track
of the dynamics of the larger social system they are a part of.

This suggests that individuals will generally strive to operate in structural
conditions with intermediate degrees of coupling. Compared to tightly coupled or
decoupled team structures, loosely coupled structures allow individuals to enjoy an
adequate degree of personal discretion and independence, while at the same time
minimizing the constraints that generally come with decoupled structures or tightly
coupled team structures. Thus, overall, individuals in teams constantly face the challenge
of balancing the uniqueness and distinctiveness of their identity with the need to be
similar to other group members and to be assimilated, and it is likely that intermediate
degrees of coupling (or loose coupling) provide the best fit for most individuals.

This is also consistent with common practice in organizations. In fact, the
evidence is clear that more organizations are turning to team-based structures, and indeed,
there is broad consensus among practitioners and in the academic literature that totally
decoupled, individually-based teams are not viable any longer (Van der Vegt, Emans, &
Van de Vliert, 2001). At the same time, however, it is important to note that
organizations have largely resisted the temptation of tightly coupled team structures,
acknowledging that tightly coupled structures also come with their own unique set of

freedoms and constraints. Thus, paying tribute to individuals’ uniqueness, organizations

29

‘3‘

COL

l‘”
t...

we

lull

fin-I

Nu

 

generally find themselves converging to team structures with intermediate degrees of
coupling, that is, loosely coupled team structures.

It follows that team structures have important consequences for individuals’ self-
construals, that is, for the extent to which individuals define themselves as being
interrelated to others or independent of others. This corresponds to two basic human
needs, the need to be similar to others and the need to be distinct from others (Brewer,
1991; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The simultaneous need to be
assimilated and similar to relevant others, yet at the same time be sufficiently distinct and
unique has been discussed by Brewer in her optimal distinctiveness theory (1991), in
which she posits that deviations from an optimal balance between distinctiveness and
assimilation lead to negative effects for psychological well-being and for group
functioning.

By relating the two facets of team interdependence to feelings of belongingness
and distinctiveness, I can use optimal distinctiveness theory to derive theoretically-driven
predictions on the relationship between team structure and meaningful individual and
team level outcomes. Specifically, since an optimal balance between team members’
perceptions of belongingness and uniqueness appear to be essential for group functioning
and performance, I will investigate the mediating role of this balance in the relationship
between team structure and team performance. Before doing so, however, I will review
the basic tenets of optimal distinctiveness theory as the primary theoretical framework of

this study.

30

 

12:1

I‘;
‘u

\

ITL;

ii; a"

Ml! . '»

 

Literature Review of Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Optimal distinctiveness theory is a social psychological theory which has its
origins in research on self-categorization and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel
& Turner, 1986). Before discussing the main propositions of optimal distinctiveness
theory, I will briefly review these influences.

Until recently, social psychology has conceptualized the individual as a largely
independent entity, focusing mainly on individual differences, on internal attributes, and
on human agency as drivers of human cognition and behavior (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Singelis, 1994). More recent research on individuals’ self-construals and on self-
categorization theory has changed the predominant focus of psychology on the isolated
individual by acknowledging that individuals can construe their identity both in terms of
independent and interdependent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis,
1994; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). This perspective acknowledges
that cultural differences exist in the extent to which individuals define themselves as
independent individuals or as interdependent members of social groups or collectives.
Maybe even more important, this perspective also emphasizes the possibility that
individuals in all societies define at least parts of their selves based on their membership
in social groups and based on attributes which are central to this group membership
(Turner et a1. 1987; cp. Sherif, 1966).

According to this research, individuals can define their identity in two distinct
ways. They can either define themselves as largely separate, unique, and autonomous
individuals, or they can define themselves as connected and intertwined to others, that is,

they can develop independent self-construals or interdependent self-construals (Markus

31

 

W‘f'
Jeni

dis].

Litii
n’l"‘l

[Hind

men

3‘1 ' ll
m?
g

 

& Kitayama, 1991). Offering a formal definition for individuals’ self-construals, Singelis
noted that self construals are a “constellation of thoughts, feelings, and actions
concerning one’s relationship to others and the self as distinct from others” (Singelis,
1994, p. 581). According to this definition, perceptions of individual connectedness and
belongingness on the one hand and perceptions of individual uniqueness and
distinctiveness on the other hand lie at the heart of indivdiuals’ self construals.

In their self-categorization theory, Turner and colleagues (1987) proposed two
distinct self-construals, distinguishing between personal and collective identities. Brewer
and Gardner (1996) elaborated on this typology, adding relational identities as a second
form of collective self-representation. According to Brewer and Gardner, a personal
identity orientation defines the self as a unique individual who derives his/her self-value
primarily on the basis of self-other comparisons. In contrast to a personal identity
orientation, a relational identity orientation emphasizes the self as a member of specific
interpersonal relationships (sometimes termed the in-group), in which both self-interest
and the interests of selected others motivate individual behavior. As such, relational
identities emphasize the connectedness of individuals to a larger extent than is the case
with personal identities. Finally, defining the self as a member of a social group where
group goals take precedence over individual goals reflects a collective identity orientation.
By subordinating personal interests for the better of the larger collective, collective
identities represent the self—categorization with the strongest focus on connectedness and
belongingness.

According to self-categorization theory, there exists a fundamental antagonism

between identity orientations on different levels of inclusiveness. According to Turner et

32

 

A».

:‘W‘ '1
l

and]

"in;

 

fl;

\-

“is!

al., the activation of one specific identity orientation precludes the activation of other
identity orientations. For example, the activation of a personal identity orientation
precludes the same individual to experience a collective identity orientation at the same
time, and vice versa. This perspective suggests that individuals define themselves either
as independent or as interdependent human entities.

In optimal distinctiveness theory, Brewer presents compelling evidence against
such a dichotomized version of self-categorization, arguing that the two needs for
belongingness and distinctiveness are not mutually exclusive. Instead of reserving desires
for belongingness to collective self-construals and desires for uniqueness to personal self-
construals, Brewer ( 1991) proposed that the two Opposing needs generally coincide in all
humans. Previous research had provided ample support for the existence of these
opposing needs, despite their seeming incommensurateness. For example, Baumeister
and Leary (1995) described the human desire to be a valued member of social groups as a
“fundamental human motivation” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497). In fact, being
excluded from social groups was perceived as a negative experience even when ostracism
was financially lucrative for ostracized individuals (Van Beest & Williams, 2006). At the
same time, however, humans also strive for uniqueness and distinctiveness, which were
found to contribute to enhanced social status, self-esteem, and self-identity (Codol, 1984;
Lynn & Snyder, 2005; Tesser, 1988). Instead of conceptualizing these two needs as being
mutually exclusive and occurring at different points of time, optimal distinctiveness

theory prOposes that humans have to satisfy both needs of belongingness and

distinctiveness simultaneously.

33

 

”ill
I)

fivn fl

r‘“t
l A

nun

‘VJ'

--hi.

BC...

”lfll‘

in» tl

U
3‘11

NM
5

ECII‘

A’Hl‘

Hit
‘8

‘.
\"‘,
B

.3 l

 

In supporting her arguments, Brewer drew on two primary theoretical
frameworks: opponent process theory and evolutionary psychology. The concept of
opponent processes is common in many scientific disciplines, including disciplines as
diverse as physiology, biology, or philosophy (Hurvich & Jameson, 1974). The basic
proposition of opponent process theory is that dual and opposing processes emerge which

push a system in opposite directions. Once one process has moved the system far away
from its equilibrium, the other process (the opponent process) automatically gains in
strength, pulling the system back to its equilibrium. The opponent process even moves
the system beyond its equilibrium, creating a system imbalance on the other side of the
equilibrium, which requires in turn a balancing influence from the original process which
moved the system out of its equilibrium initially.

In the field of organization sciences, opponent process theory has largely been
ignored, despite the work of Solomon on the opponent process theory of acquired
motivation (Solomon, 1980). Solomon argued that repeated presentation of unconditional
stimuli will generally be associated with a hedonic contrast such that initial pleasure is
counterbalanced by subsequent pain or sadness, whereas traumatic and depressing
experiences are generally restored through positive feelings of happiness and excitement.
Applying this insight to the study of self-construals, Brewer posited that perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness are two distinct motives, which, taken together, ensure
that individuals will generally converge on an optimal level of distinctiveness. Put in
different words, she argued that the desire to belong to social groups and the desire to be

distinct from others help individuals to restore an optimal level of distinctiveness in their

self-construals. At this point, however, it is important to note that this assumption is

34

 

ign‘
4H.

3C5;

iii

ynfl.

“1L.

5H"
Aw.

‘Jnt
k\.lt.

A.
Orr

7W:

32in]
Jill
“it;

LIKE

33
(ff?

la?

reminiscent of the early writings on optimal distinctiveness theory, whereas later research
acknowledged that belongingess and distinctiveness should not be viewed as two
opposing, mutually exclusive needs. Instead, the two needs have to be satisfied
simultaneously so that individuals can function effectively.

Evolutionary psychology argued that the human species has learned to associate
group membership with superior survivor value. Humans have ceased to exist as isolated
individuals or pairs of individuals who were able to provide for themselves. Instead, the
human species has grown to depend on mutual trust, cooperation and social support.
Indeed, the reliance on others and the survival value attached to group membership are so
central that the human desire to belong to social groups can best be described as
“obligatory interdependence” (Brewer, 1997; Caporael, 1997). As such, the desire for
belongingness is a hard-wired human need.

Despite their huge advantages, however, social group membership also contains
several drawbacks. For example, if some group members engage in social loafing or if
they violate important group norms regarding social exchanges and mutual trust, group
membership may become costly for group members who are acting in good faith.
Therefore, Brewer argued that social groups have to set boundaries to group membership
which reduce the risks of social loafing and of deviant behavior. Restated, indiscriminate
trust cannot be an ideal strategy for individuals who are members of social groups, nor
can indiscriminate trust be a viable strategy for group survival. Instead, what is needed is
a mechanism of social differentiation which establishes clear boundaries between valued

in-group members and outsiders. By limiting group membership to valued in- group

members, social groups can provide viable social exchanges between group members

35

 

WC

3625

so:

Ihfl
su—

pert:
incl

79.“ 'a

“P v

which depend on mutual trust, while at the same time reducing the risks for
unrecipmcated trust between group members. Combining the human need to be an
accepted member of valued social groups with the necessity to demarcate group
boundaries against unwanted free riders leads to the proposition of optimal

distinctiveness theory that humans require a healthy balance between perceptions of

intra-group belongingness and between- group distinctiveness.
Optimal distinctiveness theory does not only break with self-categorization theory

in that it proposes a coexistence of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Optimal distinctiveness theory also posits that the fundamental tension between
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness exists for identity orientations on all
levels of inclusiveness. In their seminal article on collective identity and self-

representations, Brewer and Gardner (1996) made the following statement:

One source of variation in self—representations within individuals is a widely
recognized tension or opposition between needs and motives that promote
individuation and differentiation of the self from others, and those that promote
assimilation and unit formation. These opposing processes appear to play out at
each level of self-categorization. At the level of the personal self, individuals seek
similarity with significant others, but at the same time strive for a sense of
uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). The relational self often is characterized
in terms of the tension between intimacy and separation from others Finally,

Brewer’s (1991, 1993) theory of optimal distinctiveness holds that collective

identities are constrained by the necessity of satisfying simultaneously individual

needs for inclusion and distinctiveness (p. 91).

36

 

0273

'ha g
sigh .

5.3.
L .r.

ml,
blblu

l‘fl' -

" Mu
.

m

as},
’“-'r.

 

According to this statement, the simultaneous desire for belongingness and
distinctiveness represents a fundamental human need, irrespective of the identity
orientation of individuals. Deviations from an optimal balance between perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness have important consequences for individuals’ well-
being and for their ability to function effectively in group settings. According to Brewer,
the intensity of one of the two needs for belongingness and distinctiveness increases with
the satisfaction of the respective other need. For example, the satisfaction of the need for
belongingness increases the need for differentiation. Thus, if individuals feel too much
inclusion, they will look for ways which also allow them to emphasize the personal self

to a stronger extent. This is not to say, however, that individuals can only satisfy one of
the two needs at the same time. In fact, optimal distinctiveness theory asserts that

individuals strive to satisfy both of these needs simultaneously.

More recently, research on self-construals has lead to important refinements of

optimal distinctiveness theory. Early formulations of optimal distinctiveness theory
proposed that individuals generally satisfy their desire for optimal distinctiveness by
striving for in-group assimilation and between-group distinctiveness. This proposition has
been questioned over the course of the last ten years. A number of studies conducted both
in the lab and in the field gathered compelling evidence suggesting that individuals can
satisfy both desires for belongingness and distinctiveness within the same group, without
exPeriencing between-group distinctiveness. For example, Homsey and letten (2004)

argued that personal distinctiveness in individual within-group comparisons can even

reaffirm the positive value of belongingness. By emphasizing the unique talents,

37

 

is]

backgrounds, and contributions of each individual, individuals may be able to synthesize
their desire for belongingness and uniqueness within the same group.

Providing support for this prediction, Bettencourt and Sheldon (2001) found a
positive relationship between social group connectedness and autonomy, evidenced by a
zero-order correlation of .50 between these two constructs. Moreover, both of these
constructs had positive effects on subjective well~being and meaning in life. Similarly,

J anssen and Huang (2008) reported in a field-study of 157 middle-management team
members a zero-order correlation of .12 between individual differentiation and team
identification. Overall, we can conclude that optimal distinctiveness can be realized even
within the boundaries of one’s own team, and that the needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness can be satisfied simultaneously.

For my discussion of the effects of team structure on individuals’ self-construals,
it is also important to note that self-construals are inherently variable and as such subject
to influences which can be traced back to changes in structural configurations of the team.
Turner, Oakes, Haslam, and McGarty (1994) make this point eloquently by noting that
self-construals “are social contextual definitions of the perceiver, definitions of the
individual in terms of his or her contextual properties. The meaning and form of the self-
category derive from the relationship of the perceiver to the social context. The perceiver
gains identity from being placed in context.” (Turner et al., 1994, p. 458).

According to Turner et a1. (1994) and Gelfand, Major, Raver, N ishii, and O’ Brien
(2006), self—construals are a function of chronically accessible self-construals and .of
temporarily accessible self—construals. Chronically-accessible self-construals are formed

through cultural values, societal expectations, or through socialization processes.

38

M

»

\tII-c

 

Temporarily-accessible self-construals, on the other hand, will be determined by social
group membership and by social influence processes which derive from group
membership. By enacting roles which emanate from individuals’ normative expectations
of group membership, individuals are subconsciously creating their own self—construals
in the context of their group.

In my previous discussion of the two central dimensions of team structure, I have
reviewed research which shows how team structure can have far—reaching consequences
for the way that individuals conceive of their group membership, their work roles, and
their relationship with other group members. One of the main conclusions of my
literature review was that individuals embedded in all types of team structures will
constantly face the challenge of balancing the uniqueness and distinctiveness of their
identity with their desire to be similar to others. Consistent with these arguments, and
noting the support for context-dependent definitions of individuals’ self-construals in
work groups, I view an investigation into the effects of team structure on individuals’
self-construals as an important, yet chronically understudied research topic.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Predicting Relationships between Team Structure and Optimal Distinctiveness

In my previous discussion of mesolevel theories of organizational structures, I ‘
concluded that team structures constantly impose a challenge upon team members to
negotiate their need for social inclusion and group belongingness with their desire to be
distinct from others and unique. Drawing from optimal distinctiveness theory, I argued
that individuals have to satisfy their need for optimal distinctiveness, that is, their needs

for belongingness and distinctiveness, in order to function effectively in team settings.

39

Ill" .'

Rot”;

:T’Tl

it .‘lu

1: A.
41.,“

LL,“

This suggests an interaction between the two constructs belongingness and

distinctiveness such that only the simultaneous satisfaction of both of these two needs

results in optimal psychological functioning.

Construct Definitions
Before developing specific hypotheses on the influence of team structures on

optimal distinctiveness and work outcomes, it is imperative to make my definition of the
two core constructs of optimal distinctiveness theory explicit. Consistent with Brewer and
Roccas (2001), I define the need for belongingness as a “need for inclusion, the desire to
be a part of, embedded in, or assimilated to larger social collectives” (p. 220). Drawing
from the work of Vignoles, Chryssochoou, and Breakwell (2002), I define distinctiveness
as a human motive “pushing towards the establishment and maintenance of a sense of
differentiation from others” (p. 761).

Vignoles and colleagues identified three sources of distinctiveness: position,
difference, and separateness. Position refers to a distinct place within social relationships
by occupying unique roles or network positions. Difference refers to personal qualities
such as personality traits, abilities, personal beliefs, or physical characteristics that
differentiate the individual from others. Separateness refers to the psychological distance
between individuals, which reflects the extent to which individuals are isolated from
others and socially excluded. According to Baumeister and Leary (1995) and Van Beest
and Williams (2006), social exclusion is generally associated with negative psychological
reactions, which makes separateness different from position and difference, both of
which can also induce positive feelings of distinctiveness in individuals. Thus, consistent

with my focus on optimal distinctiveness, I will focus on position and difference as

40

uni...
l.
5L...

Oil 0

Cili

{07.5

Der

sources of positive distinctiveness of the self. Also, consistent with more recent research
on optimal distinctiveness (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Homsey & Jetten, 2004;
Janssen & Huang, 2008), I view distinctiveness as a withinteam, between-person
construct (and not the result of between— group comparisons as stipulated in the early
formulations of optimal distinctiveness theory; cf. Brewer, 1991).

One of the central tenets of optimal distinctiveness theory is that the needs for
belongingness and distinctiveness have to be satisfied simultaneously so that individuals
can develop positive representations of their team membership. It follows that the two
constructs belongingness and distinctiveness cannot be opposite ends of one continuum.
Instead, they should be viewed as two related, yet distinct constructs. Empirical research
supports the notion of the two constructs as being distinct (J anssen & Huang, 2008;
Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001).

Using Social Interdependence Theory to Relate Team Structure to
Optimal Distinctiveness
Deutsch’s Three Critical Emergent States

In my previous discussion of mesolevel theories on organizational structure, I
discussed Deutsch’s (1949) social interdependence theory as an example of how early
research on team structure developed testable predictions regarding the effects of team
structure on team behavior and outcomes. Specifically, Deutsch argued that the structure
of goals in groups predict the extent to which group members behave cooperatively or
competitively. In developing his predictions, Deutsch linked goal structures to three
emergent states in teams. These three emergent states are substitutability, cathexis, and

inducibility. He then used these three emergent states as a theoretical rationale to predict

41

(U

._ .
H
u) i"

the behavioral consequences of different goal structures on team behavior. Due to their
significance for the following hypotheses, I will introduce these three critical processes in
detail below.

Substitutability. Substitutability refers to the degree to which group members’
actions can substitute for each other (Johnson, 2003). Or, in Deutsch’s words,
substitutability describes the following state in the relationship between individuals X
and A: “Since X has locomoted towards his goal as a consequence of ‘A’s actions, there
is no longer any necessity for ‘X’ to perform any action which is similar. Thus, A’s
actions will be substitutable for ‘X’s” (p. 138). Therefore, positive goal interdependence
creates incentives for individuals to take ownership not only in one’s own work, but also
in the deliverables of other group members in order to facilitate group goal achievement.
This phenomenon is, according to Deutsch, associated with higher substitutability in
group members’ actions and tasks.

Cathexis. Cathexis describes the degree to which individuals are willing to invest
psychological energy in persons and objects outside the self (Johnson, 2003). Deutsch
described cathexis as follows: “An entity will acquire positive valence or cathexis
(become attractive) if that entity is seen to be promotively related to need satisfaction” (p.
138). This suggests that individuals are more inclined to become psychologically invested
in other group members if they share the same goals.

Inducibility. Finally, inducibility refers to the extent to which indivduals are open
to influence others and to being influenced by others (Johnson, 2003). Quoting again the
original work of Deutsch, “positive inducibility occurs when the inducing entity is seen to

be promotive rather than contrient with respect to tension-reduction” (p. 139). Restated,

42

MA”. ]
LulUr'

O'J‘u
40'.
'I

31431:

p081:

Inc“ I

SIM

 

individuals are being more open to influence others and to being influenced by others if
they perceive that the actions of another person and one’s own actions will facilitate
mutual goal accomplishment. According to Deutsch, this is the case when goals are
positively interdependent.

The Three Critical Emergent States and Optimal Distinctiveness

Deutsch’s social interdependence theory has had important consequences for
subsequent theorizing on team structure. One of the major contributions of Deutsch’s
social interdependence theory is the description of the mechanisms through which
objective dimensions of structure (i.e., the degree of positive interdependence between
goals) get translated into subjective perceptions of interdependence among team members.
By discussing the three critical emergent states described above, Deutsch illustrated how
positive interdependence between goals can shape how group members conceive of the
significance of their group membership and how they construe their interpersonal
relationships with other group members.

Using the three critical processes to support his predictions, Deutsch developed
testable predictions on the effects of goal structures on cognition and behavior.
Specifically, he predicted that positive goal interdependence would result in greater
coordination of effort, functional specialization, structural stability, flexibility in times of
Change, group cohesiveness, group cooperativeness, and, ultimately, group performance.
As such, Deutsch exemplified how the three critical emergent states can help in the
development of predictions on the relationship between team structure and cognition and

behavior.

43

(we,

ulhp‘
.;‘

Oa-grw‘

Hulls.

ll

1: 1s r
it it

'43,
‘vqt.

little]

if lZC;

Even though the three critical emergent states were originally developed to
support predictions regarding the relationships of team goals with team behaviors and
team outcomes, they are also applicable to my investigation of optimal distinctiveness in
teams. For my investigation of the effects of team structure on optimal distinctiveness,

the three critical emergent states are a powerful theoretical framework to guide my
hypothesis development. By differentiating between positively and negatively
interdependent goal structures, Deutsch addressed the social dynamics which determine
whether groups start to act as one unit, or whether they should better be perceived as an
aggregation of competing individuals with no common interests.

If the identity of the team as a gestalt is emphasized, then it is likely that
individuals will find it easier to satisfy their desire for belongingness. By contrast, if the
team reverts to the ground and the independent identity of individuals is emphasized, then
it is more likely that individuals will find it easier to satisfy their desire for distinctiveness
and uniqueness. And indeed, Deutsch’s three critical emergent states can also be linked to
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. Specifically, cathexis and inducibility
refer to the extent to which individuals are willing and open to influence and to be
influenced by their respective social environment. They reflect the social embeddedness
of individuals. Conversely, substitutability reflects the extent to which individuals have
unique characteristics that cannot be substituted by other team members, reflecting the

distinctiveness of individuals. Therefore, Deutsch’s three critical emergent states present
an adequate, theoretically-grounded framework to support my hypothesis development on

the relationship between team structure and optimal distinctiveness.

v
e-Y n‘

luau.

l ’.‘
1316-»

F". ".3
La. Ln»

Lift" t:

ECHO!

50mm
Slit?"

vl
Au.

El] m

1!
“ul'

Horizontal Interdependence and Optimal Distinctiveness
High horizontal interdependence generally emphasizes the team as a collective.

For example, LePine et al. (2008) found that team processes have a stronger influence on

team outcomes in horizontally interdependent structures. Similarly, Drach—Zahavy (2004)
found that higher horizontal interdependence in teams is generally associated with higher
levels of helping among team members and team support. These findings suggest that the
higher levels of interpersonal contact among team members and the interdependent
nature of the workflow make the identity of the team salient to team members, increasing
their commitment to the team. Put in the words of social interdependence theory, high
horizontal interdependence increases cathexis and inducibility among team members, that
is, team members in horizontally interdependent structures are more open to become
psychologically invested in their team, to influence others and to be influenced by others.
This would suggest that horizontal interdependence should be associated with high
perceptions of belongingness.

There are, however, also factors which indicate that an overemphasis on

horizontal interdependence may have negative consequences as well. Bunderson and
Sutcliff (2002) argued that high functional diversity in teams amplifies demands for team
communication and coordination, making it difficult for teams to exploit the unique
knowledge and background of all team members. This shows how high horizontal
interdependence can also undermine the identity of the team. High horizontal
interdependence implies high functional specialization, which reduces the shared _

knowledge that individuals have of others’ work and functional backgrounds. This makes

it increasingly difficult for individual team members to understand how their specific role

45

 

l. a 4,.
My,

M03.
in

.J'A
st|u=

fits into the larger context of the team. This will in turn reduce cathexis and inducibility
among team members and the degree to which the individual views himself or herself as
related to others in the team.

It follows that an intermediate degree of horizontal interdependence should
maximize perceptions of belongingness by emphasizing the identity of the team, while at
the same time minimizing the risk of functional overspecialization. Thus, I predict the
following:

Hypothesis 1 a: There will be an inverted U-shaped relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that intermediate levels of
horizontal interdependence will be associated with highest levels of

belongingness.

High horizontal interdependence creates strong lateral ties between team members
who all initiate and receive a number of critical interdependencies by providing and
receiving information and resources to and from other team members (Kiggundu, 1981).
Due to these critical interdependencies, individual team members generally have less
freedom in their work. Indeed, high horizontal interdependence greatly reduces the
autonomy which individual team members have in completing their tasks. When
compared to team structures with low horizontal interdependence, high horizontal
interdependence provides less freedom to individual team members to schedule their
tasks, to choose the methods and tools to perform their tasks, and to choose the sequence

of activities with which these tasks are to be completed.

46

t

it‘ll

Fa'
9+:

pm:

g
as ‘9!
‘ .

Mimi

Elli

Indeed, results from a 3 year quasi-experimental field study by Parker (2003)
show that high horizontal interdependence is generally associated with lower levels of
individual autonomy. In her study, Parker investigated the effect of lean production
practices on work perceptions and attitudes. Lean production practices can be
characterized as implying high degrees of horizontal interdependence such that individual
group member assume highly specialized roles. Parker demonstrated that the increased
efficiency in work arrangements with high horizontal interdependence comes at a cost as
they lead to declines in perceived work characteristics, such as job autonomy, skill
utilization, and participation in decision making. The three constructs job autonomy, skill
utilization, and participation in decision making all reflect the extent to which the self is
capable of influencing his or her work environment. By doing so, the individual
expresses himself/herself as a distinct member of a social group. As Parker’s findings
illustrate, however, this becomes more difficult when functional specialization and
standardization of team processes is high. It follows that high horizontal interdependence
generally decreases individual autonomy and opportunities for self-expressive work
behaviors. This suggests that high horizontal interdependence should be associated with
lower team member perceptions of distinctiveness.

At the same time, however, horizontal interdependence can also affirm the
distinctiveness of the individual team member. Under high horizontal interdependence,
team members all possess unique skills and backgrounds which they use to complete a
well-defined component of the team task (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). Thus, with increasing
horizontal interdependence and functional specialization among team members, it

becomes more difficult for team members to complete each other’s work. Restated, the

47

5U.\u
W341

Lr-utu

l
i" U.
lL Uhu

‘Ifi‘i'd
L’tc‘
I
t J o P
:lhl- 1
werw
. tl..l
I

'

13" ’.

“7.135
K

lCEld

91“,“ ’
Mil Ll

H'~Al
llsfll

355$

Elem:
3:011;

L. ‘.
j-I'N.

‘v
i.
.g‘ 8‘

substitutability of individual team member’s work decreases with increasing horizontal
interdependence. High horizontal interdependence also makes it more difficult for teams
to deal with individual turnover and to integrate outsiders to the team (Staw, 1980). Not
only do new team members have to learn a specialized role, they also have to learn how
their role fits in with the workflow of the entire team. Therefore, once individuals have
become an established part of a horizontally-interdependent team, it will be costly to
replace them. Thus, functional specialization and problems associated with turnover in
horizontally interdependent teams also affirm the distinctiveness and unique value of
each team member.

The previous arguments are particularly salient when task scope is high. In such
circumstances, it will be especially difficult for outsiders to learn a specific role.
Similarly, it will become more challenging for team members to perform each others’
tasks. Conversely, for individuals working on tasks which are standardized and easy to
perform, substitutability of individuals’ roles will be less emphasized, reducing
perceptions of distinctiveness in individuals. But even for simple, repetitive, low-scope
tasks, the fact that each individual performs a distinct and clearly demarcated role which
has to be integrated with the contributions from other team members can satisfy
perceptions of distinctiveness.

It follows that individuals will strive to operate in a team structure which allows
them to enjoy high degrees of personal freedom and discretion, while at the same time
enjoying the benefits of performing a highly specialized, interdependent task. This can
only be realized in a team structure with intermediate degrees of horizontal

interdependence. Consistent with these arguments, I predict the following:

48

3396;

lJ’i' ‘i
Ibis.\,r

LEIEICI
3:16:11
Isms
This it

first;

931‘ A
with]

Hypothesis 117: There will be an inverted U-shaped relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that intermediate levels
of horizontal interdependence will be associated with highest levels of

distinctiveness.

Vertical Interdependence and Optimal Distinctiveness

Structures with low vertical interdependence change the nature and direction of
information flows in teams. In traditional work structures with high vertical
interdependence, information flows are generally directed from team members to their
respective team leader, and vice versa. This is in stark contrast to structures with low
vertical interdependence, which emphasize lateral information flows and comprehensive
interconnectedness among team members (Burns & Stalker, 1961). By creating additional
lateral ties between team members, low vertical interdependence increases inducibility in
teams - individuals are more likely to influence others and to be influenced by others in
their work. This emphasizes the identity of the team, which should in turn be related to
perceptions of high belongingness.

Low vertical interdependence also comes with negative side effects, however,
which make it difficult for organizations to settle on this structural arrangement.
Specifically, teams with low vertical interdependence often struggle to settle disputes and
to find decisions which are supported by all team members in the absence of one strong
leader who makes such decisions binding for the entire team. And indeed, Langfred
(2007) showed that conflict in self-managing teams reduces intrateam trust, individual

autonomy, and ultimately the degree of interdependence between team members, all of

49

W‘QI? ,1
a: t

Mint-h ‘u

3603f:

1H];

.vv' y,

i
't“ ".1'

I
an...“

r-.
1 a.

which should be negatively associated with perceptions of belongingness in teams. In
team structures with low vertical interdependence, team members have to reach
consensus on a course of action, which makes the individual decision makers figure,
while the identity of the team reverts to the ground. By putting the decision making
control in the hands of all team members, it is more likely that divisions in the team
become apparent, promoting faultlines or the existence of subgroups (Lau & Mumighan,
2005). This will reduce inducibility in teams — the extent to which individuals are able to
influence other group members and to which they are open to being influenced by others.

Conversely, teams with high vertical interdependence will find it generally easier
to acts as one coherent unit. Using the fi gure- ground metaphor, high vertical
interdependence makes the team the figure and the individuals the ground.

It follows that intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence should be
associated with highest degrees of belongingness by capitalizing on the positive value of
intensive lateral connections between team members while at the same time reducing the
risk of unconstructive controversy in teams. Consistent with these arguments, I predict
the following:

Hypothesis 2a: There will be an inverted U-shaped relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that intermediate levels of

vertical interdependence will be associated with highest levels of belongingness.

High vertical interdependence generally implies that team members have less

influence on decision making processes than under low vertical interdependence. High

vertical interdependence imposes well-established roles on individuals, which leave little

50

list

it?“ ' at}.
" 0H,:

”“7334
‘:c¥.t

:the j

Rite

ll

”ti-if: tL
L " Lll

room for autonomy in exercising work (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). Indeed, Kirkman and
Rosen (1999) found that high vertical interdependence is generally associated with less
proactive work behavior in teams. Similarly, Spreitzer (1995) found that low vertical
interdependence / a participative team climate conveys a feeling of personal control,
meaningfulness, and self-determination to team members, whereas traditional team
structures with high vertical interdependence reduce the perceived meaningfulness and
impact of individuals’ work. Feelings of personal control, meaningfulness, and self-
deterrnination are all psychological states which are conceptually related to perceptions
of distinctiveness, that is, they are psychological states which affirm the positive and
distinct character of the individual as a valued member of a group of individuals
(Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001). Expressed in the terminology of social interdependence
theory, low vertical interdependence reduces the perceived substitutability of each
individuals’ work. Therefore, low vertical interdependence in teams should be associated
with high distinctiveness, whereas high vertical interdependence should be associated
with low distinctiveness.

Interestingly, however, most organizations have chosen not to rely on team
structures with low vertical interdependence and have rather chosen to create team
structures with intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence (Cohen, Chang, &
Ledford, 1997; Tesluk & Mathieu, 1999). Indeed, there are a number of reasons which
suggest that an overreliance on team structures with low vertical interdependence may
not be ideal and not be associated with high distinctiveness. For example, Kirkman and
Rosen (1997) posited that for self-managing teams to be effective, these teams require

more than mere decision making authority. Kirkman and Rosen suggested that self-

51

 

it?”
WAM

ten
m

managing teams also have to experience feelings of collective efficacy, meaningfulness,
and impact. Kirkman and Rosen continued to argue that these states can all be enhanced
by a leader who generally affirms the value of team self—management, while at the same
time setting important guidelines for team behavior and team performance.

In a study of 111 work teams in four organizations, Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
found additional support for the important role which leaders can have for self-managing
teams. They found that leaders can contribute to the effectiveness of self-managing work
teams by emphasizing the distinct character of team members. This can be accomplished
by soliciting team members’ input for critical decisions, by encouraging teams to set
goals and to monitor individual and team performance, and by demonstrating genuine
trust in the team. Thus, leadership can still serve an important function for teams and help
unleash the full potential of team empowerment. Conversely, “a lack of effective external
leader support can result in teams that feel ‘abandoned’ by their organizations” (Mathieu
et al., 2006; p. 100).

In sum, this suggests that intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence are
most likely to lead to perceptions of distinctiveness in teams. In such structures, team
members can enjoy larger degrees of personal freedom and feelings of empowerment,
while at the same time receiving guidelines and leadership for their actions. Thus, I
predict the following:

Hypothesis 2b: There will be an inverted U-shaped relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that intermediate levels
of vertical interdependence will be associated with highest levels of

distinctiveness.

52

IZSXI
TBJSE

l ‘
46:63}

w
“are.

itt.€.

e.r .
‘u‘tly‘n
‘i

L

n--
MU“ 3.1
H“

H

Predicting Relationships between Team Structure and leader Optimal Distinctiveness
By definition, a leader occupies a different role in a team than other team
members. Thus, it is important to investigate the consequences of different dimensions of
team structure on leader self-construals separately. For example, the degree to which
leaders retain decision making authority determines the centrality of their network
position, which should have important consequences for their perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness. Consistent with this idea, Griffin, Patterson, and West
(2001) found that the impact of a leader in teams decreases with the extent to which
coupling between team members increases. Specifically, they found that supervisory
support had a stronger effect on follower job satisfaction in companies which de-
emphasized team self-management relative to companies which emphasized teamwork
and team self-management. This shows how team self-management can have positive
psychological consequences for followers, but also reduce the impact of leaders and
possibly also the quality of their self—construals. Thus, I will now develop separate
predictions for the effects of horizontal interdependence and vertical interdependence on
leader self—construals, starting with the effects of horizontal interdependence on leader
self-construals.
Horizontal Interdependence and Leader Self-Construals
Horizontal interdependence emphasizes the identity of the team (LePine et al.,

2008). As I proposed before, this can lead to higher team member perceptions of
belongingness, as long as the dangers of functional overspecialization are avoided. A

stronger team identity and commitment to the team among team members increases

53

\I'JY-J

.
\-
n
“:5

€07.86!

3;. m"
“Wily:

inducibility in teams, that is, the openness of team members to be influenced by other
team members and by the leader. A more salient team identity and a higher openness
among team members to be influenced by the leader will also increase the extent to
which the leader is psychologically invested in the team and the extent to which the
leader defines himself/herself through his/her team membership. In addition, high
horizontal interdependence increases the need for communication and leadership so that
the work of functionally specialized subunits can be integrated successfully (Hollenbeck
et al., 2002). In fact, the need for coordination and leadership becomes even more salient
when horizontal interdependence is high and when individual team members have only
little understanding of how their role fits in with the roles of other team members. This
suggests that high horizontal interdependence does not have the same negative
consequences for leader perceptions of belongingness as it has for team member
perceptions of belongingness. Instead, high levels of horizontal interdependence
emphasize the salience of the leadership role, which will increase cathexis in leaders — it
will increase the extent to which the team leader defines himself/herself through his
group membership. Thus, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Horizontal interdependence will be positively related to leader
perceptions of belongingness.

The more salient leadership role under high horizontal interdependence also
creates a more central networking position for the leader, especially when team members
have difficulty understanding how their role fits in with the roles of other team members.
This reduces the substitutability of the leader, which should in turn be associated with

higher perceptions of distinctiveness. Thus, consistent with Vignoles et al. (2002), I

54

an:

an

Y
W
4’»

rm)
3... .

‘ .‘

at ..
L' ‘
mul

all“.

{if
.. 13“

expect that high horizontal interdependence should be associated with higher leader
perceptions of distinctiveness.
Hypothesis 3b: Horizontal interdependence will be positively related to leader

perceptions of distinctiveness.

Vertical Interdependence and Leader Self- Construals

By emphasizing lateral connections and communication in teams and de—
emphasizing top-down influence processes, low vertical interdependence reduces the
influence of team leaders. Thus, the same structural arrangement which creates positive
empowerment among followers (Kirkman & Rosen, 1997; 1999) can actually undermine
the significance which leaders ascribe to their team membership. Expressed in the
language of social interdependence theory, low vertical interdependence reduces cathexis
in leaders, that is, it reduces the willingness of leaders to become psychologically
invested in their teams. And indeed, Douglas and Gardner (2004) found that managers
often struggle to hand over decision making power to teams in organizations which
implemented teamwork and team self-management. Similarly, Druskat and Wheeler
(2003) noted that leaders of self-managing teams experience role ambiguity in
organizations which promote team self-management because they have to perform a
leadership role without having the reward, coercive or legitimate power which leaders in
traditional team structures have. In sum, this suggests that low vertical interdependence /
team self-management reduces inducibility and cathexis in leaders, that is, it reduces the
ability to influence team processes, decisions and outcomes and the willingness of leaders

to become psychologically invested in the team.

55

leads:
3:301
such :-
ici it
Glitch
My

lbl‘lt

Conversely, high vertical interdependence endows leaders with the power to
guide team decision making processes and communication and increases their ability to
influence followers. This creates a paradoxical situation: High vertical interdependence
leads to low perceptions of belongingness among team members, but affirms the role of a
leader and the salience of the team in the leader’s view. Thus, I predict the following:
Hypothesis 4a: Vertical interdependence will be positively related to leader perceptions

of belongingness.

By removing traditional sources of power from leaders in self-managing teams,
leaders also lose the unique position which they held in traditional team structures.
According to Druskat and Wheeler (2003), leaders have to find other sources of power,
such as expert power or referent power so that they can still exert influence on team
processes and outcomes. These, however, are sources of power which are not necessarily
tied to a leader role. Instead, they represent qualities which any team member can have or
develop. Moreover, low vertical interdependence de—emphasizes the unique network
position which leaders held in traditional team structures, again reducing the distinct
position of the leader.

By contrast, traditional team structures with high vertical interdependence endow
leaders with a central network position and with power which turn the leader into a
qualitatively different team member. Thus, for leaders, high vertical interdependence

does not have the same negative impact on perceptions of distinctiveness which it does
for team members. Instead, it amplifies the distinct position which the leader holds.

Consistent with these arguments, I predict the following:

56

HF”;
‘ I

ltd l
‘ul ‘. u i
an}:
office
BIT.)
is :2
rm

“bfikl

it?

“I

Hypothesis 4b: Vertical interdependence will be positively related to leader perceptions

of distinctiveness.

The Case for Internal Fit — Selection of Moderator Variables

Structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961) posits that there is no one
best way to organize. Instead, the effectiveness of one particular structure depends on the
environment in which the team operates. Testing this proposition on the team level of
analysis, Hollenbeck et al. (2002) found that team performance is an interactive function
of the team’s structure and the team’s task environment. Specifically, they found that
teams performed better on a functional structure in predictable task environments (i.e.,
low task complexity). Conversely, teams in a divisional structure performed better in
unpredictable task environments (i.e., high task complexity).

More recent research has widened this perspective by also investigating the
internal fit of team structure with characteristics of individuals. Indeed, research on fit in
organizations has documented the critical role of person— group, person-vocation, and
person-organization fit (Kristof, 1996). In a quantitative review of this literature, Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) showed that these different fit dimensions
predict a broad range of work outcomes, including job attitudes and job performance.
Consistent with these findings, Hollenbeck et al. (2002) showed in their investigation of
the effects of team structure on team performance that the effectiveness of a team
structure is contingent upon team member characteristics. Specifically, they showed that
cognitive ability was a predictor of team performance in a divisional structure, but not in

a functional structure. Similarly, Moon et al. (2004) found that cognitive ability predicts

57

hi 5

hut

“l“.
.lt... .

 

‘ l
"'77;
mm...

WE;

Elma;
litre
3,; Q"! I t

t"\rl. .
U

mitts

Til-fig

how successfully teams will adapt to a change from a functional to a divisional structure.
In sum, these results demonstrate that any investigation into the effects of team structure
on outcomes would be incomplete without considering the fit between structure and team
member characteristics.

Applied to the context of this research, this suggests that individuals exhibit
differences in their reactions to different degrees of coupling in teams, which may have
important consequences for how individuals satisfy their needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness in different team structures. What varies between individuals is not the
absolute strength of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness, but rather the means
through which these needs are satisfied (Brewer, 2003; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brewer
& Roccas, 2001). Restated, individuals differ in their reactions to environmental stimuli
such that one person may use a specific stimulus (i.e., a team structure) as a means to
satisfy needs for belongingness and/or distinctiveness, whereas other individuals may
experience the same stimulus as a hindrance in their efforts to satisfy one or both of these
needs. Thus, consistent with structural contingency theory, I will select moderator
variables which determine the nature and intensity of the reaction of individuals to team
structures with different degrees of coupling.

Three criteria should be used for the selection of specific moderator variables,
indicating the fit between team structures and team member characteristics in this
research. First, individual difference constructs which determine the nature and the
magnitude of psychological reactions to different degrees of coupling along the two
structural dimensions horizontal and vertical interdependence qualify as potential

moderators. Second, any potential moderator should flow logically from the predictions

58

QM”;
brush

iii it

Will
ilk}:
the:
{inn

.,_
1L;
4

all

of optimal distinctiveness theory which constitutes the main theory driving this research.
Third, the selection of moderator variables should be informed by structural contingency
theory, which has identified a number of individual difference constructs as moderators
of individuals’ reactions to different dimensions of team structure. Thus, before
developing specific predictions on the internal fit of team structure with individual
difference constructs, I use these three criteria to develop a theoretically- guided rationale
for the selection of the moderator variables which I will investigate in this research.
Drawing from optimal distinctiveness theory, constructs which relate to the extent

to which individuals generally see themselves as connected to others or as independent of
others qualify as potential moderators. This is because individuals who generally define
themselves as connected to others and who enjoy others’ company will demonstrate
different reactions to situations in which the individual is tightly coupled, loosely coupled,
or decoupled from other individuals. Consistent with this rationale, I identify collectivism
and extraversion as moderators for the influence of team structure on self-construals.
Similarly, constructs which influence the degree to which individuals affirm or oppose
status differentials in teams will determine psychological reactions to different levels of
vertical interdependence in teams. This leads to the selection of power distance as a
moderator. In addition to these constructs, structural adaptation theory identifies
emotional stability and cognitive ability as additional individual difference constructs
which determine individual reactions to different dimensions of team structure. In sum, I
select collectivism and power distance as culturally-based individual difference .

constructs, extraversion and emotional stability as personality variables, and cognitive

ability.

59

‘f
it

5211's

XIV-J:
IRIS!
hill};

mil;

Internal Fit —- The Moderating Role of Culturally-based Individual Differences
C ollectivism as Moderator of the Efi'ect of Horizontal Interdependence on Self-
C onstruals
For my investigation into the effects of horizontal interdependence on individuals’
self-construals, individual difference constructs which describe the extent to which
individuals conceive of themselves in general as being independent of others or
interrelated with others are especially important. This is because individuals who
generally describe themselves as being interrelated with others or independent of others
are also likely to differ in how they respond to work arrangements which emphasize or
de-emphasize lateral communication between team members, as is the case with
horizontal interdependence. For example, Flynn (2005) proposed that individuals with a
personal identity orientation (i.e., individuals with low collectivism) are largely self-
interested, placing only little emphasis on interpersonal relationships at work. Conversely,
individuals with a relational and collective identity orientation place a much greater
emphasis on group accomplishment and group status when defining their self—value.
Traditionally, research has viewed constructs which describe a focus on the

independent self or the interdependent self as culturally determined, with collectivistic
societies adopting a more inclusive self-concept and individualistic societies adopting an
independent self concept (Hofstede, 1980). More recently, however, research has
recognized that individuals within the same culture can also differ in fundamental ways
on cultural values (Triandis, 1995; 1997; Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan,
2006). Specifically, Jackson and colleagues (2006) have developed a scale which

conceptualizes collectivism as a culturally-based individual difference construct.

60

lot“)
MOT.
1831)

a

rpm

ll‘lt’l

mgr
ism
Suit;

My

 

.- 1
till

cal

Individuals with low collectivism generally emphasize the independent self, they
focus on personal goals and achievement, and view the larger collective as a means to
accomplishing personal success. Conversely, individuals with high collectivism define
themselves as inseparable from relevant others, giving priority to group goals. It is
important to note that both individuals with high and low collectivism strive to
experience belongingness and distinctiveness (Brewer, 2003; Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Brewer & Roccas, 2001). What distinguishes them is not the desire to experience these
two psychological states, but rather the means with which these needs are satisfied. This

has important consequences for the nature of the relationships between team structure and
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness.
Moderating the Efifect of Horizontal Interdependence on Belongingness

Low horizontal interdependence reduces the salience of the team as a gestalt and
emphasizes the identity of the individual team members. As horizontal interdependence
increases, individuals will find it easier to satisfy their needs for belongingness in their
groups. This applies to individuals with high and low collectivism, who can both satisfy
their need for belongingness when horizontal interdependence increases. Thus, the
positive slope representing the relationship between horizontal interdependence and
perceptions of belongingness should apply to both individuals with high and low
collectivism as we move from low to intermediate degrees of horizontal interdependence.

What sets individuals with high and low collectivism apart, however, is the
psychological response which they show in response to different levels of horizontal
interdependence. Given their predominant focus on the personal self, individuals with

low collectivism will exhibit negative psychological reactions to high levels of horizontal

61

mmkfimm
that re XlOIf

memorial

Tm l
horizontal in:
raised (111 i
, regions 0
iterdspendtf
nihhcdl
all be offset
corrections n
embeddedne
sail} their n-

Qmw
lip in price;
it tight later;
it rcpt of the
ihhueag
ii"

iii CCU honz

N n
“411 ff:

interdependence which overemphasize the interdependence between team members. By
contrast, the focus of individuals with high collectivism on the collective implies that

they are more tolerant of higher levels of horizontal interdependence with stronger
interpersonal connections with other team members, and that they can satisfy their desires
for belongingness both in intermediate and high horizontal interdependence.

This has important consequences for the form of the relationship between
horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness. To reiterate, I previously
predicted an inverted U-shaped relationship between horizontal interdependence and
perceptions of belongingness, arguing that low and high levels of horizontal
interdependence have negative effects on individuals’ self-construals. For individuals
with high collectivism, however, the negative effects of high horizontal interdependence
will be offset by the strong lateral connections between team members — these lateral
connections meet the desire of individuals with high collectivism for social
embeddedness. It follows that individuals with high collectivism will also be able to
satisfy their needs for belongingness when horizontal interdependence is high.

Conversely, for individuals with low collectivism, the curve will exhibit a sharp
drop in perceptions of belongingness when horizontal interdependence is high because
the tight lateral connections in this structural arrangement violate the independent self-
concept of these individuals and their strong desire for personal autonomy. Consistent
with these arguments, I predict that collectivism moderates the curvilinear relationship
between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness in the following

manner:

62

hpdahf
had
mh;
had
hhn
lmu
amphet
inheaé

hpriPn
htmmHn

Team Member

Hypothesis 5: Collectivism moderates the curvilinear relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that individuals with high
collectivism will experience high belongingness at high levels of horizontal
interdependence, whereas individuals with low collectivism will experience low
belongingness when horizontal interdependence is high.

Ihave graphed the nature of this interactive effect in Figure 3, which also
exemplifies the nature of the moderating effects of collectivism and power distance in

hypotheses 6 — 8.

Figure 3. Predicted Moderating Efiect of Collectivism on the Relationship between
Horizontal Interdependence and Team Member Perceptions of Belongingness

$

_High Collectivism

 

Team Member
Perceptions of Belongingness

Low Collectivism

 

 

Horizontal Interdependence

63

amen}
iGrirtl
mmmh
psychologita

ch
immew
gmmwm
immmh
hmmfln

l .

Rawhm
lltffit’pmdei
nmhma
hiltlllllfils u
71‘ ill lilll’lngc
“‘11 .,‘ .

”lithium \
“Wilmin-

hm

amen.

Ht WI}: 6 3 ll 6
”limit

mhq

Moderating the Efl’ect of Horizontal Interdependence on Distinctiveness

Both individuals with high collectivism and low collectivism also have to satisfy
their need for distinctiveness so that they can function effectively (Brewer, 2003; Brewer
& Gardner, 1996; Brewer & Roccas, 2001). Thus, consistent with my previous arguments,
what sets them apart is not the strength of their needs for distinctiveness, but rather their
psychological reactions to different levels of horizontal interdependence.

Specifically, individuals with high collectivism are more tolerant of team
structures with high levels of horizontal interdependence because these structures
generally constitute a good fit for collectivistic individuals with their emphasis on strong
lateral ties between team members. In fact, the tight coupling between individuals in

horizontally interdependent teams is consistent with the self-concept of individuals with
high collectivism. Moreover, functional specialization in structures with high horizontal
interdependence already provides enough differentiation from other team members to
satisfy the need for distinctiveness of individuals with high collectivism. By contrast,
individuals with low collectivism will perceive high levels of horizontal interdependence
as an infringement of their autonomy and privacy. It follows that individuals with low
collectivism will not be able to satisfy their need for distinctiveness when horizontal
interdependence is high.

Thus, I predict that collectivism moderates the curvilinear relationship between
horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness in the following manner:
Hypothesis 6: Collectivism moderates the curvilinear relationship between horizontal

interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that individuals with high

collectivism will experience high distinctiveness at high levels of horizontal

64

hill
and organ
determined V
martinis u
perception of
collectli ism i
distiltt is a
1988). For m
poser distant
idi'iduals it
reprexenulior
conceive of ll
belongingness
.llnderating Il

High \
processes. Th;
Expense of err
herdependen

this and 1

interdependence, whereas individuals with low collectivism will experience low

distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is high.

Power Distance as Moderator of the Efifect of Vertical Interdependence on

Self-Construals

Individuals differ in the extent to which they affirm power distance in societies
and organizations. Traditionally, power distance has been defined as a culturally
determined variable (Hofstede, 1980). More recently, research has acknowledged that
individuals within the same culture can also exhibit fundamental differences in their
perception of power differences, similar to the within—culture variations which exist for
collectivism and individualism. This has lead to the development of a new scale of power
distance as a culturally-based individual difference construct (Dorfman and Howell,
1988). For my investigation into the effects of vertical interdependence on self-construals,
power distance is an important construct because it describes the extent to which
individuals feel that equality or power differentials in teams affirm or violate their ideal
representation of their role as team members. This should affect how team members will
conceive of their group membership, with important consequences for perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness.
Moderating the Eflect of Vertical Interdependence on Belongingness

High vertical interdependence has the advantage of shortening decision making
processes. This ensures that the team acts as one coherent unit, but often comes at the
expense of employee participation. Compared to team structures with low vertical
interdependence, high vertical interdependence emphasizes top—down communication

channels and reduces the connectedness of team members with each other. For

65

indix‘iduls i
it not my 1
mental cor
belongingnes
belongingncs
likely to hip;
hill put at d
lllll high \61
111563.316 p:
urcept II to
levels of bclc
Hj‘lpntlzesis 7

interd

pone

Vemc

tlper
.llttiemting t

1 pre
llerdepmdc]
lidltidUals a
time emunng

Elisa] [0 EXP

individuals with high power distance beliefs, the weak lateral ties with other teammates

are not very problematic as they expect to focus on one strong leader. Thus, such a

structural configuration does not prevent them from satisfying their needs for

belongingness. Individuals with high power distance values will derive their
belongingness from perceiving their team as one coherent unit, a feature that is more
likely to happen when teams have a powerful leader. This suggests that individuals with
high power distance can satisfy their desire for belongingness even in team structures
with high vertical interdependence. Conversely, for individuals with low power distance
values, the presence of a strong autocratic leader runs counter to their egalitarian self-
concept. It follows that individuals with low power distance values will experience low
levels of belongingness at high degrees of vertical interdependence.

Hypothesis 7: Power distance moderates the curvilinear relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that individuals with high
power distance values will experience high belongingness at high levels of
vertical interdependence, whereas individuals with low power distance values will
experience low belongingness when vertical interdependence is high.

Moderating the Efiect of Vertical Interdependence on Distinctiveness
I previously predicted that team structures with intermediate degrees of vertical

interdependence will be associated with highest perceptions of distinctiveness by giving

individuals a feeling of personal control and self-determination at work, while at the same
time ensuring strategic alignment between the team’s actions and the objectives‘of the
organization. For individuals with high power distance beliefs, however, it is much less

critical to experience personal control at work. In fact, these individuals may even prefer

66

[Obi 1113 potlllull
anions. IhUS~ mil
dlsnnnlrenen 1hr:
tithe gulp it ltht
tilhlgh poxxerd
lot hennediae :

For indii'id
in form of a pone
rules lndlx iduals
illll high vertical
\‘tlnes will experlc

Thus, 1 pic.
interdependence m
Hflglnrhesls 8: Pun

lnIerdepent

power disla

\flllt‘fll inn

experience

[menial Fit - T
w, l
m ”lint Upon di-

an. Hollenbed

to be in a position in which a powerful leader has control over the team’s decisions and

actions. Thus, individuals with high power distance values will satisfy their needs for

distinctiveness through different channels, for example through comparisons of the status
of the group with the status of other groups (Brewer, 1991). It follows that individuals
with high power distance values will be able to satisfy their needs for distinctiveness at
both intermediate and high degrees of vertical interdependence.

For individuals with low power distance values, however, social differentiation in
the form of a powerful leader figure undermines their egalitarian value system. This
makes individuals with low power distance values much less tolerant of team structures
with high vertical interdependence. Therefore, individuals with low power distance
values will experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is high.

Thus, I predict that power distance beliefs moderate the effect of vertical
interdependence on perceptions of distinctiveness in the following manner:

Hypothesis 8: Power distance moderates the curvilinear relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that individuals with high
power distance values will experience high distinctiveness at high levels of
vertical interdependence, whereas individuals with low power distance values will

experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is high.

Internal Fit — The Moderating Role of Personality Variables and Cognitive Ability
Previous research indicates that the effect of team structure on team outcomes is
contingent upon dispositional characteristics between team members. For example,

LePine, Hollenbeck, 1] gen, and Hedlund (1997) showed that for hierarchical decision-

67

making teams. co;
of team perform:
and emotional \tnl
scope. divisional t
nrott'er function.

Consistent;
no'itidtinl dilt'erer
perceptions of bcl
interdependence 0
of etnnt'ersion an
more regular and I
till elicit dilt'ercn
hUtilontnl interde;
demands of a role.
dfpmd Oil the spe.
httess informatic

For the ell:

distinctiveness. l v

thiity. Team 5th
SL’dClUIES in which

tieett'ectit'eness 0

enottonal stabilitt.

making teams, cognitive ability and conscientiousness emerged as significant predictors
of team performance. Similarly, Hollenbeck et al. (2002) showed that cognitive ability
and emotional stability emerged as significant predictors of team performance in a higher
scope, divisional task characterized by low horizontal interdependence, but not in
narrower functional task (Hollenbeck et al., 2002; LePine et al., 1997).

Consistent with these findings, I will investigate the important moderating role of
individual difference constructs in the relationships between team structure and
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. For the effects of horizontal
interdependence on belongingness and distinctiveness, I will examine the moderating role
of extraversion and cognitive ability. High levels of horizontal interdependence imply
more regular and more intensive interpersonal contact between team members, which
will elicit different reactions from extraverted and introverted individuals. Also, high
horizontal interdependence creates relatively narrow roles which reduce the cognitive
demands of a role, whereas low horizontal interdependence creates broad roles which
depend on the speed and the accuracy with which an individual decision maker can
process information, that is, on the cognitive ability of the individual team member.

For the effects of vertical interdependence on perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness, I will investigate the moderating role of emotional stability and cognitive
ability. Team structures with low vertical interdependence create flexible and fluid work
structures in which team members have high personal discretion over their actions. Thus,
the effectiveness of different degrees of vertical interdependence is contingent upon the

emotional stability and cognitive ability of team members.

68

Mtttlt'rtifl
p715 ”migrating ll
Etnatene
greater benefit: in
Oishi d; Lucas. ll
mummmm
smmmmmv
interdependence u
Mmmu
require higher lCVt
hhdashenmi
mmnmmh
ammmmm~
mmmuundmt
that horizontal in
lvilll'cen team men
Kuhnmuwi
an
In sum. [hit
mmqulrements ol
13’5de that extrave

“l Perceptions of

Moderating the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Self-Construals

The Moderating Role of Extraversion

Extraverted individuals are social, assertive, and talkative and generally derive
greater benefits from social contact with others than introverted individuals (Diener,
Oishi, & Lucas, 2003). Moreover, extraverted individuals are sensation-seeking, which
allows them to enjoy tense social interactions which may already be perceived as
stressful by introverts. Thus, extraverted individuals can still enjoy levels of horizontal
interdependence which would undermine introverts’ perceptions of belongingness.

Moreover, Gardner and Cummings (1988) suggested that extraverted individuals
require higher levels of external stimulation to reach ideal levels of self-activation,
defined as the state of neural excitation in the reticular activating system of the central
nervous system. When activation deviates from this characteristic level, individuals
experience diminished central nervous system efficiency and decreased quality of motor
responses and thought processes. This is likely to happen for introverted individuals
when horizontal interdependence is high, where the intensive interpersonal contact
between team members will push them beyond their characteristic levels of self-
activation. This will elicit negative psychological reactions and lower commitment to the
team.

In sum, this suggests that extraverted individuals are better equipped to deal with
the requirements of high horizontal interdependence. Consistent with these arguments, I
predict that extraversion moderates the relationship between horizontal interdependence

and perceptions of belongingness in the following manner:

69

Hypothesis 9: EX?
interdepen
individual
interdepen
belonging:
Similarly.

extraverted indit ti

horlontal tnterdcl

hdit‘iduals. tight l

interaction. For in?

interdependence n

t‘hich the introver

With loner levels t

relationship heme

foiioving manner:
lllPOi'hesis 10; Ex
interdepcnt
individuals
interdepenc
distinctiven
lielloderating R“
Along trad:

humor for a ran a:

Hypothesis 9: Extraversion moderates the curvilinear relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that extraverted
individuals will experience high belongingness at high levels of horizontal
interdependence, whereas introverted individuals will experience low
belongingness when horizontal interdependence is high.

Similarly, because of their strong desire for interpersonal communication,
extraverted individuals are also relatively immune against the negative effects of high
horizontal interdependence on perceptions of distinctiveness. In fact, for extraverted
individuals, tight horizontal coupling provides welcome opportunities for social
interaction. For introverted individuals, however, the same levels of horizontal
interdependence may be perceived as stressful and as an invasion into personal space
which the introverted individual would like to fill with activities which are associated
with lower levels of self-activation. Thus, I predict that extraversion will moderate the
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness in the
following manner:

Hypothesis [0: Extraversion moderates the curvilinear relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that extraverted
individuals will experience high distinctiveness at high levels of horizontal
interdependence, whereas introverted individuals will experience low

distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is high.

The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability

A long tradition of research has established cognitive ability as a powerful

predictor for a range of work outcomes (Lepine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997),

70

including indit id;
Ea'les & leach-tn
egpeciall) potent
the importance of
eldliiPlC- Hollenhi
ne'jtiduals held it:
askemhonment ‘
Team strut

tori roles in uhic
requires dint indit'
complexity of the .
cognitive ability. tl
detachment from tl
liliill'elj,’ lllllllllllt‘
Pficeptions of belt:
il'h‘ Cognitive abili
lllt‘potlteris I l: C 0;
horizontal i
with high Ct
horizontal ii

ellPerience l

including individual training success (Ree & Earles, 1991) and job performance (Ree,
Earles, & Teachout, 1994). This research also showed that cognitive ability becomes an
especially powerful predictor in complex tasks (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989). Moreover,
the importance of cognitive ability increases with the breadth of an individual role. For
example, Hollenbeck and colleagues (2002) showed that for divisional teams in which
individuals held broad work roles, cognitive ability predicted team performance when the
task environment was dynamic.

Team structures with low horizontal interdependence generally create broader
work roles in which the individual has to process a large amount of information. This
requires that individuals have sufficient cognitive ability to oversee and process the
complexity of the information associated with their task. For individuals with low
cognitive ability, this complexity may be overwhelming and lead to psychological
detachment from the team. Therefore, individuals with high cognitive ability will be
relatively immune against the negative effects of low horizontal interdependence on
perceptions of belongingness, whereas this effect will be amplified for individuals with

low cognitive ability.

Hypothesis 11: Cognitive ability moderates the curvilinear relationship between

horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that individuals

with high cognitive ability will experience high belongingness at low levels of

horizontal interdependence, whereas individuals with low cognitive ability will

experience low belongingness when horizontal interdependence is low.

71

I pret'lOUai
anxiated with lo
perceived as large
berelatirel)‘ immt
nhieh they lace in
networking positit.
assigned primary 1
high cognitite ahi
herspeciltc regit'
late. This suggextt
thieh matches the
halter that cognit
interdependence .u
lltpatlteru 12: C (1

horizontal

llldlt'ltlUles
levels of ht:
ability will

low.

lladerat

lhel’llltlerating R,

I previously argued that low levels of horizontal interdependence will be
associated with low levels of personal distinctiveness by creating roles which are
perceived as largely interchangeable. Again, individuals with high cognitive ability will
be relatively immune against this effect. By mastering the complexity of the information
which they face in their broad work roles, they are able to maintain a distinctive
networking position. For example, in a divisional structure in which each team member is
assigned primary responsibility for one specific geographical region, individuals with
high cognitive ability are more likely to recognize the specific challenges which await in
their specific region, and how these tie in with the challenges which other team members
face. This suggests that their high cognitive ability allows them to create a distinctive role
which matches the requirements of the environment and their personal skill set. Thus, I
predict that cognitive ability will moderate the relationship between horizontal
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness in the following manner:

Hypothesis 12: Cognitive ability moderates the curvilinear relationship between
horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that
individuals with high cognitive ability will experience high distinctiveness at low
levels of horizontal interdependence, whereas individuals with low cognitive
ability will experience low distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is

low.

Moderating the Efi‘ect of Vertical Interdependence on Self-Construals

The Moderating Role of Emotional Stability

72

Neurotic
embarrassment. e
lloon. Hollenhe.
especially sensiti
conduct. Et'sencl
scanning {lClll‘lllt
these scanning at
he character and
sensitive to neg-a
Soctal expectatiti
latitchartces of 1
Oftheir control, '
actions will ultin
The“ Perceptior
life.

Team stn
condonahle and
di.icretion over tl
his role adequnr.
demandsolan e:
pleOCCuPied Wlll
ial'orably lnste

. _ m

Neurotic individuals tend to experience negative emotions such as fear, sadness,
embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Consistent with this,
Moon, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, & Maue (2003) argued that anxious individuals are
especially sensitive to social pressures conveyed through group norms and rules of
conduct. Eysenck (1992) further suggested that anxious individuals engage in more social
scanning activities than emotionally stable individuals. Referred to as hypervigilance,
these scanning activities focus on identifying ways in which other group members assess
the character and the quality of the work of the self. Anxious individuals are highly
sensitive to negative perceptions of themselves, which explains why they succumb to
social expectations of others. In addition, emotionally unstable individuals underestimate
their chances of success (Wener & Rehm, 1975) and tend to view the environment as out
of their control. They generally exhibit low self—efficacy and do not believe that their
actions will ultimately result in meaningful change (Abramson & Sackheim, 1977).
These perceptions generally lead to feelings of helplessness and a negative outlook on
life.

Team structures with low vertical interdependence require individuals who are
comfortable and capable of filling an expanded role which endows them with personal
discretion over their work. Emotionally stable individuals are much better equipped to fill
this role adequately. It is easier for them to develop trust in their ability to fill the
demands of an expanded role. Conversely, emotionally unstable individuals will be
preoccupied with scamring activities, trying to ascertain that others perceive the self
favorably, instead of exploring and fulfilling the demands of their expanded work role. In

sum, this suggests that emotionally stable individuals are relatively immune against the

73

negative ellects o
itdiriduals perfo:
he following:
lltpothesis ll: Er
Vertical in
with high
Vertical in

Ctperienc:

Similarly.
enriched work rol
Opportunity. This
heatselres as pos
hterdependence. 1‘
autonomy of a tea
hey are not able t
ale for their perc:
hecict the follow
Hypothesis 14: Er

Vertical int
with high e
Vertical int

expellifnce

negative effects of low degrees of vertical interdependence, whereas emotionally unstable

individuals perform especially poorly under such structural arrangements. Thus, I predict

the following:

Hypothesis 13: Emotional stability moderates the curvilinear relationship between
vertical interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that individuals
with high emotional stability will experience high belongingness at low levels of
vertical interdependence, whereas individuals with low emotional stability will

experience low belongingness when vertical interdependence is low.

Similarly, emotionally stable individuals will perceive the high autonomy and the
enriched work role in a team structure with low vertical interdependence as an
opportunity. This autonomy will reinforce how emotionally stable team members view
themselves as positively distinctive team members in a team structure with low vertical
interdependence. Conversely, individuals with low emotional stability will experience the
autonomy of a team structure with low vertical interdependence as a burden. Therefore,
they are not able to reap the psychological benefits of the autonomy and of the expanded
role for their perceptions of personal distinctiveness. Consistent with these arguments, I
predict the following:

Hypothesis 14: Emotional stability moderates the curvilinear relationship between
vertical interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that individuals
with high emotional stability will experience high distinctiveness at low levels of
vertical interdependence, whereas individuals with low emotional stability will

experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low.

74

piptlttderntine
Similar t:
with low vertica.
decision making
snaou'al arrang
immune against
belongingness. l
organization il tl
which ‘hev do no
then individual:
leader guidance ‘
beiongingnese I
individuals requi
activities of the i
blowing;
llt'potlreris 15; (
interdepe
C0gttitive
htterdepe;

low belon

The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability
Similar to team structures with low horizontal interdependence, team structures

with low vertical interdependence imply greater demands for information processing and

decision making. Because of that, cognitive ability becomes a critical factor in such
structural arrangements. In fact, individuals with high cognitive ability are relatively
immune against the negative effects of low vertical interdependence for perceptions of
belongingness. I previously argued that individuals may easily feel abandoned by the
organization if they are working in a team structure with low vertical interdependence in
which they do not receive guidance from a leader. This is much less likely to happen
when individuals are high on cognitive ability. Such individuals will be able to substitute
leader guidance with self-directed coordination activities, which restore perceptions of
belongingness. The opposite is true for individuals with low cognitive ability. Such
individuals require directive leadership which provides guidance and which aligns the
activities of the individual and the team with the larger organization. Thus, I predict the
following:

Hypothesis 15: Cognitive ability moderates the curvilinear relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that individuals with high
cognitive ability will experience high belongingness at low levels of vertical
interdependence, whereas individuals with low cognitive ability will experience

low belongingness when vertical interdependence is low.

75

lndiv idua
of a team stricter:
of autonomous w
for sell-directed r
position in which
ndividuals with l
Thus. I pr
litpothesis 16: C
interdepe:
cognitive
interdepcr

10W dlhllll

Again. l d
and vertical intert
inirnportant char;
and Kirkpatrick a

Contentious, ant

to true both in o

D1

propose that mv p

characteristics do

Individuals with high cognitive ability are better equipped to meet the challenges
of a team structure with low vertical interdependence. They are able to fill the demands
of autonomous work roles and to provide the coordination and learning that is necessary
for self-directed teams to succeed. This provides them with a differentiated network
position in which they assume a role similar to that of a formal leader. This provides
individuals with high cognitive ability with a sense of positive distinctiveness.

Thus, I predict the following:

Hypothesis I6: Cognitive ability moderates the curvilinear relationship between vertical
interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that individuals with high
cognitive ability will experience high distinctiveness at low levels of vertical
interdependence, whereas individuals with low cognitive ability will experience

low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low.

Internal Fit and Leadership
Culturally-Based Individual Diflerences and Leadership

Again, I develop separate predictions for the effects of horizontal interdependence
and vertical interdependence on leader self-construals. This recognizes that leaders differ
in important characteristics from team members. For example, Barrick and Mount (1991)
and Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) showed that leaders are generally more extraverted,
conscientious, and open to new experiences than the average team member, and that this
was true both in organizational and small-group settings. Consistent with these findings, I
propose that my previous arguments on fit between team structure and team member

characteristics do not necessarily have to generalize to leaders.

76

Collet‘tl‘rlb'm “3 'l
(cannula

High hori
an members. it
team activities elt
others and their tr
‘eam members t I
individuals with l‘
individual goals. ‘
hgh horizontal in
this suggests that
hcease their catt
invested in their it
‘tih low collectiv
3311M. lheir lo
becomes problem:
item members. es

tltstrates the natu

Collectivism as Moderator of the Effect of Horizontal Interdependence on Leader Self-
Construals

High horizontal interdependence does not only provide a good fit for collectivistic
team members, it also enhances the ability of collectivistic team leaders to coordinate
team activities effectively. Indeed, the focus of collectivistic individuals on relevant
others and their inclusive self-concept allows them to develop positive relationships with
team members (Triandis, 1995). Compared to individuals with low collectivism,
individuals with high collectivism focus to a much larger extent on group goals than on
individual goals, which is also consistent with the requirements of a team structure with
high horizontal interdependence which emphasizes the overall identity of a team. In sum,
this suggests that high horizontal interdependence allows collectivistic leaders to further
increase their cathexis, that is, collectivistic leaders will become psychologically more
invested in their team when horizontal interdependence is high. Conversely, individuals
with low collectivism will struggle with the requirements of a horizontally interdependent
structure. Their focus on personal goals and their competitive attitude (Flynn, 2005)
becomes problematic and hampers their ability to develop positive relationships with
team members, especially when the task structure demands these relationships. Figure 4

illustrates the nature of the predicted interaction effect.

77

figure 4. Predict
llonaintnl Intern.

Loader Belong I ng neon

lhpothert's 17a: l
leader per-
between h.
In teams v

networking positi

Predicted that the

Perceptions of dis

individuals with It

unparisons and t

Figure 4. Predicted Moderating Efi‘ect of Collectivism on the Relationship between
Horizontal Interdependence and Leader Perceptions of Belongingness

ngh
Collectivism

    

8
o
c
a:
.E
on
c
.2
b
o
'0
§ Low
Collectivism

 

Horizontal Interdependence

Hypothesis 17a: Collectivism will moderate the effect of horizontal interdependence on
leader perceptions of belongingness such that it enhances the positive relationship
between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness.

In teams with high horizontal interdependence, leaders adopt a more central
networking position so that team activities can be coordinated effectively. I previously
predicted that the central network position would be associated with higher leader
perceptions of distinctiveness. This effect should be especially pronounced for ‘
individuals with low collectivism who derive their self-worth from self-other

comparisons and who seek out interpersonal differentiation (Triandis, 1995). Conversely,

78

mpttduals with
when the: team \I
prflillt’lll l7l75
leader pe
relationsl
distinctiv
Power Distance
(animals
in a stud}
ranagers ol sell
coalition buildin;
tean sell-manage
agrariation. It is
thing this mist.
her lollowers. tl
required in a tear
in ability to be
locus of leaders v
Celina the negati
beloll-litigatess. T,

invaderbecom

ll‘hlthesir 180: l

lfifidel per

individuals with high collectivism will adOpt a more cooperative leadership style, even

when the team structure emphasizes their leadership position.

Hypothesis 17b: Collectivism will moderate the effect of horizontal interdependence on
leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that it neutralizes the positive
relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions of
distinctiveness.

Power Distance as Moderator of the Eflect of Vertical Interdependence on Leader Self-

Construals
In a study of self-managing teams, Douglas and Gardner (2004) found that

managers of self-managing teams often rely too heavily on hard influence tactics, such as

coalition building, legitimating, and pressure, even though low vertical interdependence /
team self-management require soft influence tactics such as inspirational appeal and
ingratiation. It is likely that leaders with high power distance will be especially prone to
making this mistake. By drawing clear boundaries between themselves as leaders and
their followers, they struggle to demonstrate the types of soft influence tactics which are
required in a team structure with low vertical interdependence. This should further reduce
their ability to become psychologically invested in a self-managing team. Conversely, the
focus of leaders with low power distance on other team members will serve as a buffer
against the negative effect of low vertical interdependence on perceptions of
belongingness. They will find it easier to deal with their role as “powerless leader”,
instead of becoming psychologically detached from the team.

Hypothesis 18a: Power distance will moderate the effect of vertical interdependence on

leader perceptions of belongingness such that low (high) power distance values

79

will neutr:
irtterdepct
Similar to
hint the distinc'
independence 1
pathological cor
having the abilitp
letpect that lead
distinctive seller:
lltpotltesis 13b: 3
leader pet
will neutr

interdepet

inroverrion as l
frithttntals

l previou~
term structures it
reworking p0sit
would increase It
should be especit
integrating the

{It - ,
hmurttcatton h

will neutralize (enhance) the negative relationship between vertical

interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness.

Similar to leaders with low collectivism, leaders with high power distance values
affirm the distinct social position and status which a team structure with high vertical
interdependence creates for them. They are especially sensitive to the positive
psychological consequences of occupying a distinct social network position and by
having the ability to exert influence over their followers. Consistent with these arguments,
I expect that leaders with high power distance values will develop an especially
distinctive self-concept when vertical interdependence in teams is high.

Hypothesis 18b: Power distance will moderate the effect of vertical interdependence on
leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that low (high) power distance values
will neutralize (enhance) the positive relationship between vertical
interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness.

Personality Variables and Leadership

Extraversion as Moderator of the Efi‘ect of HoriZOntal Interdependence on Leader Self-

C onstruals

I previously argued that leaders assume a more critical networking position in
team structures with high horizontal interdependence. I predicted that this central
networking position of leaders in team structures with high horizontal interdependence
would increase leader perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. This effect
should be especially pronounced for extraverted individuals, who will be more successful
in integrating the activities of specialized team members. By functioning as a

communication hub, extraverted leaders will also become more psychologically invested

80

hire team: lead:
asenive and dot
19‘th This lurth
teants. which she
Comistent with t
Hypothesis 190:
leader pe:
positive r
of belong
lljipothesis 1%:
leader pe
positive r
Ol distinct
formation
Constraints
lll [63m 5
10 make unilater;
imseltihersell. l
mllllIltlUOn pit-hik
demands 0n the t
interdependence
can consistently .

“tenor I0 3 mar

in the team: leader belongingness will increase. Moreover, extraverted leaders are more
assertive and dominant in team discussions than introverted leaders (Costa & McCrae,

1992). This further emphasizes the distinctive social position of an extraverted leader in

teams, which should be associated with high leader perceptions of distinctiveness.

Consistent with these arguments, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 19a: Extraversion will moderate the effect of horizontal interdependence on
leader perceptions of belongingness such that extraversion will enhance the
positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions
of belongingness.

Hypothesis 19b: Extraversion will moderate the effect of horizontal interdependence on
leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that extraversion will enhance the
positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions

of distinctiveness.

Cognitive Ability as Moderator of the Eflect of Vertical Interdependence on Leader Self-

C onstruals

In team structures with high vertical interdependence, leaders retain the authority
to make unilateral decisions which are binding for the team. Making decisions by
himself/herself, however, requires that the leader is capable of bundling all relevant
information which is needed to come to an informed decision. This imposes high
demands on the cognitive ability of leaders in team structures with high vertical
interdependence. In fact, they will only be able to perform their role successfully if they
can consistently demonstrate to the team that their unilateral decision making style is

superior to a more democratic decision making process. It follows that leaders with high

81

pogpjtll'e ability
remain committe-
tliporhesis 3.0a:
leader pt
positive I
belongin‘
Similarly
with high vertic:
alonration w lllt
team members w
which de-empha
between team or
more capable of
COillllit'e ability
lbpothcsis 30h
onleadcr
[he pOslll

Oldistirtc

Predict
Research
relationships bet

hilllach, lntem]

cognitive ability should find it easier to perform a centralized leadership role and to

remain committed to the team. Thus, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 20a: Cognitive ability will moderate the effect of vertical interdependence on
leader perceptions of belongingness such that cognitive ability will enhance the
positive relationship between vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of
belongingness.

Similarly, leaders can only retain their unique network position in a team structure
with high vertical interdependence if they are capable of bundling all relevant
information which is needed to make informed decisions. If this were not the case, then
team members would engage in behaviors which attempt to revert to a team structure
which de-emphasizes the networking position of the leader, replacing it with lateral ties
between team members. Put in different words, leaders with high cognitive ability are
more capable of occupying a distinctive networking position than leaders with low
cognitive ability. Consistent with these arguments, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 20b: Cognitive ability will moderate the effect of vertical interdependence
on leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that cognitive ability will enhance

the positive relationship between vertical interdependence and leader perceptions

of distinctiveness.

Predicting Relationships between Optimal Distinctiveness and Criteria
Research has generally adopted two distinct approaches in studying the
relationships between distinctiveness and belongingness with criteria. According to one

approach, intermediate levels of distinctiveness and belongingness result in optimal

82

hlh'llan lunCllOllll
t; Snyder. 3003
man a mode
positive mood 31'
distinctiveness 1
opponent procev
antomaticallv be
will be corrected
especially remin

A second
opposite ends of
represent lundari:
aislv both need
hnctioning. Put
i'tstinttiveness ill
distinctiveness is
hairs that results
overlaps in large
30-10). which arg

13 satisfied simu

mommy and re
contracts distinc

pith sell ‘dttermi

human functioning. For example, Snyder and colleagues (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Lynn
& Snyder, 2002) asserted in their uniqueness theory that people seek to establish and
maintain a moderate sense of self-distinctiveness, which would in turn be associated with
positive mood and higher subjective well-being. This research conceptualizes
distinctiveness and belongingness as the opposite ends of one scale and relies on
opponent process theories to argue that excessive distinctiveness or belongingness will
automatically be corrected by the respective opponent process (excessive distinctiveness
will be corrected by a desire for belongingness, and vice versa). This approach is
especially reminiscent of earlier research on distinctiveness and belongingness.

A second approach recognizes that distinctiveness and belongingness are not two
opposite ends of one continuum, but rather two distinct constructs, both of which
represent fundamental human needs. According to this approach, individuals have to
satisfy both needs of distinctiveness and belongingness in order to realize optimal human
functioning. Put in different words, this approach argues for an interactive effect between
distinctiveness and belongingness such that satisfaction of either belongingness or
distinctiveness is not enough. Instead, it is the simultaneous satisfaction of both of these
traits that results in optimal psychological functioning. Interestingly, this approach
overlaps in large parts with Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,
2000), which argues that the three needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness have to

be satisfied simultaneously for psychological well-being to occur. The constructs

autonomy and relatedness in Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory correspond to the
constructs distinctiveness and belongingness in optimal distinctiveness theory. Consistent

with self-determination theory and more recent research on optimal distinctiveness

83

thncncoun 3‘ S
wncepliifthle dl‘
betatistied simu

It is impc
mail needs t
neat should eltt
”net occupy lead
till n01 develop

The selet
nptinnl distinctt
belongingness 31
needs signals to
embeddedness a.
and feelings oi
necessary for to
nest needs rem:
to identifying C11
Optimal distinct
and cognitively t
[ends of well-be
unable to functit

alt} . - . .
“4W5 IHdIVIdug

(Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Homsey & J etten, 2004; J anssen & Huang, 2008), I
conceptualize distinctiveness and belongingness as two distinct constructs which have to
be satisfied simultaneously.

It is important to note that the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness are
universal needs which should be experienced by all humans. Thus, satisfaction of the
needs should elicit similar psychological reactions in individuals, irrespective of whether
they occupy leadership positions or whether they are lower-level team members. Thus, I
will not develop separate predictions on the effects of optimal distinctiveness on criteria.

The selection of specific outcome variables in this research is again driven by
optimal distinctiveness theory. According to optimal distinctiveness theory, the needs for
belongingness and distinctiveness have evolutionary origins. The satisfaction of these
needs signals to individuals that they achieve a positive social status which ensures social
embeddedness and personal differentiaton from others. Social embeddness is necessary to
avoid feelings of social exclusion and stigmatization, and differentiation from others is
necessary for comparative appraisal and self-definition (Brewer, 2003). If one or both of
these needs remain unsatisfied, the individual will have to dedicate psychological energy
to identifying causes of this imbalance and to restoring a state of optimal distinctiveness.
Optimal distinctiveness theory argues that individuals will generally feel uncomfortable
and cognitively disadvantages during this process, a state which is associated with lower
levels of well-being and self-worth. On a more general level, it renders the individual
unable to function effectively (Brewer, 2003). Conversely, satisfaction of these needs

allows individuals to shift their psychological energy to more productive endeavors.

84

Applied
satisfy their nee
of )UbjCClll'é “I
the needs for be
to shift pitchol
optimal distinct
finally. I oil] it
optimal distinct
an outcome of i
but the satisfut
individuals ubi
50th needs for l
independence .-‘-
prerequisites fa

dileiean Purl

Subject
about the self in
evaluative well
are influenced E
he assumed to
teach on dni
suit"

”Klimt l e.

[’1

f

Applied to the context of teams, this suggests that individuals who are unable to
satisfy their needs for belongingness and/or distinctiveness will experience lower levels
of subjective well-being and lower feelings of self-efficacy. Moreover, if one or both of
the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness remain unsatisfied, individuals will have
to shift psychological energy away from productive endeavors to restore feelings of
optimal distinctiveness, which should reduce their ability to perform well on their task.
Finally, I will investigate voice behaviors as an additional outcome. Due to the origins of
optimal distinctiveness theory in social psychology, voice has not yet been considered as
an outcome of optimal distinctiveness. Nevertheless, it constitutes a prime example of
how the satisfaction of both needs for belongingness and distinctiveness increase
individuals’ ability to function effectively at team members. Specifically, by satisfying
both needs for belongingness and distinctiveness, individuals experience field
independence AND a strong commitment to the team, both of which are important
prerequisites for such challenging discretionary work behaviors (Van Dyne, Cummings,
& McLean Parks, 1995).

Predicting Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being encompasses affective states and evaluative judgments
about the self in the context of the situation, that is, situational assessment of self-
evaluative well-being. In general, responses to questions about attitudes and judgments
are influenced by working memory (Hastie & Park, 1986). Thus, even evaluations that
are assumed to be relatively stable can fluctuate over time. For example, empirical
research on daily variations in marital satisfaction (e.g., Heller & Watson, 2005) and job

satisfaction (e. g., Ilies & Judge, 2002) demonstrates that constructs formerly thought to

85

be relatively stat.
tell-being state:
1996‘; shorts the
friction of the 't‘:
suggests that it c‘
being states etc:

Humans
member of socia
need derises fro
superior swim
and reproduction
(lilllt asserted
some of existent
the human brain
Ember of empi;
hditiduals' we]
Md that our
tsttacism even }
nditiduals lures:
Lithium. 3005 )
Richardson, 200
M“ Been & ts

usential for sub

be relatively stable do indeed fluctuate over time. Moreover, research on fluctuations in
well-being states (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis,
1996) shows that affective and physiological well—being vary across and within days as a
function of the fulfillment of needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. This
suggests that it can be appropriate to examine fluctuations in attitudes, affects, and well-
being states even over relatively short periods of time.

Humans have a fundamental need to experience belongingness and to be a valued
member of social groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Brewer (2003) argued that this
need derives from our history as a social species where group living has become a
superior survival strategy. As such, humans lost their instincts that make isolated living
and reproduction possible or desirable. Consistent with this idea, Case and Williams
(2004) asserted that ostracism is a metaphor for death which undermines individuals’
sense of existence and recognition, and Eisenberger and Lieberman (2005) argued that
the human brain recognizes even subtle signals which threaten our social standing. A
number of empirical studies demonstrated the pervasive negative effect of ostracism on
individuals’ well-being. For example, Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams (2003)
showed that ostracism activated the same brain areas which signal physical pain, and
ostracism even had negative consequences on individuals’ well—being when ostracized
individuals knew that the other individuals were forced to ostracize them (Eisenberger &
Liebman, 2005), when the ostracizing entity was a computer (Zadro, Williams, &
Richardson, 2004), or when ostracism was financially lucrative for ostracized individuals

(Van Beest & Williams, 2006). It follows that satisfaction of the need to belong is

essential for subjective well-being.

86

Optimal
necessar}; but in
tICilit adequate
stpenor surs‘is'a
oterlap in all di:
react u‘ith antiet
Snyder. 3003). E
learn to balance
annotated with i
such m sharing e
relationships, do
E’JOUP members
term. especially
indiscriminate tr
deselop mechan
relationship, are
hditiduals eoml
Minimize the be

In addltlr
‘lgmj lhEll Unqu
Self-flew t‘Coc

Optimal distinctiveness theory argues, however, that the need to belong is a
necessary, but not sufficient condition for optimal psychological functioning. Brewer
(2003) adequately pointed out that the need to belong in and by itself does not guarantee
superior survival value. Indeed, people who believe that their personal characteristics
overlap in all dimensions with personal characteristics of other group members generally
react with anxiety and a strong desire to increase interpersonal distance (cf. Lynn &
Snyder, 2002). Brewer suggested that, over the course of evolution, individuals have
learnt to balance the costs of being a valued group member with the benefits that are
associated with it. Specifically, actions which promote the social standing of the self,
such as sharing of information, helping behaviors, or the development of interpersonal
relationships, depend on trust and can only provide net benefits to the individual if all
group members cooperate. This is a constellation which is rather the exception than the
norm, especially in large groups (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). It follows that
indiscriminate trust cannot be an adequate survival strategy. Instead, the individual has to
develop mechanisms which protect the self from others with whom enduring
relationships are not desirable. Thus, optimal distinctiveness theory proposes that
individuals complement a need for belongingness with a need for distinctiveness to
maximize the benefits of interpersonal relationships and group membership.

In addition, by demonstrating uniqueness in a valued social group, individuals
signal their unique value to the group, which increases their status and ultimately their
self-esteem (Codol, 1984). By maintaining a distinct self, individuals are also able to act

in accordance with their personal convictions. Overall, I conclude that the simultaneous

87

satisfaction of t
let'els of sub jet?

Thepre
nmmmwt
ememmthes
pnoohghalc
the tsso needs n
satisfaction of t
ntditiduals‘ de1
hermentutul
nddoehofa
etpenences a s
dmmusdfcor
nhnduds'sul

Consem
udetpenence'
5XPinences a [I
member, Restat
mongmgne:

he distinctis'en

'VIBICWU. 1 991‘

satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness should lead to optimal
levels of subjective well-being.

The prediction that high levels of belongingness and high levels of distinctiveness
are associated with optimal levels of subjective well-being is intuitively appealing in the
sense that the simultaneous satisfaction of two needs should be associated with superior
psychological outcomes. What may be less intuitive is that the satisfaction of only one of
the two needs may actually have more negative psychological consequences than the
satisfaction of none of the two needs. According to optimal distinctiveness theory,
individuals’ desire to satisfy the need for belongingness or distinctiveness increases with
the extent to which the other need is satisfied. For example, if an individual experiences
high levels of assimilation and belongingness in a team, then this individual also
experiences a strong desire to satisfy the need for distinctiveness to protect a positively
distinct self-concept. Thus, if simultaneous satisfaction of both needs is not possible,
individuals’ subjective well-being will suffer.

Conversely, if the individual does not feel psychologically committed to the team
and experiences only weak perceptions of belongingness, then the individual also
experiences a relatively weak desire to increase the distinctiveness of the self as a group
member. Restated, group membership has little relevance to the individual if perceptions
of belongingness are low, which is why the individual also sees little value in affirming
the distinctiveness of the self as a group member. Brewer summarizes this very well:
”The optimal level of category distinctiveness or inclusiveness is a function of the
relative strength (steepness) of the opposing drives for assimilation and differentiation”

(Brewer, 1991, p. 478). Consistent with these arguments, I predict a crossed interaction

88

bent een percept
lott'belongingnt
tastindis'ettess‘t
Htpothesls 310.
affect. at
belongzn
lesels of
self-eta}.
le‘Oti’tesis 21b:
affect. a;
belongin
With lost

positive

Accordit'
attitiduals‘ belt
environments. 8
agency. Specific
processes. nor sl
L.-
kaltad. bt' empl
is . r‘ '

Capable of tttte

mpnasizina hur

between perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness such that the combination of

low belongingness and high distinctiveness (or high belongingness and low

distinctiveness) is associated with lowest levels of subjective well-being.

Hypothesis 21 a: The effects of perceptions of distinctiveness on positive affect, negative
affect, and self-evaluative well-being are moderated by perceptions of
belongingness such that high levels of distinctiveness in combination with high
levels of belongingness are associated with highest levels of positive affect and
self-evaluative well-being and with lowest levels of negative affect.

Hypothesis 21b: The effects of perceptions of distinctiveness on positive affect, negative
affect, and self-evaluative well-being are moderated by perceptions of
belongingness such that the combination of high (low) levels of distinctiveness
with low (high) levels of belongingness is associated with lowest levels of

positive affect and self-evaluative well-being and highest levels of negative affect.

Predicting Individual Self—Efiicacy

According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), efficacy beliefs refer to
individuals’ beliefs in their capability to exercise control over their lives and their
environments. Bandura further noted that efficacy beliefs are the foundation of human
agency. Specifically, efficacy beliefs are neither solely determined by social-influence
processes, nor should they be viewed as products of physiological brain processes.
Instead, by emphasizing the role of human agency, Bandura asserted that the human mind
is capable of intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness. By

emphasizing human agency and the capacity to exercise personal control, social cognitive

89

2,580“. new?”
Ophumannéb‘s.
Despllt’
mind. social CO
mal tacuum.
on each other:
Persona
are crea
constrai
develop
his uould sug
sufficient condi
distinct and uni
belongingness s
preside for the
nditiduals find
supported by th
elf-efficacy be
Pftsuasion, or l«

billfli depend (

Only the first 8(1
tattle [he perm.

ShOUld find it ea

theory recognizes the distinctiveness of each individual as a positive and defining feature
of humanness.

Despite its strong focus on the generative and proactive character of the human
mind, social cognitive theory also recognizes that the human mind does not operate in a
social vacuum. In fact, the theory argues that human agency and social structure depend
on each other:

Personal agency and social structure operate interdependently. Social structures

are created by human activity, and sociostructural practices, in turn, impose

constraints and provide enabling resources and opportunity structures for personal

development and functioning (Bandura, 2001, p. 15).
This would suggest that perceptions of distinctiveness are a necessary, but again not
sufficient condition for the develOpment of self-efficacy beliefs. In addition to being
distinct and unique, individuals need to feel connected to others and experience
belongingness so that they can utilize the nutriments that their social environments
provide for the development of their self—efficacy. Indeed, there is evidence that
individuals find it easier to develop self—efficacy beliefs if they feel connected to and
supported by their social environment. Bandura (1977) found that people can develOp
self-efficacy beliefs through past accomplishments, observation of others, verbal
persuasion, or logical verification. The latter three of these four sources of self-efficacy
beliefs depend on the influence of others or can at least be greatly facilitated by others.
Only the first source of self-efficacy (past accomplishments) originates purely from
inside the person. Thus, individuals who are well—embedded in their social networks

should find it easier to use their peers as sources of self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, by

90

being connecte
feels“ to seek o
ehicacs belief s
distinctiveness

By cont
tumments nect
prediction of a
distinctiveness
eounterproduct
consequences f
ntepersonal d
perception of b
self-efficacy ((
Hftpothett's 2,

modern

distinct

“th lllt
Hlpotltesis 3};

modern

“0“) lt’

aSSOCia

being connected to others and by experiencing high belongingness, individuals are more

likely to seek out and to receive the kind of support that precedes development of self-

efficacy beliefs. Thus, I predict that the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for
distinctiveness and belongingness is associated with highest levels of self-efficacy.

By contrast, without a socially supportive environment, the individual lacks the
nutriments necessary to develop self-efficacy beliefs. In fact, consistent with my previous
prediction of a crossed interaction effect of perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness on well-being, satisfaction of only one of the two needs may even prove
counterproductive. Feeling distinct will even intensify the negative psychological
consequences for individuals who do not experience belongingness because it makes the
interpersonal distance between the self and the team even more salient. This adds to the
perception of being ostracized, a psychological state which is related to lower levels of
self-efficacy (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009).

Hypothesis 22a: The effect of perceptions of distinctiveness on self-efficacy beliefs is
moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that high levels of
distinctiveness in combination with high levels of belongingness are associated
with the highest levels of self-efficacy beliefs.

Hypothesis 22b: The effect of perceptions of distinctiveness on self-efficacy beliefs is
moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that the combination of high
(low) levels of distinctiveness with low (high) levels of belongingness is

associated with lowest levels of self-efficacy beliefs.

91

Researc
types of béhdl l
mantduals er:
nearment of the
1988). This sug-
eollectit'e is a p
Eisenberger. If
resources sshtcl
language of op:
generally assun
nditiduals to g
prediction. rese
soil: group, a s
generally predit
W311 Dyne. C us

More re
intents an inct.
“01k behat‘iors
Micular, What
“dentition for
”filtration (V

endlengine disc

Predicting Voice

Research on discretionary work behaviors has traditionally assumed that these
types of behaviors represent a form of social exchanges. According to this research,
individuals engage in discretionary work behaviors in order to reciprocate positive
treatment of the organization, their supervisor, or their work group (Blau, 1964; Organ,
1988). This suggests that an intact psychological contract between the individual and the
collective is a prerequisite for discretionary work behaviors to occur (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Otherwise, employees would not invest the time, energy, and
resources which are required to engage in these types of behaviors. Expressed in the
language of optimal distinctiveness theory, research on discretionary work behaviors
generally assumes that perceptions of belongingness at the workplace are necessary for
individuals to go above and beyond the formal call of duty. Consistent with this
prediction, research found that intact psychological contracts, high identification with the
work group, a strong relationship orientation, empathic concern, and field dependence are
generally predictive of organizational citizenship behaviors and prosocial work behaviors
(Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

More recent research, however, indicates that social exchange theory by itself
presents an incomplete framework to explain why individuals engage in discretionary
work behaviors (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001). In
particular, what has been missing in extant research on discretionary work behaviors is an
explanation for discretionary work behaviors which challenge the current status quo in an
organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995), such as voice. Van Dyne and colleagues argued that

challenging discretionary work behaviors such as voice are most likely to occur if

92

mditiduals fee
mdependent er
he courage [0
refer to this as
distinctiyeness
condition for it
most likely to l
distinctiyeness

Again.
Specifically. if
dntznctit'eness
and controyers
con‘onnity ant
Hi'pothest's 23:

modetc

distinct

With th
H‘Pothesis 23;

modern

l lose) 1,-

associa

individuals feel committed to their respective work group, yet at the same time
independent enough so that they can identify areas of improvement and so that they have
the courage to step forward to address these issues in public (Van Dyne and colleagues
refer to this as “field independence”). Again, translated into the language of optimal
distinctiveness theory, this suggests that belongingness is a necessary, but not sufficient
condition for individuals to engage in voice behaviors. Thus, I predict that individuals are
most likely to engage in voice behaviors if they experience both belongingness and
distinctiveness at work.

Again, satisfying only one of the two needs may prove counterproductive.
Specifically, if an individual experiences high levels of belongingness, but no
distinctiveness, chances are that this person will be discouraged from voicing divergent
and controversial opinions and suggestions. In extreme cases, this could lead to
conformity and groupthink (Janis, 1972), instead of promoting voice.

Hypothesis 23a: The effect of perceptions of distinctiveness on voice behaviors is
moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that high levels of

distinctiveness in combination with high levels of belongingness are associated

with the highest levels of voice behaviors.

Hypothesis 23b: The effect of perceptions of distinctiveness on voice behaviors is
moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that the combination of high

(low) levels of distinctiveness with low (high) levels of belongingness is

associated with lowest levels of voice behaviors.

93

Argolc’.
myhich indis'
learning is a in
knots ledge is p
more opportun
prot'ide an ab»
addressing crit
indit'idual piec
lefote. team it:
Specialization.
€311 draw from

Distinc
titgote and col
which the re
Ednondson l 1*
Characterized b
ind discussing
curtains ma
Wales and p

Accord
I‘l'tntitized 10

eliciting help I

Predicting Learning

Argote, Gruenfeld, and N aquin (1999) defined learning as an interactive process
in which individuals acquire, share, and combine knowledge. According to this definition,
learning is a function of the team’s combined knowledge stock and of the way this
knowledge is put to use. Thus, the larger the combined knowledge stock of the team, the
more opportunities for the individual to learn. Not only does a large knowledge stock
provide an absolute amount of knowledge that an individual may draw from when
addressing critical problems, it also creates a larger number of unique combinations of
individual pieces of knowledge to devise creative solutions to problems. As I argued
before, team members with distinct educational backgrounds, functional areas of
specialization, and professional experience should expand the knowledge pool that a team
can draw from, and thus also contribute to learning.

Distinctiveness by itself, however, will not be sufficient to induce learning.
Argote and colleagues (1999) aptly pointed out that learning is also an interactive process
in which the team has to find novel ways of putting this knowledge to work. Similarly,
Edmondson (1999) defined learning as an “ongoing process of reflection and action,
characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results,
and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of action” (p. 353). This definition
emphasizes that learning is a process which depends on the quality of interpersonal
processes and information exchanges.

According to Edmondson, learning can only occur if team members feel
incentivized to engage in activities which are associated with team learning, such as

soliciting help or information. This, however, will only occur if team members feel that

94

these actions “
public entbm
public emban‘d
phenomenon tlf
n’hich individb‘
of inerpersona
hntiduals nee
Bimondson rel
can is safe for
perceptions of
nine their inte
optimal distinc.
enhanced in a t
trehigh.

In sum.
belongingness
sufficiently lar
High belonging
Mgmnm
Sltn'tltancous s
liitxiayed “_.in

Consist

UIbelongingnc

these actions will not be perceived as a sign of incompetence and if they do not lead to
public embarrassment. Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton (1981) showed that the threat of
public embarrassment can in fact reduce behavioral flexibility and responsiveness, a
phenomenon they termed threat rigidity. Thus, learning requires a team atmosphere in
which individuals feel comfortable being themselves, while at the same enjoying feelings
of interpersonal trust and mutual respect. Similarly, Schein and Bennis (1965) found that
individuals need to feel secure in order to be able to change and learn, a state which
Edmondson referred to as team psychological safety, that is, the shared belief that the
team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Conceptually, psychological safety is related to
perceptions of belongingness, both of which describe the extent to which individuals
value their interpersonal relationships with others. Translated into the language of
optimal distinctiveness theory, this suggests that an individual’s ability to learn is
enhanced in a climate of psychological safety, that is, when perceptions of belongingness
are high.

In sum, this suggests that learning requires high distinctiveness in teams and high
belongingness so that learning can occur. High distinctiveness is needed so that a
sufficiently large knowledge stock can be developed that individuals can draw from.
High belongingness is required so that team members feel the psychological safety to
engage in activities which will lead to helping behaviors. Thus, I predict that the

simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness will be

associated with Optimal levels of learning.

Consistent with my previous predictions, the satisfaction of either distinctiveness

or belongingness alone will be detrimental for learning. High perceptions of

95

dinncnteness
belongingness
mmmhnmn
Hlpr’llllt’lli 34.-
wdm
belongi
ll‘p’ttltesis 24.!
such or

lel‘Clg (

Brewer
oloptirnal dist
optimal distinc
of optimal dist
loyal. yet at the
perspective. rh
lenses from 0
tired to strive
t‘iolations of 01

Will of the

is
«at

H ’ u

distinctiveness without psychological commitment to the team and shared perceptions of

belongingness will prevent the individual from utilizing the knowledge stock that the

team offers and lead to low levels of learning.

Hypothesis 24a: The effect of distinctiveness on learning is moderated by belongingness
such that high levels of distinctiveness in combination with high levels of
belongingness are associated with optimal levels of learning.

Hypothesis 24b: The effect of distinctiveness on learning is moderated by belongingness

such that the combination of high (low) levels of distinctiveness with low (high)

levels of belongingness is associated with low learning.

Predicting Job Performance

Brewer (2003) argued that individuals are highly sensitive to deviations of a state
of optimal distinctiveness and that the ability of individuals to experience a state of
optimal distinctiveness is associated with superior survival value. This is because a state
of Optimal distinctiveness signals to the self and relevant others that the individual is a
loyal, yet at the same time unique and indispensable group member. According to this
perspective, the need to experience perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness
derives from our evolutionary history as a social species. Restated, humans are hard-
wired to strive for optimal distinctiveness and to initiate actions which seek to repair
violations of optimal distinctiveness promptly. Any such activity, however, detracts
psychological energy and time from productive endeavors and reduces the performance
potential of the individual. And indeed, previous research by Ferris and colleagues found

that ostracized individuals invested more time in impression management activities than

96

ijydit‘iduals ll if
from productit
distinctiveness:
performance.
.‘sloreo'
psychological
Consistent it it.
distinctiyeness
and mice beht
predictors of j.
Pedsaloff. M;
“hi I expect t.
Thus. l
Hypothesis 25
moder:
dislinc
With if
H‘Wthesis 25
moder;
(lost) 1.

3.350ng

individuals who experienced high belongingness in their respective group (Ferris, Brown,

Berry, & Lian, 2008). This supports the notion that individuals shift their focus away

from productive endeavors to attempts which seek tO restore a state of optimal

distinctiveness, a shift in focus which should be associated with a decline in job
performance.

Moreover, Optimal distinctiveness theory predicts that individuals achieve optimal
psychological functioning when they experience both belongingness and distinctiveness.
Consistent with this notion, I suggested in the previous hypotheses that Optimal
distinctiveness will be associated with high levels Of subjective well—being, self-efficacy,
and voice behaviors. Previous research has consistently identified those constructs as
predictors Of job performance (Judge & 80m, 2001; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000), which is
why I expect that optimal distinctiveness should also be predictive Of job performance.

Thus, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 25a: The effect Of perceptions Of distinctiveness on job performance is
moderated by perceptions Of belongingness such that high levels of
distinctiveness in combination with high levels Of belongingness are associated
with the highest levels Of job performance.

Hypothesis 25b: The effect Of perceptions Of distinctiveness on job performance is
moderated by perceptions Of belongingness such that the combination Of high

(low) levels Of distinctiveness with low (high) levels Of belongingness is

associated with lowest levels Of job performance.

97

One of
strollLlIlCOUs s
hg‘er identzftt
serial psycholt
research in org
pasture conset
fotmd that gror
Der. Hanoog.
higher reflexit
dacusston of r
th‘iCiSlly' and p
lttttts.

Other
hid: identifica
it‘iersity; in [Cr
zloiilldllOn, \l‘h
Kfllppenberg ,
inditidual dist
orionizationap

@0ngth (

Predicting Team Identification
One Of the central predictions of Optimal distinctiveness theory is that the
simultaneous satisfaction Of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness will result in
higher identification with the group. This prediction has been supported by experimental
social psychological research on Optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 2003). Similarly,
research in organizational psychology and organizational behavior also points to the

positive consequences of Optimal distinctiveness for team identification.

Emphasizing the positive role Of distinctiveness, Barley & Mosakowski (2000)
found that group diversity was associated with improved communication, and Schippers,
Den Hartoog, KOOpman, and Wienk (2003) showed that diversity was associated with
higher reflexivity, that is, with more intensive and successful consideration and
discussion Of team functioning. In sum, these findings support the notion that team
diversity and team distinctiveness are associated with improved information processing in
teams.

Other research, however, cautions that distinctiveness by itself, does not lead to
high identification with the team. According tO the social categorization perspective,
diversity in teams can lead to stereotypical perceptions Of dissimilar others and subgroup
formation, which should also result in lower identification with the team (Van
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). For example, Chattopadhyay (1999) found that
individual dissimilarity was associated with lower trust between individuals and lower
organizational citizenship behaviors, and Chatman and Flynn (2001) reported that

demographic diversity was associated with lower cooperativeness. Also, Li and

98

Hambriclt th‘t
behavioral inn

This e:
heiongingness
reams. And in
positive sense
team members:
ah team metni

This st
combined stir]
members, Exp
hilly lead to hj
predict that op

identification.

Hypothesis 26
moder.
distinc
with tf.

Hypothesis 26
moder:
llovv) l

assocpE

Hambrick (2005) showed that diversity faultlines in teams were associated with less

behavioral integration.

This emphasizes the need tO combine high distinctiveness in teams with high
belongingness such that team members can experience high identification with their
teams. And indeed, Van Knippenberg (1999) argued that groups should try to develop a
positive sense Of team distinctiveness, an attitude which promotes the value Of diverse
team membership, while recognizing the identity Of the team and the interrelatedness Of
all team members.

This suggests that the potential Of distinctiveness can only be realized if it is
combined with the perception that the individual is positively connected with Other team

members. Expressed in the terminology of optimal distinctiveness, distinctiveness will

only lead to higher team identification if it is combined with high belongingness. Thus, I

predict that Optimal distinctiveness will be associated with highest levels Of team

identification.

Hypothesis 26a: The effect Of perceptions Of distinctiveness on team identification is
moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that high levels Of
distinctiveness in combination with high levels Of belongingness are associated
with the highest levels Of team identification.

Hypothesis 26b: The effect Of perceptions Of distinctiveness on team identification is
moderated by perceptions Of belongingness such that the combination Of high
(low) levels Of distinctiveness with low (high) levels Of belongingness is

associated with lowest levels Of team identification.

99

The as

figure 5.. PM
Distinctiveiies
'Saiyiective lli
identification f

Cnnhlnfilxt- WAll..na-.Inn c-.. cults-nu. \lhln-

To reit
coupling in re:
interdependent
yhich allows i
simultaneously
toetperience t

The nature Of the hypothesized interaction effects are illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Predicted Moderating Influence of Belongingness on the Relationships Between

Distinctiveness and Outcomes
(Subjective Well—Being, Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Voice, Learning, Performance, and Team

Identification)

Voice,

Self-Efficacy,
Performance

 

 

Learning,

/ Low
Belongingness

Distinctiveness

 

Subjective Well-Being,

Mediation Hypotheses
TO reiterate, the main goal Of this dissertation is to identify an optimal degree Of
coupling in teams on the two structural dimensions horizontal and vertical
interdependence which is associated with a state Of Optimal distinctiveness, that is, a state
which allows individuals tO satisfy their desires for belongingness and distinctiveness
simultaneously. I predicted that loosely coupled team structures will allow team members
to experience this state Of optimal distinctiveness, which will lead tO a broad range Of

outcomes, including subjective well-being, self-efficacy, voice behaviors, learning, and

100

job Worm“
pmmilé the“
Psychologica-
Restated. 13h
relevant outct
distinctivenf“
simultaneous
predict subjet
stith these at;

Hype)!
being. bl self-
identification
represents the
distinctivenes

Hypo!
bi self-efficav
identification
represents the

distinctivenes

job performance. Underlying these predictions is the notion that self-construals can
illuminate the black box between team structure and its consequences, providing a social
psychological explanation for the common use Of loosely coupled teams in organization.
Restated, I am predicting that the effect of the two dimensions Of team structure on
relevant outcomes is mediated by self-construals. Specifically, drawing from Optimal
distinctiveness theory, I argue that a state of optimal distinctiveness, that is, the
simultaneous satisfaction Of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness would

predict subjective well-being, self-efficacy, learning, voice, and performance. Consistent
with these arguments, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 27: The effect Of horizontal interdependence on a) subjective well-
being, b) self-efficacy, c) voice behaviors, d) teaming, e) job performance and f) team
identification is mediated by the psychological state Of Optimal distinctiveness, which
represents the degree tO which individuals can satisfy the needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness simultaneously.

Hypothesis 28: The effect Of vertical interdependence on a) subjective well-being,
b) self-efficacy, c) voice behaviors, (1) learning, e) job performance and t) team
identification is mediated by the psychological state Of Optimal distinctiveness, which
represents the degree to which individuals can satisfy the needs for belongingness and

distinctiveness simultaneously.

METHOD

Choice Of Setting

101

A labs
chapter. ldec.
hboratory all
variables can
specific study
loosely coupl
nterdepender
diferent can
research on te
relationships
haddition. tl
ttpcnmental
hdcontamin

Secon
lit different (
relationships l
lat ll'tiuld no
him effect it
mmttttals. F0
self-seleq lltts‘
Will iItterd

Third.

mlhe labOratrj

A laboratory setting was used to test the hypotheses developed in the previous
chapter. I decided to choose a laboratory setting for three main reasons. First, the
laboratory allows an efficient research design in which variance on the independent
variables can be maximized (Kerlinger, 1986). This is a noticeable advantage for the
specific study. In fact, previous research indicates that organizations Often tend to employ
loosely coupled team structures, that is, structures with moderate degrees Of
interdependence (Hollenbeck & Spitzmuller, in press), thus reducing the range Of
different team structures represented in field studies on team structure. As a result, field
research on team structure is severely limited in its ability to detect significant
relationships between team structure and important individual and team-level outcomes.
In addition, the laboratory offers the Opportunity tO randomly assign participants tO
experimental conditions, minimizing error variance and eliminating the risk Of confounds
and contaminants in the data.

Second, a laboratory design creates the Opportunity to experimentally manipulate
the different dimensions Of team structure. This allows the investigation Of causal
relationships between team structure and individual and team-level outcomes, something
that would not be possible in the field. In fact, there are numerous possible explanations
for an effect with the reversed causality between team structure and individuals’ self-
construals. For example, it is possible that individuals with interdependent self-construals
self-select into team settings characterized by high horizontal interdependence and low

vertical interdependence (Schneider, 1987).
Third, previous research on optimal distinctiveness theory has mostly taken place

in the laboratory (Aron, Aron & Smollan, 1992; Bettencourt & Sheldon & 2001;

102

Holmvall d; l
Picl'ett. Silve
belongingnes
experimental
period of time
hindainentallj
collective ides

yi'inn-indivit

I petlti
to rind mi h-‘f
tested thfi CUT
the condition
lost and high
interdepends‘t‘i
interdependcn
he number of
Thus. using be
one dimension
variables. and
the of 89 indi
self-constnials

terrorism

Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008; Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1998; Pickett & Brewer, 2001;
Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002). This research demonstrates that perceptions Of
belongingness and distinctiveness are malleable constructs which are responsive to
experimental manipulations in a laboratory setting taking place over a relatively short
period Of time. As such, perceptions Of personal belongingness and distinctiveness are
fundamentally different from more stable identity orientations such as personal or
collective identity orientations where it would indeed be difficult to find sufficient
within-individual variation in a laboratory context.
Participants
I performed a power analysis to determine the number Of teams which are needed

to find my hypothesized effects. As I will outline in the section on my analysis strategy, I
tested the curvilinear effects by creating dummy codes for the structural conditions, using
the condition for intermediate horizontal interdependence as the comparison group for the
low and high horizontal interdependence condition, and the moderate vertical
interdependence condition as the comparison group for the low and high vertical
interdependence conditions. Statistical power is generally a function Of the alpha level,

the number Of predictors, the anticipated effect size, and the desired statistical power.
Thus, using two predictors (i.e., low and high horizontal interdependence), assuming that
one dimension Of team structure can account for ten percent Of variance in the dependent
variables, and using an alpha level of .05 and a power Of .80 leads tO a required sample
size Of 89 individuals. Many of my hypotheses argue that the effect Of team structure on
self-construals is contingent upon individual difference constructs, such as collectivism,

power distance, cognitive ability, extraversion, or emotional stability. Assuming that the

103

fl‘

.‘

interaction ef
again an alph
18.7 individu:

The 1:
l'niversity do
the subject pt
remitted pan
Supply Chain
Introductory l
indie study it
measures dur‘
he internet at
this to 223.
31-43 years. T
0th particip
limos. 13.99;
Hltpanic, 091

if another eth

This st

it

Ihl-he punk

interaction effect can account for an additional four to five percent of variance, and using
again an alpha level Of .05 and a power Of .80 leads to a required sample size Of 147 —
187 individuals.

The laboratory sessions for this study were conducted at Michigan State
University during the first half Of the summer term. Participants were recruited through
the subject pOOl in the Management Department at Michigan State University. Also, I
recruited participants through other summer classes, including classes such as Marketing,
Supply Chain Management, Information Systems, Retailing, Social Psychology,
Introductory Psychology, and Personality Psychology. Overall, 225 students participated
in the study in 45 5~person teams. Two Of the 225 individuals could not complete survey
measures during the experiment because their respective computers could not connect to
the intemet at the time Of the experiment, which reduced the total sample size Of the
study to 223. Of the participants, 54% were female. The average Of the participants was
21.42 years. Participants had an average 1.12 years Of full-time work experience. 49.8%
of the participants identified themselves as Caucasians, 25.1% identified themselves as
Asians, 13.9% identified themselves as African-American, 3.6% identified themselves as
Hispanic, 0.9% identified themselves as Pacific Islanders, and 6.7% identified themselves
as another ethnicity which was not among the predefined choices.

Task
Overview
This study utilized a simulation which was developed by researchers in the
Management Department at Michigan State University. The simulator was developed

with the purpose Of enabling team research in general, including research that allows an

104

objective nta
leadership I
sizes in the c
environment
integrate mu
targets. Teait
Toe team is
place the ass.
revievied by
recommends
clear respons
structure is it
different sub

This .
llOll' to beSI l
tho“ amount
decision that

can behavii

Team
Points if ihpu

Specifically.

Objective manipulation of subdimensions Of team structure. This simulator, called the
Leadership Development Simulator (LDX), was designed to engage teams with varying
sizes in the common task of discovering and interacting with targets in a defined
environment. The simulation is structured such that teams can only perform well if they
integrate multiple sources Of information in the process Of finding and engaging enemy
targets. Team members are encouraged to talk with each other throughout the simulation.
The team is structured such that four staff members make recommendations on where to
place the assets which are assigned to their specific roles, which are subsequently
reviewed by a mission commander, who can approve, modify, or delete the
recommendations made by staff members. Each team member has a defined role with
clear responsibilities. The specifics Of the roles Of the staff members depend on which
structure is used. I will discuss this in detail when describing how I manipulated the
different subdimensions Of team structure.

This simulation was designed to be a complex task in which teams must decide on
how tO best utilize a large number Of resources (48 assets in each round) in a relatively
short amount Of time. A big advantage of the simulation over commonly used team
decision making simulations is that it provides Objective data on numerous individual and
team behaviors which can be used to test some Of the hypotheses in this dissertation.

Team Objectives

Teams have the Objective Of maximizing their score, which is a function Of four
events: teams gain points by destroying opportunities or threats, but they can also lose
points if their assets are destroyed by a threat or if their bases are attacked by a threat.

Specifically, teams lose 8 points for each asset destroyed by a threat. Teams lost 8 points

105

each turn for
on a small op
Zpoinis for c
Team .lfeittbi

Cons;
has too prim
complemente
provides a bl
s‘a’f member
their roles mi

Specicdized ii

 

ocnion of et
that staff met
tench they Ci

In the
tnfonnation a
information a
members. sta
support the ct
Each Intellige
of assets: V is
deployed to a

each turn for each threat that is adjacent to a base. Teams score 4 points for capitalizing
on a small Opportunity and 16 points for capitalizing on a large Opportunity. Teams score
2 points for destroying a small threat and 4 points for destroying a large threat.

Team Member Roles

Consistent with previous research on team structure (Moon et al., 2004), the LDX
has two primary horizontal role structures: functional and divisional. This can be
complemented by a third horizontal structure, a hybrid structure, which essentially
provides a blend Of the functional and divisional structure. In the functional structure,
staff members have narrowly defined specialized roles, and are responsible for fulfilling
their roles throughout the entire environment. For example, one staff member assumes a
specialized intelligence role (see below) whose task it is to gather information on the
location Of enemy targets. Conversely, in a divisional structure, the task is structured such
that staff members assume primary responsibility for one specific geographical region in
which they command both intelligence and operations assets.

In the LDX, staff members are responsible for two primary actions: gathering
information and engaging enemy targets. Staff members who primarily gather
information about the location Of enemy targets are labeled as “Intelligence” team
members, staff members who primarily engage enemy targets or in activities which
support the engagement of enemy targets are labeled as “Operations’ team members.
Each Intelligence team member has 16 assets to work with. There are four different types
of assets: Visual, Communications, Human, and Allied. Each intelligence asset is
deployed to a single location, and gathers probabilistic information regarding that area of

the environment. In the functional structure, each Intel player has 16 assets of 2 types

106

leg. the Sig.
Communicai
region of the
geographical
ii'hich can be

systematic se

to thy? came 5
to send inteII
trill Cilia."S I
tefened to or
assets is that
the environn
not be destro

In co
They can gai
sill result in
assets is alts:
different type
opportunities
heats. Refu
Info assets g;

Illelligmce e

(e.g., the Signal Intelligence player controls 8 Visual Intelligence assets and 8
Communication Intelligence assets). Each intelligence asset is effective in a different
region of the environment. Thus, one of the key challenges of is to determine in which
geographical region their assets are accurate. This is a difficult problem solving task
which can best be solved if the team develops a coherent strategy on how to engage in
systematic search patterns which allow the identification of the sweet spots of
intelligence assets. This can be accomplished by sending two different intelligence assets
to the same square (referred to as double—sourcing). Another strategy to accomplish this is
to send intelligence assets to the same square as operations assets since operations assets
will always reveal information on enemy targets with 100% accuracy (this strategy is
referred to as cross-validation of intelligence assets). A final characteristic of Intelligence
assets is that they only observe the environment, and thus are never lost when deployed to
the environment. In other words, Visual assets deployed for gathering information will
not be destroyed by environmental entities.

In contrast to Intelligence assets, Operations assets directly engage enemy targets.
They can gain points by destroying enemy targets, but they can also be shot down, which
will result in a loss of points. As I indicated before, information gathered by Operations
assets is always accurate and not probabilistic. Operations assets team members have four
different types of assets: Strike, Escort, Refuel, and Info. Strike assets can engage
opportunities. Escort can destroy threats and protect other operations assets against
threats. Refuel assets enable other assets to reach distant portions of the environment.
Info assets gather information about the location of enemy targets, similar to what the

intelligence assets do, but with the noticeable difference that they will always reveal

107

intimation
his 8 sets

estons‘t. ant

The
Hidden thro
lrge and eit
Whig abos

Tear
hamleship, .1
the comma“
execution pt
mnmn
Ottt all intell
lltfomation
C0Oltllllilte [1
According)

lfllttmmm

The .
Wiener
Chemical ir

information with absolute certainty. In the functional structure, each Operations member

has 8 assets of two types (e.g., Offensive Operations controls four strikes and four

escorts), and is responsible for utilizing their assets in the entire environment.
Simulation Environment

The environment in the LDX consists of a 16 x 16 game grid, totaling 256 squares.
Hidden throughout the grid are threats and opportunities, which can be either small or
large and either fixed or mobile. Also, targets can be mobile or fixed, with mobile targets
moving about the grid throughout the simulation.

Teams engage the simulation in a round-based fashion, much like the game of
battleship. At the beginning of each round, team members deploy their assets, after which
the commander reviews staff members’ recommendations. This will be followed by an
execution phase in which team members see the results of their asset deployments. Teams
can obtain feedback from a maximum of 48 different assets if the team decides to send
out all intelligence and operations assets in one turn. Due to the large amount of
information that the team receives, it is critical that the team finds an effective way to
coordinate the information exchange between players and to integrate subsequent actions.
Accordingly, no single team member can acquire and process all of the team’s
information.

Research Design

The design of the study is a 3 x 3 factorial design, with three levels of horizontal
interdependence (divisional=low, hybridzmedium, and functional=high) and three levels
of vertical interdependence (low, medium, and high). The conditions were fully crossed,

creating a total of 9 experimental conditions.

108

Hurt;
hybrid 0r di“
gpetillt‘ We
Ontarians 3?
greeitlizatifl
hettl'ttll stat
that it requir
etleetit'ely. l
Xunhern pat
his to refuel
Similarly. 0s
and execute

Cont
still membe
gengrnphica
Operations p
hetueen inte

Final
geographica
huetionul us

lfllCllOllal (l5

Manipulations
Team Structure —- Horizontal Interdependence

Horizontal interdependence was manipulated by assigning teams to a functional,
hybrid or divisional structure. In a functional structure, individuals command only one
specific type of asset, that is, they only command offensive operations assets, support
operations assets, signal intelligence assets, or human intelligence assets. The functional
specialization of staff members in a functional structure emphasizes the interdependence
between staff members and the need for coordination. Indeed, the task is structured such
that it requires collective action on the part of all individuals so that the team can function
effectively. For example, offensive operations cannot conduct any missions in the
Northern part of the game grid, unless they receive support from support operations, who
has to refuel all assets who conduct missions in the Northern part of the game grid.
Similarly, operations players depend on intelligence information so that they can deveIOp
and execute a coherent strategy on which targets to attack at what time in the game.

Conversely, interdependency requirements in a divisional structure are low. Here,
staff members are assigned primary and exclusive responsibility for one specific
geographical region. In a divisional structure, players command both intelligence and
operations players, which reduces the dependency on cross-functional communication
between intelligence and operations.

Finally, in a hybrid structure, individuals assume primary responsibility for a
geographical region (the entire West region), in which they command a larger variety of
functional assets, that is, they are not restricted to dealing with only one specific

functional asset, but deal with two different types of functional assets.

109

H‘

V'eru
renditions it
suite to surf
tsu sets of i;
First. utter tl
were asked t
strategy uhi
discussion. I
game which
frequency is
iizeliigenee _
striding tth:
he percents;
’he tune Sqt.
iPpendix A

In at
m'llllltltlon
We lngmm
bereached‘ t
haladecm
leader mm

Washed I

Team Structure — Vertical Interdependence

Vertical interdependence was manipulated by assigning teams to experimental
conditions which vary in the extent to which they confer decision making authority and
voice to staff members. Specifically, vertical interdependence was manipulated through
two sets of instructions which teams will receive and through variations in the game setup.
First, after the initial training and before the start of the actual experiment, participants
were asked to engage in a strategy development session in which they reflected on a
strategy which the team wanted to pursue during the game. In order to facilitate the
discussion, teams were given information on a number of critical strategic aspects of the
game which they then subsequently discussed. This included the decision on the
frequency with which integrated missions are to be conducted (combining operations and
intelligence missions in one round), the extent to which teams are risk-seeking or risk-
avoiding (the number of single- or unescorted missions that the team is conducting), and
the percentage of double-sourced intelligence missions (sending two intelligence assets to
the same square). Instructions for the strategy development session can be found in
Appendix A.

In a condition with low vertical interdependence, all team members received the
information on the different strategic aspects of the game on a sheet of paper. Participants
were instructed to decide on a strategy by reaching consensus, and, if not agreement can
be reached, then the leader should poll all team members regarding their preferences so
that a decision can be reached. In a condition with high vertical interdependence, only the
leader received the information on the strategic aspects of the game, and the instructions

emphasized that the leader would unilaterally decide on the team strategy. The leader

110

fit

their commt‘.
this stategs
senical inter
The team u:
the team can
:n informed

Seen
additional or
processes in
emphasized
together col:
Pallltlpams
Ram memhe
utterdepend,
task is Very
Lnformation
Commander
to take imp,
lmlllfinrent r.
imirfriend
mullet it!
if the lender

then communicated this strategy to the team, and team members were instructed to view
this strategy as binding for the entire team. In a condition with intermediate degrees of
vertical interdependence, all team members received the information on team strategy.
The team was advised that it is the leader’s job to decide on the team’s strategy, but that
the team can make constructive suggestions to the leader which can help him/her come to
an informed decision.

Second, right before the beginning of the simulation, participants received
additional oral instructions on the nature of communication and decision-making
processes in their team. In a low vertical interdependence condition, the instructions
emphasized that the task is very complex, which is why the team members should work
together collaboratively to address the contingencies of this complex task. In addition,
participants in the low vertical interdependence condition were instructed to involve all
team members in decision making processes. Conversely, in a high vertical
interdependence condition, participants received instructions which emphasized that the
task is very complex, which is why it requires one commander who bundles all
information. Thus, the team members should direct their communication at their
commander. Also, the instructions emphasized that it is the commander who is supposed
to take important decisions, and that the staff members should then do their best to
implement those decisions. In a team structure with intermediate degrees of vertical
interdependence, participants received instructions which emphasized that the task is very
complex, which is why there may be situations where it is in the best interest of the team
if the leader makes important decisions, whereas other situations require that all team

members become involved in the decision making processes.

111

Ihi:
atailahle fo:
eoninander
the this sf

condition. tl

 

paring ph
interdepend
stufplaruiir

Four
not. high it
add all deci~
loss vertical
Changes at a
encouraged
discussions
condition. if
its instruct.

f’lt‘ttuled

Asid
from

pamCiPated

Third, I varied the time which the team members and the team leader have
available for their actions. In a condition with high vertical interdependence, the
commander planning phase was expanded to 3:30 minutes, whereas the staff planning
phase was shortened to 1:30 minutes. By contrast, in the low vertical interdependence
condition, the commander planning phase was restricted to 1:30 minute and the staff
planning phase was expanded to 3:30 minutes. For the intermediate vertical
interdependence condition, the commander planning phase lasted 2:30 minutes and the
staff planning phase lasted 2:30 minutes.

Fourth, I varied the impact that the leader has on team decisions. In a condition
with high vertical interdependence, the commander had the authority to change, delete or
add all decisions/moves that staff members made during the staff planning phase. In the
low vertical interdependence condition, the leader was not authorized to make any
changes at all to the moves that the team had decided on before. Instead, the leader was
encouraged to use the time during the commander planning phase to moderate
discussions on the team’s overall strategy. For the intermediate vertical interdependence
condition, the leader was authorized to make changes to staff members’ decisions, but
was instructed to do so only after consulting the staff member whose decision is to be
overruled.

Procedure
Aside from the manipulations, the procedure was the same in all conditions. First,
all participants were randomly assigned to one of two or three five-person teams which
participated in the experiment at the same time. After the random assignment, individuals

entered their respective room. After that, participants completed survey measures on

112

persontdit}
heart and s
explained t
on naming
sening exer
sunulauon.
belongingn.
conclusion
personal We

team identit

Hmltmfttf

Alto
Sllttificall)
listener.
lift roles at
lash; 0f lllt‘
on mlllfmat
Could “01 ht
RESPONSES l
[00 l't’rt‘ tilt
xlctll'ed [ll

Eh Olher. 1

personality variables, stable identity orientations, and baseline levels of personal well-

being and self—efficacy. Participants then watched a 20 minute video training which
explained the basic concept of the simulation, which was followed by a 20 minute hands—
on training of the simulation. Prior to the actual game, all participants completed a goal-
setting exercise and a strategy planning session. After completing the first half of the
simulation, participants provided ratings of their self-construals (that is, perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness experienced during the first half of the game). After
conclusion of the game, participants completed another set of surveys, measuring their
personal well-being, self-efficacy, voice behaviors, learning behaviors, performance, and
team identification.

Measures
Horizontal Interdependence
After completion of the simulation game, manipulation checks were performed.

Specifically, horizontal interdependence was measured with three items adapted from
Kiggundu’s measure of task interdependence. The three items were selected based upon
their relevance for the specific experimental setting. The items read as follows: “The
tasks of the other team members depended on the performance of my task”, “I depended
on information provided by other people so that 1 could perform my task”, and “My task
could not have been performed unless other team members complete their tasks.”
Responses to the items were given by the participant on a scale from I = not at all, to 7 =
to a very great extent. I performed an ANOVA analysis to test whether participants

perceived the three horizontal interdependence conditions as significantly different from

each other. Results indicated significant between- group variation (F = 5.70, p < .01). I

113

also compo
check is het
other two e
experiment.
loss horizon
and high he
Results flll’l
difference l
lhus. the it
because the.
perceit'ed a
all experim.
fading in tl
l"ettical Int.

A m
treasure. Tl
meOll’Etme
litmus-e 0ft
these items‘
itterdepend'
[13mg ellpot
lmlflural as

also compared the mean values of the three horizontal interdependence conditions to
check whether each of the three conditions also differed significantly from each of the
other two experimental conditions. Mean values for the low, moderate, and high
experimental conditions were 5.49, 5.94, and 6.03, respectively. Results indicate that the
low horizontal interdependence condition was perceived as different from the moderate
and high horizontal interdependence conditions (t = 2.77 and t = 3.01, respectively).
Results further indicate, however, that participants did not perceive a significant
difference between the moderate and high horizontal interdependence condition (t = .46).
Thus, the manipulation for horizontal interdependence was only partially successful
because the intermediate and high horizontal interdependence conditions were being
perceived as very similar. Mean values for perceived horizontal interdependence across
all experimental conditions are presented in Table 1. I will discuss the implications of this
finding in the discussion of limitations of this study.
Vertical Interdependence

A manipulation check for vertical interdependence was performed using a 3-item
measure. This measure draws from existing measures of team self»management and team
empowerment. These items were adapted from the self—determination scale of Spreitzer’s
measure of empowerment (1995) and Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) measure. In selecting
these items, I excluded items which confound structural aspects of vertical
interdependence with its psychological consequences, i.e., with the psychological state of
being empowered, and selected the three items which focused to the largest extent on
structural aspects of vertical interdependence AND which were relevant for the specific

simulation used for this study. The following three items were selected: “We made our

114

momma
hhhur
omhut
unsoae
extent. I he
thHm
nhudo
mason
haunt

tondhions.

ouumu
COIltllllong
Pelttlt'ed {l
hohmm
l’lltrdcpmc

MOSS all C;

own choices without being told by our commander”, “we had considerable opportunity
for independence and freedom in how we performed on the simulation”, and “we had
significant autonomy in determining how we completed our tasks.” Responses to the
items were given by the participant on a scale from I = not at all, to 7 = to a very great
extent. I performed an AN OVA analysis to test whether participants perceived the three
vertical interdependence conditions as significantly different from each other. Results
indicated significant between- group variation (F = 6.79, p < .01). I also compared the
mean values of the three vertical interdependence conditions to check whether each of the
three conditions also differed significantly from each of the other two experimental
conditions. Mean values for the low, moderate, and high experimental conditions were
5.71, 5.34, and 4.99, respectively. Results indicate that the low vertical interdependence
condition was perceived as different from the moderate and high vertical interdependence
conditions (I = -2.04 and t = -3.56, respectively). Results further indicate that participants
perceived a significant difference between the moderate and high vertical
interdependence condition (I = -2.16). Thus, the manipulation for vertical
interdependence was successful. Mean values for perceived vertical interdependence

across all experimental conditions are presented in Table 1.

115

fable 1. ll-
lnterdeoett

”—
I

High \‘
luterdep

Moderate
lnterdep

loss 1'
luterdep

\
.lote. ngh

Belonging.

l at
“hat both c.
COlttmitted
l5 lhclr uni
Whereas b6
lllCEtSUted 1
fl al. (30th

ill Reis et

Table l. Manipulation Checks for Horizontal Interdependence and Vertical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interdependence
High Horizontal Moderate Low Horizontal
Interdependence Horizontal Interdependence
W. Interdependence
" ” Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3
4”?" l” '. "'_ 1 Mean Value HI: Mean Value HI: Mean Value HI:
High'Vemcal‘ 5.98 5.85 5.62
Interdependence-
~ Mean Value VI: Mean Value VI: Mean Value VI:
4.98 5.31 4.74
Condition 4 Condition 5 Condition 6 i
I . . Mean Value HI: Mean Value HI: Mean Value HI:
Moderate Vertical 6.13 6.12 5.43
Interdependence
; Mean Value VI: Mean Value VI: Mean Value V1:
5.75 5.26 4.98
Condition 7 Condition 8 Condition 9
. Mean Value HI: Mean Value HI: Mean Value H1:
LOW Vertical 5.93 5.85 5.40
Interdependence
. Mean Value VI: Mean Value VI: Mean Value VI:
5.47 5.82 5.78

 

 

 

 

Note. High values for vertical interdependence indicate high team self-management.

Belongingness

I note that belongingness is conceptually related to team cohesiveness in the sense

that both constructs measure the extent to which individuals feel related, attracted, and

committed to their team (Man & Lam, 2003). What differentiates the constructs, however,

is their unit of analysis. Team cohesiveness constitutes a property of an entire team,

whereas belongingness refers to an individual psychological state. Belongingness was

measured with two measures, including a 3-item relatedness measure adapted from Reis

et al. (2000) and the ‘inclusion of the other in the self‘ scale by Aron et al. (1992). I used

the Reis et al. measure because it is a frequently used measure in research investigating

titlfillmen:
research it.
“During it
connected
he items it
lhe inclus
measure 11‘
in a speciti
relationshi;
to circle.
found to pr
ostehologi
argued that
sharing tha
Empathy to
fill. lhe l
Dlt‘ttttt‘tf't'et

Di:
[ltl‘eloped l
more W:
dfilllltlll'en
blcllgttlttnd

fulfillment of relatedness needs (Sheldon, Elliott, Kim, & Kasser, 2000). Also, previous
research indicates that it is a consistent predictor of individual well-being. The stem read
“During this experiment, I. . and was followed by items such as “felt close and
connected with my team.” The entire list of items is given in the appendix. Responses to
the items were given by the participant on a scale from I = not at all, to 7 = extremely.
The inclusion of the other in the self scale (IOS) by Aron is a single-item pictorial
measure which is intended to capture people’s sense of interpersonal interconnectedness
in a specific context. Specifically, participants selected a picture that best describes their
relationships with others in a given context from a set of Venn-like diagrams where the
two circles representing the self and others overlap in varying degrees. The 108 scale was
found to predict relatedness across cultural settings and is most consistent with the social
psychological notion of closeness as overlapping selves. For example, McAdams (1988)
argued that most definitions of relatedness and intimacy “converge on the central idea of
sharing that which is inmost with others” (p. 18). Similarly, Wegner (1980) asserted that
empathy may “stem in part from a basic confusion between ourselves and others” (p.
133). The belongingness measure demonstrated good internal consistency with a = .92.
Distinctiveness

Distinctiveness was measured with 9 items adapted from two existing measure
developed by Janssen and Huang (2008) and by Vignoles et a1. (2002). The Vignoles et al.
measure was selected because the items of the measure capture important dimensions of
distinctiveness, such as a distinct networking position in a team and difference in terms of
background characteristics/personality. The measure was developed in a sample of

Anglican parish priests to reflect the extent to which priests felt sufficiently distinct

117

within a parish and clergy comparative context. The Vignoles et al. measure
demonstrated adequate internal consistency in previous research. Participants were asked
to use the rating scale to describe their relationship with their team on items such as “to
what extent did you feel that you have a distinctive position in your team”. Responses to
the items were given by the participant on a scale from I = not at all, to 7 = extremely.

In addition to the Vignoles et al. measure, I chose to add the measure of
individual differentiation by Janssen and Huang (2008). Compared to the Vignoles et al.
measure, this measure was specifically developed for a team setting. The measure
showed good internal consistency in previous research (a = .90). For the Janssen and
Huang measure, I excluded items which were not applicable to the specific task in the
laboratory context, such as “I fulfill my role in a very personal manner”. The stem read
“To what extent did you feel different from the members of your team during this
experiment” and was followed by items such as “owing to your remarkable skills and
abilities.” The entire list of items is given in the appendix. Responses to the items were
given by the participants on a scale from I = not at all, to 7 = extremely. The two
distinctiveness measures demonstrated good internal consistency, with a =.78 for the
Vignoles et al. measure and a = .94 for the Janssen and Huang measure.

Results indicate low convergent validity for the two measures of distinctiveness
(see the subsequent discussion of the results of the confirmatory factor analysis). Based
on these results, I have not aggregated the 9 distinctiveness items, into one measure, but
rather treated the two measures as separate constructs of distinctiveness.

For the substantive analysis, I chose to rely on the Janssen and Huang measure

because of two reasons. First, a noteworthy advantage of the Janssen and Huang measure

118

is that it has been validated in a team setting, whereas the Vignoles et al. measure has
been validated in a sample of Anglican parish priests. Second, a closer look at the pattern
of relationships of the two measures with other study constructs reveals that the Janssen
and Huang measure produces research findings which are more consistent with previous
research. Most notably, the Janssen and Huang measure is more strongly correlated with
perceptions of belongingness (r = .49, p < .01, compared to r = .24, p < .01 for the
Vignoles et al. measure). This is consistent with previous research which argued that the
two constructs belongingness and distinctiveness should be moderately strong to strongly
positively correlated with each other (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001). Moreover, the
Janssen and Huang measure was significantly correlated with power distance (r = .20, p
< .01), which is consistent with the notion that individuals who affirm status differentials
are also more likely to seek and acquire central networking positions in teams which
guarantee higher distinctiveness. This significant association was not observed for the
Vignoles et al. measure (r = .05, p > .10).

Collectivism

Collectivism was measured with Jackson et al.’s (2006) scale. This measure
consists of 15 items which capture five subdimensions of collectivism. These are
preference, reliance, concern, norm acceptance, and goal priority. This measure was used
because it captures collectivism as an individual difference construct, acknowledging the
large amount of within-cultural variation in collectivism. Given that my research will
take place in only one cultural setting (the United States) in which participants from a
variety of different backgrounds will take place, this measure allowed me tocapture the

rich nuances in within-cultural variation in collectivism. The instructions for the measure

119

read as follows: “Think about the work groups to which you currently belong (excluding
the team in this experiment) and have belonged to in the past. The items below ask about
your relationship with, and thoughts about, those particular groups. Respond to the
following questions, as honestly as possible, using the response scales provided.” An
exemplary item is “Working in those groups was better than working alone.” The entire
list of items is provided in the Appendix. Responses to the items were given on a scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, and the scale demonstrated
good internal consistency with a = .90.

Power Distance

Power distance was measured with three items adapted from Dorfman and Howell
(1988). Similar to the Jackson’s measure of collectivism, this measure captures power
distance as a culturally-based individual difference construct. This is consistent with my
conceptualization of power distance for this research and the setting of the experiment.
Instructions for the items read as follows: Please indicate the extent to which you agree
with the following statements. An exemplary item is “When my supervisor at work
makes a decision with which I disagree, I prefer to accept it rather than question it.” The
entire list of items is provided in the Appendix. Responses to the items were given on a
scale ranging from I = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, and the scale
demonstrated good internal consistency with a = .82
Extraversion and Emotional Stability

Big Five personality traits were assessed using 4-item scales from the 20-item
Mini-IP1P(Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006), which were created based on

items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et

120

al., 2006; IPIP, 2007). These scales demonstrated good internal consistency in previous
research and are well-accepted measures of the Big Five personality traits. Instructions
read as follows: Listed below are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the
rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe
yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself
as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you
are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner,
your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully,
and then indicate your response to each statement by choosing your answer in the right
column. An exemplary item for extraversion is “I don’t talk a lot”. An exemplary item for
emotional stability is “I have frequent mood swings”. Responses to the items were given
on a scale ranging from I = very inaccurate to 5 = very accurate. The constructs
extraversion and emotional stability had reliabilities of a = .81 and a = .63, respectively.
A full list of the items is provided in the Appendix.
Cognitive Ability
Cognitive ability was measured with the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which is a

commonly used test of cognitive ability. The test consists of 50 questions which increase
in difficulty, and participants had 12 minutes to answer as many questions as they can.
Personal Well-Being

Consistent with previous research on the nature of personal well-being (Watson,
2000), I assessed personal well-being with three constructs: positive affect, negative
affect, and self-evaluative well-being. Positive and negative affect were measured with

the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson & Clark, 1994), with

121

instructions referring to the extent to which the respondent had experienced each of the
adjectives during the duration of the experiment. Specifically, participants indicated the
extent to which 20 adjective descriptors of affect described their affective state during the
experiment. The PANAS is a widely used measure of affective experiences and usually
exhibits high internal consistency. Adjectives for the positive scale include “interested,”
“enthusiastic,” and “excited,” and adjectives for the negative scale include “upset,”
“irritable,” and “distressed.” Responses were given on a scale from I = slightly or not at
all, to 7 = very much. Reliabilities for the measures of positive and negative affect were a
= .91 and a = .88, respectively. The entire list of items is provided in the Appendix.

Each participant also provided an evaluation of his or her self-evaluative well-
being after the experiment with instructions indicating the extent to which five statements
(e. g., making useful contributions and able to face up to my responsibilities) applied to
how they felt during the duration of the experiment. Those five items were taken from the
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ, Goldberg & Williams, 1988). Instructions for the
measure of self-evaluative well-being told participants to focus on the task at hand.
Accordingly, participant responses are based upon the time period just elapsed (i.e., the
time of the experiment) and reflect their well-being state over that period of time.
Instructions read as follows: Please indicate the extent to which you are feeling right now,
that is, in the present moment. An exemplary item is “I am able to concentrate on
whatever I have been doing”. Responses will be given on a scale from I = slightly or not
at all, to 7 = very much, and the reliability for the measure was (1 =90. The entire list of

items is provided in the Appendix.

122

Self—Efi‘icacy

I developed a measure for self—efficacy as a task-specific evaluation of
participants’ self-efficacy based on the method recommended by Bandura (1986) and
Gist and Mitchell (1992), which asks participants to judge their confidence in achieving a
possible range of performance outcomes. Specifically, participants were asked three
questions related to their confidence in achieving an easy, moderate, and difficult
performance score. These benchmarks were taken from the distribution of scores on the
same simulation in the same setting in a previous study. Participants then responded to
each of the three questions on an 11-point scale ranked from 0 (=not at all) to 10
(extremely confident). The average of these three responses was used as the participant’s
self-efficacy score.
Voice

Voice was assessed with a six items measure adapted from the voice scale
deve10ped by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). The items were adapted to reflect the
specific laboratory setting. Also, the item “I spoke up in this group with ideas for new
projects and changes in procedures” was drOpped from the original 7-item scale because
it is not applicable to the laboratory setting. Participants were instructed to indicate the
extent to which they engaged in a series of behaviors during the experiment. An
exemplary item is “I communicated my opinions about important aspects of our team
behavior even if my Opinion was different and others in the team disagreed with me.”
Responses were given on a scale from 1 = not at all, to 7 = to a very great extent. The

reliability of the measure was a = .93. The entire list of items is provided in the Appendix.

123

Individual Learning

Individual learning was assessed by having each participant evaluate the learning
behaviors of each other participant. For this purpose, I adapted four items from the
learning measure by Edmundson (1999) to fit the specific laboratory context. Participants
were instructed to rate the extent to which they agreed with the statements which describe
the behavior of their team members during the simulation, rating each team member’s
behavior individually. An exemplary item is “This team member actively reviewed
his/her own progress and performance”. The entire list of items is provided in the
Appendix. Responses to the items were given on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Since I used the average observer ratings for each team
member, I computed the interrater and group-mean reliability of learning ratings to assess
whether there was adequate agreement in team members’ perceptions of individuals’
learning behavior. Results indicate significant interrater reliability (ICC I = .19, p < .01).
Also, group-mean reliability was acceptable (ICCZ = .49).
Individual Performance

Individual performance was assessed by having each participant evaluate the
performance of each other participant. For this purpose, I adapted the four-item measure
of task performance developed by Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell (1993). Participants were
instructed to rate the extent to which they agree with the statements which describe the
behavior of a specific team member during the simulation. An exemplary item is “The
overall level of performance that I have observed for this team member is outstanding.”
Reliability for the measure was a = .90. The entire list of items is provided in the

Appendix. Responses to the items were given on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly

124

disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Since I used the average observer ratings for each team
member, I computed the interrater and group-mean reliability of performance ratings to
assess whether there was adequate agreement in team members’ perceptions of
individuals’ learning behavior. Results indicate significant interrater reliability (IC C 1
= .21, p < .01). Also, group-mean reliability was acceptable (ICCZ = .52).
Team Identification

Team identification was assessed with a four-item measure adapted from Allen
and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment scale. Ellemers, Kortekaas and Ouwerkirk
(1999) and Van der Vegt and Bunderson (2005) suggested that the affective commitment
scale of Allen and Meyer captures the emotional component of social identification and
thus represents an adequate measure for the purpose of this study. Participants were
instructed to rate the extent to which they agree with four statements which describe the
extent to which the individual team member identifies with the team. An exemplary item
is “I feel emotionally attached to this team”. The entire list of items is provided in the
Appendix. Responses to the items were given on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7
= to a very great extent. Reliability for the measure was a = .93.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

For this study, I drew exclusively on measures which were previously validated.
Nevertheless, before performing substantive analyses, I ensured that the individual items
load on the appropriate construct and that cross—loadings are low by performing a series
of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Because I measured constructs at three different

times, I performed three different CFAs. The first CFA included self-rated measures at

125

time 1, which includes the culturally-based individual differences, extraversion,
neuroticism, and baseline measures of well-being and self-efficacy. These items were
meant to represent eight different constructs, including collectivism, power distance,
extraversion, emotional stability, positive affect, negative affect, self-evaluative well-
beirrg and self-efficacy. Therefore, I ran a one—factor model with all items loading on one
common factor, and an eight-factor model, with items loading on their respective
hypothesized constructs. In addition, Iran a six-factor model in which the items for the
constructs positive affect, negative affect, and self-evaluative well-being all load on one
factor, and a seven-factor model where the items for collectivism and power distance all
load on one factor. This is because previous research found that collectivism and power
distance are generally moderately strong correlated, just as the correlations among the
three constructs positive affect, negative affect, and self-evaluative well-being are
generally of a moderate nature. I evaluated the comparative fit indices (CFI), root mean-
squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and the x2 values for the various models,
which allowed me to determine whether the hypothesized measurement model fits the
data adequately. An analysis of the three fit statistics for the various models indicates
that the eight-factor model fit the data best such that each construct loaded on its own
factor. This is evidenced by the lowest 38‘ (4072.86, 1456 df) and RMSEA values (.09)
and the highest CFI values (.83). In addition, the eight-factor model fit the data
significantly better than the seven-factor model (Ax2 = 81.69, 7 df, p < .01).

The second CFA includes the self-rated perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness, provided after completion of the first half of the simulation. Here, I ran a

one-factor model, a two—factor model, and a three-factor model. I ran the three factor

126

model to test whether the items for my distinctiveness measure which represent two
different measures for distinctiveness loaded on one construct, or whether the two
distinctiveness measures actually capture two different distinctiveness constructs. Fit
indices of these three different models suggest that a three factor-model created the best
fit with the data, evidenced by the lowest x2 (245.40, 51 df) and RMSEA values (.14), and
the highest CFI value (.93). Moreover, a three-factor model fit the data significantly
better than a two—factor model (Ax = 133.36, 2 df, p < .01). Based on these findings, I did
not aggregate the items from the two different distinctiveness measures. Instead, I chose
to compute two different distinctiveness constructs. Additional analysis revealed that the
items from the Vignoles et a1. (2002) distinctiveness measure exhibits relatively poor
psychometric properties, evidenced by low factor loadings of the individual items such
that I only relied on the distinctiveness measure developed by Janssen and Huang (2008)
for the substantive analysis.

The third CFA includes the self-rated measures of positive affect, negative affect,
self-evaluative well-being, self-efficacy, voice, and team identification, provided after the
end of the simulation. Responses were subjected to a CFA with one-factor and six-factor
models. In addition, I ran a four-factor model in which all items for the constructs
positive affect, negative affect, and self-evaluative well—being load on the same factor.
Examination of the comparative fit indices (CFI), root mean-squared error of
approximation (RMSEA), and the x2 values for the three models revealed that the six
factor model fit the best, evidenced by the lowest )8 (1323.27, 650 dj) and RMSEA

values (.07) and the highest CFI value (.96). In addition, the six-factor model fit the data

127

significantly better than the four-factor model (Ax2 = 1676.73, 9 df, p < .01). The results
of the confirmatory factor analyses are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

 

Model df x2 CFI RMSEA

 

Measures: T1 (Before

Simulation)

One-factor model 1484 8235.56 .53 .17
Six-factor model 1469 5261.68 .75 .13
Seven-factor model 1463 4154.55 .82 .10
Eight-factor model 1456 4072.86 .83 .09
Measures: T2 (After

completion of first half

of the simulation)

One-factor model 54 684.09 .78 .24

Two-factor model 53 378.76 .88 .17

Three-factor model 51 245.40 .93 . 14

Measures: T3 (After

Simulation)

One-factor model 665 8297.31 .79 .23
Four-factor model 659 3000.82 .88 .18
Six-factor model 650 1323 .27 .96 .07
Notes. N = 223.

CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation;

Correlations between Study Variables
Table 3 provides an overview of descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
between the study variables for team members (below the diagonal) and for leaders

(above the diagonal). Examining the correlation matrix reveals that the two constructs

128

belongingness and distinctiveness are positively related to each other. The relationships
between the two constructs is moderate in nature for team members (r = .34, p < .01) and
strong for leaders (r = .63, p < .01). This is consistent with previous research which finds
that the two constructs belongingness and distinctiveness are not opposite ends of one
continuum, but moderately to strongly related to each other (Bettencourt & Sheldon,
2001).

In a next step, I investigated the correlations between belongingness and
distinctiveness and the criteria of this study. Even though I did not advance formal
hypotheses on the relationships between belongingness and distinctiveness with study
outcomes, the magnitude of these relationships will be important for the subsequent
discussion of my study findings and their implications for optimal distinctiveness theory.
Team member perceptions of belongingness have a relationship of small to moderate
magnitude with team member perceptions of self-efficacy (r = .24, p < .01) and learning
(r = .18, p < .05), a moderate to strong relationship with positive affect (r = .41, p < .01),
self-evaluative well-being (r = .37, p < .01), and voice (r = .44, p < .01), and the
relationship between team member perceptions of belongingness and team identification
is strong (r = .62, p < .01). Similarly, leader perceptions of belongingness are
Significantly correlated with leader voice behaviors (r = .39, p < .01) and team

identification (r = .50, p < .01).

129

8.1.2.895.

.MNN M Z 2928 82:0 05 .882 8.283% @8288 van 2822
.5: .I. Z :25ch 2.: 95% 0.8 2282 28 30:22-50 ”m: M Z 3.83% 05 323 08 8382: E22 28 25:22.80 .202

 

 

:2. .2.- 8.- 8. .2. :8. :8. :8. 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 22 8.4 888882 .2
2. :8. :8. .2. 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.2. 8886282
8. .2. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- .2. :8.- 8. :8. 2.- 8. 8.2. 8:83 .2
:8. 8. .2. :2. 8. .2. :8. :8. 8.- 8.- .2. 8.- 8. 8.8 88> .2
:8. 8.- 2. 2. 8.- 8. .2. :8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.2 8.» 8826.28 .2
:8. :8. :8. 8. 8.- :8. 8. :8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8.8 88283.2
:8.- :8.- ..8.- 8.- 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 2.- 2. 8. 8.2 82.... 8882.2
t :8. 8. 2. 8. .2. 2. :3. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 88 2822 8288 .2
2. .- :. 8. 8.- 2.- 8.- .2.- .2.- :. 8. 8. 88 88 22288880.:
8. 2. t 8. 8. 2. 8. .2. 8.- 8.- 2. 8.- 8. 28 888868882
2. 8. 2. t 2.- 8. 8.- 2. 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 8. 8.8 828885 .8
2. 2.- 8.- 8. r :. 8. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.2 8.4 8820838 .8
8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. t 8. :8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 2.8 888860 .8
8. 8. 2.- 8. .8. .8. t :8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 2.2 28. 88:88:85 8
:. :. 8. 2. 2. :8. :8. t 8.- 8.- 8. :.- 2.2 28 8882828 .m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8888888
8 8- 8 8 8 8- a- 2- t :8- 8 8- 2. 8 8222;82 .2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8888888
8 : 2 2- 8- : 8- 2- :8- t 8- 8 8 8 828>33 .m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8888888
8 2- 8 8- 8- 8- 2 - 8 8 8- t :8- 2. 8 8886: 82: .N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8888888
.8- 2 2- 2- 8 2- 8- 2- 8- 8 :8- t 2. 8 8858233 .2
2 : 2 a w 8 8 m a. m N 2 am 2 2829

 

25232th 222 26.2.2223 MzhkibamQ .m 03mg.

130

. .mNN .I.. Z 03:28 05:0 05 :8 32
m: H 2 8:282: 05 0.52: 0:: 20282 :8 82020200 ”mi N Z 8:082: 05 3202 08 20280:: E

._O.VQ** .mo.V2.*

83020 20:20:28 :5 2802

:0: :8 30220200 .222

 

 

 

I 8.- :0. :28: .8. :8. 02. 8:822:02 .8
m2.- 1 1%. :8. 2. ..mm. .3... 0082:0202 .3
8. :8. .. .2. 8. 8. 8.- 2:28.. .2

:8. 8. 2.- .. :8. :8. z.- 82o> .2
:8. 2.- 8.- 8. I :8. 8. 8820-28 .2
2. 2. 2. 8. :8. i 2.- 880-83 .2
2m. cm... 3.. vor 5. mac 1 :00.t< 0>zmw0z .2
vm. S. 2. mm. :3. ...mm. 8.. :00:< 030802 .2
3.- 1;. 2. .om. mm: 8. :3.- 825: 03::on .:
8.- .2... 8. 8. 8. .8. :8.- .88 8888: .2
mm. 3... N2. :8. S. 8.. mm.- 222082me .0
om. 3.- .mm: om. we. E. «.0. 00:22Q 20302 .w
.8. 8.- 2.- .8. 8. 8. 8.- 828880 .2-
..Nv. co.- oo.. 2.22.. Lm. a2. 3.- 8053202220 .0
:8. 2. 8. :8. 8. 8. 2.- 888%88: 8
.- .- . . . . . 00:0::0 2200:—

8 mo 81... .2 - we - No we - 80E0> :2: .v
. . .3 . . . . 00:0 :03 :00:—
8- 8 21 8 8- 8 2 - ENEMBS .8
. . . . . . 00:0 :30 2002
2- 8 - 2 .8 .. 8. 2 2- _saowgznswi .m
. . . 00:0 :03 :00:—
oc 3 N2 - no. war mm: 3. _SEWNEB-WBS .2

a. w. E m: 2 3 m— 03223

 

 

8.22.230th 35 8.028222% 0:22.20an 2002:2250 m 0302.

131

Team member perceptions of distinctiveness are significantly correlated with
three of the study outcomes and the relationships are small to moderate in nature (r = .17,
p < .05 for self-efficacy; r: .22, p < .01 for team identification; r = .33, p < .01 for voice
behaviors). A similar pattern emerges for leader perceptions of distinctiveness, which
also shares significant relationships with the same three study outcomes (r = .31, p < .01
for self-efficacy; r = .41, p < .01 for voice behaviors, and r = .42, p < .01 for team
identification), albeit somewhat stronger in magnitude.

Next, I examined the relationships among the criteria of this study, starting with
team member positive affect, negative affect and self-evaluative well-being. The
correlation of positive affect with selfcevaluative well-being was positive and strong in
nature (r = .51, p < .01) for team members, whereas the relationship of positive affect
with negative affect was negative and only of moderate strength for team members (r = -
.32, p < .01). This is consistent with previous research which finds that positive and
negative affect are independent constructs which fluctuate relatively independent of each
other (Watson, 2000). The relationship between negative affect and self-evaluative well-
being was not statistically significant for team members. A similar pattern of
relationships emerges for leaders. Again, positive affect exhibits a strong and positive
relationship with self-evaluative well-being (r = .53, p < .01). For leaders, positive affect
was not significantly related to negative affect (r = -.02, p < .01).

The relationships of the three components of subjective well-being with other

study outcomes were also similar for team members and for team leaders. For example,
positive affect and self-evaluative well-being exhibited correlations of moderate strength

with voice behaviors for both team members (r = .21 , p < .01 for positive affect; r = .36,

132

p < .01 for self-evaluative well-being) and for leaders (r = .25, p < .01 for positive affect,
and r = .25, p < .01 for self-evaluative well-being). Similarly, effect sizes for correlations
among study outcomes not related to subjective well-being are generally small or not
significant for both team members and for leaders. An exception is the magnitude of the
relationships between leader identification and other leader outcomes. For example,
leader identification has a moderately strong to strong relationship with constructs such
as self-efficacy and voice (r = .39, p < .01 and r = .56, p < .01, respectively). The effect
sizes for the relationships of team member identification with self—efficacy and voice are
of a lower magnitude for team members (r = .15, p < .05 and r = .28, p < .01,
respectively).
Effects of Team Structure on Self-Construals for Team Members
To reiterate, I developed differential predictions for the four team members and
their respective team leader. In this section, I will discuss the data analysis strategy and
the results for the effects of the two dimensions of team structure on team member
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. Hypothesis I predicted that horizontal
interdependence would exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship with a) team member
perceptions of belongingness and b) team member perceptions of distinctiveness such
that intermediate degrees of horizontal interdependence would be associated with highest
levels of team member belongingness and distinctiveness. Hypotheses 2 predicted that,
vertical interdependence would also exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship a) with
team member perceptions of belongingness and b) team member perceptions of
distinctiveness such that intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence would be

associated with highest levels of belongingness and distinctiveness.

133

In order to test these hypotheses, I used ordinary least square regression. I dummy
coded the dimensions of team structure, using the conditions with intermediate degrees of
horizontal and vertical interdependence as the comparison groups for the two
experimental manipulations, respectively. Essentially, the regression coefficients for the
dummy codes and their significant tests are a comparison of the mean of this
experimental condition (i.e., low horizontal interdependence) with the reference group

(i.e., moderate horizontal interdependence). For example, the regression coefficient for
the dummy-coded low horizontal interdependence condition indicates the strength of the
relationship between low horizontal interdependence and the outcome (i.e., perceptions
of belongingness) relative to the strength of the relationship between moderate horizontal
interdependence and the outcome. If there is indeed a curvilinear relationship between
horizontal interdependence (vertical interdependence) and self-construals as predicted,
then both the low and high conditions for horizontal interdependence (vertical
interdependence) should be associated with lower levels of self-construals relative to the
condition with intermediate degrees of horizontal interdependence (vertical
interdependence).

Results of the regression analysis indicate that the contrast low-intermediate
horizontal interdependence had a marginally significant effect on team member
perceptions of belongingness (,8 = -. 15, p < .10) such that low horizontal interdependence
is associated with lower levels of belongingness than intermediate degrees of horizontal
interdependence. The effect of the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence

on team member perceptions of belongingness was not statistically significant (,8 = -.08, p

> .10). Also, the overall F value for the effects of the contrasts low-intermediate and

134

high-intermediate horizontal interdependence on team member perceptions of
belongingness was not significant (F = 1.46; p > .10). Thus, hypothesis Ia was not
supported.

Results of the regression analysis further indicate that low and high horizontal
interdependence were not associated with lower levels of team member distinctiveness
when compared to intermediate degrees of horizontal interdependence. This is evidenced
by the non-significant regression coefficients obtained for the effects of the contrasts low-
interrnediate and hi gh-intermediate horizontal interdependence on team member
perceptions of distinctiveness (,B = —.O4, p > .10 for both the effects of the contrasts low-
intermediate and hi gh-intermediate horizontal interdependence on team member
perceptions of distinctiveness). Thus, hypothesis lb was not supported.

A similar pattern emerges for the effects of vertical interdependence on team
member perceptions of belongingness. Here, the effect of the contrast low- intermediate
vertical interdependence on team member perceptions of belongingness was marginally
significant (,6 = -.14, p < .10), whereas the effect of the contrast high-intermediate vertical
interdependence on team member perceptions of belongingness was not statistically
significant ([3 == —.12, p > . 10). Both the effects of the contrasts low-intermediate and high-
intermediate vertical interdependence on team member perceptions of distinctiveness
were not statistically significant (,8 = -.00, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate
vertical interdependence; [3 = .04, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate vertical

interdependence). Thus, hypotheses 2a and 2b were not supported. See Tables 4, 5, 6, and
7 for additional details regarding these results.

Effects of Team Structure on Self-Construals for Leaders

13S

Contrary to the curvilinear relationships developed in hypotheses 1 and 2, the
hypotheses related to the effects of team structure on leader perceptions of belongingness
and distinctiveness were of a linear nature. Hypothesis 3 predicted linear and positive
relationships between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness, and hypothesis 4 predicted a linear and positive
relationship between vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness
and distinctiveness.

Similar to the analysis for hypotheses 1-2, I entered the dummy coded main
effects in a regression analysis, using intermediate levels of horizontal interdependence
and vertical interdependence again as the comparison groups. Support for the hypotheses
would be obtained if the contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence (vertical
interdependence) was negatively associated with leader self-construals and the contrast
high-intermediate horizontal interdependence (vertical interdependence) was positively
associated with leader self-construals.

Results of the regression analysis indicate that the contrasts low-intermediate and
high-intermediate horizontal interdependence were not significantly related to leader
perceptions of belongingness (fl = —. 19, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate
horizontal interdependence; ,8 = -.O6, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal
interdependence). Thus, hypothesis 3a was not supported. Also, the contrast low-
intermediate horizontal interdependence was not related to leader perceptions of
distinctiveness (,8 = -.21, p > .10), and there was a marginally significant relationship
between the contrast hi gh-intermediate horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions

of distinctiveness (,6 = -.29, p < .10). I note that the negative sign of the regression

136

coefficient for the effect of the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence on
leader perceptions of distinctiveness runs counter to the predicted linear and positive
relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness.
I further note, however, that the F-value for the regression analysis was not significant (F
= 1.48, p > .10). In sum, I conclude that hypotheses 3b was not supported.

Next, I examine the relationship between vertical interdependence and leader
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness, as proposed in hypotheses 4a and 4b.
Results of the regression analysis show a marginally significant effect of the contrast
low-intermediate vertical interdependence on leader member perceptions of
belongingness (,8 = —.30, p < .10), and a marginally significant effect of the contrast high-
intermediate vertical interdependence on leader perceptions of belongingness (fl = -.28, p
< .10). Again, the F-value for the regression analysis was not significant (F = 2.16, p
> .10). Consistent with the findings obtained for hypothesis 3b, I note that the pattern of
this finding runs counter to the predicted linear and positive relationship between vertical
interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness. Instead, it seems as if the
nature of the relationship between vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of
belongingness would adhere to the nature of the predicted effects for team members as
both regression coefficients for the effects of the contrasts low-intermediate and high-
intermediate vertical interdependence are negative. In sum, I conclude that hypothesis 4a
is not supported.

Results of the regression analysis further indicate that the contrast low-
intermediate vertical interdependence was not related to leader perceptions of

distinctiveness (,B = -.16, p > .10) and that the relationship between the contrast high-

137

intermediate vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness was
marginally significant (,6 = -.29, p < .10). Again, the overall F—value for the regression
analysis was not significant (F = 1.51, p > .10). Interestingly, both regression coefficients
were negative again, despite not reaching commonly accepted levels of statistical
significance. I conclude that hypothesis 4b was not supported. See Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11
for details regarding these results.
Internal Fit Hypotheses for Team Members

I further predicted that the internal fit between team structure and culturally-based
individual difference constructs (hypotheses 5-8; collectivism, power distance) and the fit
between team structure and other individual difference constructs (hypotheses 9-16;
extraversion, cognitive ability, emotional stability) would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between the two dimensions of team structure and team member perceptions
of belongingness and distinctiveness. To test these hypotheses, I used hierarchical
regression analysis in which I entered the dummy codes for the low horizontal
interdependence condition (low vertical interdependence) and high horizontal
interdependence condition (high vertical interdependence) in step 1. In step 2, I entered
the main effects of the individual difference constructs, followed by the interaction
effects for the structural conditions with the moderating variable in step 3. For example,
hypothesis 5 predicts that collectivism moderates the curvilinear relationship between
horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness. Thus, to test this prediction,
I entered the dummy codes for the low horizontal interdependence condition and the high
horizontal interdependence condition in step 1 of the hierarchical regression analysis. In

step 2, I then entered the main effect for collectivism, which was followed by the two

138

interaction effects representing the moderating influence of collectivism on the
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness.

I created the two interaction terms by multiplying the dummy coded structural
variables low and high horizontal interdependence by collectivism. I followed Cohen,
Cohen, West, and Aiken’s (2003) recommendation to center the predictors around their
mean before computing the interaction term. Again following recommendations by
Cohen et al. (2003), I examined the regression of belongingness on horizontal
interdependence at one of three different levels of collectivism -— low (one standard
deviation below the mean of collectivism), moderate (mean of collectivism), and high
(one standard deviation above the mean of collectivism).

Hypothesis 5 predicted that collectivism would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between horizontal interdependence and team member perceptions of
belongingness such that team members with high collectivism would experience high
belongingness at high levels of horizontal interdependence, whereas team members with
low collectivism would experience low belongingness at high levels of horizontal
interdependence. Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes
(representing the contrast between the low and intermediate horizontal interdependence
condition and the contrast between the high and intermediate horizontal interdependence
condition) and collectivism were not significantly related to perceptions of belongingness
(,6 = -.01, p > .10 for the interaction term for low horizontal interdependence and

collectivism, and fl = .04, p > .10 for the interaction term for high horizontal

interdependence and collectivism). Thus, hypothesis 5 was not supported (see Table 4).

139

Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Horizontal
Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness - Team Member (excl. Team Leader)

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

 

Variables [3 [3 [3
Step I : Independent
Low Horizontal Interdependence -.154r -.l7* -.19*
High Horizontal Interdependence -.08 -.08 -.08
Step 2: Moderators
Collectivism '26*.* .27**
Extraversion .13 L .l 1*
Cognitive Ability -.13' -.14'
Step 3: Interactive eflects
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism -.01
High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .04
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .11
High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .21*
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability .13
High Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability .03
R2 ' .02 .12 .16
F 1.46 4.86** 3.00**
lVote. N = 178.

'p<.10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that collectivism would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such
that team members with high collectivism would experience high distinctiveness at high
levels of horizontal interdependence, whereas team members with low collectivism
would experience low distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is high. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and collectivism were not
significantly related to perceptions of distinctiveness (,6 = .03, p > .10 for the interaction

term for low horizontal interdependence and collectivism, and fl = .06, p > .10 for the

140

interaction term for high horizontal interdependence and collectivism). Thus, hypothesis

6 was not supported (see Table 5).

Table 5. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Horizontal

Interdependence and Perceptions of Distinctiveness — Team Member (excl. Team Leader)

 

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Variables 13 fi 13
Step 1: Independent

Low Horizontal Interdependence -.O4 -.04 -.03

High Horizontal Interdependence «.04 -.O4 -.03
Step 2: Moderators

Collectivism .04 .03

Extraversion .00 .01

Cognitive Ability -.05 -.07
Step 3: Interactive effects

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .03

High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .06

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .04

High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion -.01

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability .01

High Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability .08

R2 .00 .01 .01

F .09 .18 .19

 

lVote. N = 178.
'p< .10, *p< .05, **p< .Ol.

Hypothesis 7 predicted that power distance would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that
team members with high power distance values would experience high belongingness at
high levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low p0wer distance
values would experience low belongingness when vertical interdependence is high.

Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and power distance

141

values were not significantly related to perceptions of belongingness (,8 = .07, p > .10 for
the interaction term for low vertical interdependence and power distance values, and ,8 == -

.11, p > .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and power distance

values). Thus, hypothesis 7 was not supported (see Table 6).

Table 6. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Vertical
Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness - Team Members (excl. Team

Leader)

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

Variables [3 B )3
Step 1: Independent
Low Vertical interdependence -.14Jr "11. -.10
High Vertical interdependence -.12 -.13' -.13
Step 2: Moderators &
Power Distance .13' .14V
Emotional Stability .19** .22**
Cognitive Ability -.17* -. 18*
Step 3: Interactive efi‘ects
Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. .07
High Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. -.11
Low Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -. 12
High Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.03
Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.07
High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.07
R2 .02 .10 .14
F 1.64 3.66** 2.49**

 

lVote. N = 178.
'p< .10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Hypothesis 8 predicted power distance would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of distinctiVeness such that
team members with high power distance values would experience high distinctiveness at

high levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low power distance

142

values would experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is high.
Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and power distance
values were not significantly related to perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .04, p > .10 for
the interaction term for low vertical interdependence and power distance values, and ,8 == -

.08, p > .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and power distance

values). Thus, hypothesis 8 was not supported (see Table 7).

Table 7. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Vertical
Interdependence and Perceptions of Distinctiveness — Team Members (excl. Team

Leader)

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

 

Variables E j )3
Step I : Independent
Low Vertical interdependence -.00 .01 .04
High Vertical interdependence .04 .04 .05
Step 2: Moderators
Power Distance .07 .06
Emotional Stability .09 . 12
Cognitive Ability —.O6 —.05
Step 3: Interactive effects
Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. .04
High Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. -.08
Low Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.10
High Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.05
Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.22:"
High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.15’
R2 .00 .02 .08
F .159 .60 1.30
Time. N = 178.

*p< .10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Hypothesis 9 predicted that extraversion would moderate the curvilinear

relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such

143

that extraverted team members will experience high belongingness at high levels of
horizontal interdependence, whereas introverted team members will experience low
belongingness when horizontal interdependence is high. Results indicate that the
interaction effect of the dummy code for the high horizontal interdependence condition
and extraversion were significantly related to perceptions of belongingness (8 = .21, p
< .05; the interaction term for low horizontal interdependence and extraversion was not
significant, 8 = .11, p > .10). Thus, hypothesis 9 was supported (see Table 4). Figure 6
illustrates the pattern of the interaction effect in support of hypothesis 9.

Figure 6. Moderating Effect of Team Member Extraversion on Relationship between
Horizontal Interdependence and Team Member Perceptions of Belongingness

 

r «a Low Extraversion -I 'Mod Extraversion +ngh Extraversioanl

L

 

5.5

5:4 . /

 

 

 

 

9‘

\\
, k

I
(I

I

 

9'

.a

\
V

 

0'1

 

 

 

 

Belongingnesss
l

 

:h
0
r

 

4.7

 

 

 

4.6 r
Low HI Mod HI High HI

Hypothesis 10 predicted that extraversion would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such

that extraverted team members would experience high distinctiveness at high levels of

144

horizontal interdependence, whereas introverted team members would experience low
distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is high. Results indicate that the
interaction effects of the two dummy codes and extraversion were not significantly
related to perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .04, p > .10 for the interaction term for low
horizontal interdependence and extraversion, and 8 = —.01, p > .10 for the interaction term
for high horizontal interdependence and extraversion). Thus, hypothesis 10 was not
supported (see Table 5).

Hypothesis 11 predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such
that team members with high cognitive ability would experience high belongingness at
low levels of horizontal interdependence, whereas individuals with low cognitive ability
would experience low belongingness when horizontal interdependence is low. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and cognitive ability were
not significantly related to perceptions of belongingness (8 = .13, p > .10 for the
interaction term for low horizontal interdependence and cognitive ability, and 8 = .03, p
> .10 for the interaction term for high horizontal interdependence and cognitive ability).
Thus, hypothesis 11 was not supported (see Table 4).

Hypothesis 12 predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such
that team members with high cognitive ability would experience high distinctiveness at
low levels of horizontal interdependence, whereas team members with low cognitive
ability would experience low distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence is low.

Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and cognitive ability

145

were not significantly related to perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .01, p > .10 for the
interaction term for low horizontal interdependence and cognitive ability, and 8 = .08, p
> .10 for the interaction term for high horizontal interdependence and cognitive ability).
Thus, hypothesis 12 was not supported (see Table 5).

Hypothesis 13 predicted that emotional stability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that
team members with high emotional stability would experience high belongingness at low
levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low emotional stability
would experience low belongingness when vertical interdependence is low. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and emotional stability were
not significantly related to perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.12, p > .10 for the
interaction term for low vertical interdependence and emotional stability, and 8 = -.03, p
> .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and emotional stability).
Thus, hypothesis 13 was not supported (see Table 6).

Hypothesis 14 predicted that emotional stability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that
team members with high emotional stability would experience high distinctiveness at low
levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low emotional stability
would experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and emotional stability were
not significantly related to perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.10, p > .10 for the

interaction term for low vertical interdependence and emotional stability, and 8 = -.05, p

146

> .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and emotional stability).
Thus, hypothesis 14 was not supported (see Table 7).

Hypothesis 15 predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such that
team members with high cognitive ability would experience high belongingness at low
levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low cognitive ability
would experience low belongingness when vertical interdependence is low. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and cognitive ability were
not significantly related to perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.07, p > .10 for the
interaction term for low vertical interdependence and cognitive ability, and 8 = -.07, p
> .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and cognitive ability).
Thus, hypothesis 15 was not supported (see Table 6).

Hypothesis 16 predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the curvilinear
relationship between vertical interdependence and perceptions of distinctiveness such that
team members with high cognitive ability would experience high distinctiveness at low
levels of vertical interdependence, whereas team members with low cognitive ability
would experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low. Results
indicate that the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and cognitive ability were
significantly or marginally significantly related to perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.22,
p < .05 for the interaction term for low vertical interdependence and cognitive ability, and
8 = -.15, p < .10 for the interaction term for high vertical interdependence and cognitive
ability). Figure 7 illustrates the pattern of the interaction effect. Contrary to the

hypothesized effect, team members with low cognitive ability experience high

147

distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low, whereas team members with high
cognitive ability experience low distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low.
Thus, hypothesis 16 was not supported (see Table 7). The nature of the significant
interaction effect is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Moderating Eflect of Team Member Cognitive Ability on Relationship between
Vertical Interdependence and Team Member Perceptions of Distincti veness

 

p . Low Cog Abamy - -Mod CogAbimx +83%

 

 

 

‘7‘
6 ._x
‘ “3’
'0 v
5 u‘
fl
5 A: 42 "'
3.9—i—
P-—-—-_a.—-—-—-—-".

 

 

Distinctiveness
u
at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low VI Mod VI High VI

Internal Fit Hypotheses for Leaders
As previously noted, hypotheses 3 and 4, which predicted positive and linear
effects of horizontal interdependence and vertical interdependence on leader perceptions
of belongingness and distinctiveness, were not supported. Instead, it appears as if the
effects of horizontal interdependence and vertical interdependence on leader perceptions
of belongingness and distinctiveness exhibit a pattern which is similar to the pattern of

the hypothesized effects for team members such that low and high levels of horizontal

148

and vertical interdependence are associated with lower levels of belongingness and
distinctiveness. In fact, all regression coefficients for the main effects of low and high
horizontal interdependence and low and high vertical interdependence on leader
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness were negative, albeit only four out of
eight reached statistical significance (p < .05) or marginal statistical significance (p < .10).

This also calls into question the nature of the hypothesized interaction effects in
hypotheses 17-20, which build on the predictions of hypotheses 3 and 4. Specifically,
hypotheses 17-20 predicted that cultural variables or personality characteristics will
neutralize or enhance the linear and positive relationship between the two dimensions of
team structure and perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. Based on the
empirical results for hypothesis 3 and 4 it is important to now also consider the
possibility of a curvilinear relationship between horizontal and vertical interdependence
and leader perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness when testing whether cultural
variables or other individual difference constructs moderate the relationship between
team structure and leader self-construals.

Hypothesis 17a predicted that collectivism would moderate the effect of
horizontal interdependence on leader perceptions of belongingness such that it would
enhance the positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader
perceptions of belongingness. Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two
dummy codes and collectivism were not significantly related to leader perceptions of
belongingness (8 = .04, p > .10 for the interaction term for low horizontal

interdependence and collectivism, and 8 = -. 17, p > .10 for the interaction term for high

149

horizontal interdependence and collevtism). Thus, hypothesis 17a was not supported (see

Table 8).

Table 8. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Horizontal
Interdependence and Leader Perceptions of Belongingness

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

Variables B 8 I}
Step I : Independent
Low Horizontal interdependence -. 19 -.09 -.08
High Horizontal interdependence -.06 .01 .06
Step 2: Moderators
Leader Collectivism .39* .40*
Leader Extraversion .09 .08

Step 3: Interactive efi‘ects

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .04

High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism -. 17

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .06

High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .16

R2 .03 .18 .23

F .62 2.20 1.35
Note. N = 45.

 

*p< .10, *p < .05, ** p < .01.

Hypothesis 17b predicted that collectivism would moderate the effect of
horizontal interdependence on leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that it would
enhance the positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader
perceptions of distinctiveness. Results indicate that the interaction effect of low
horizontal interdependence and collectivism was not significantly related to leader
perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .05, p > .10). Results further indicate that the

interaction term between high horizontal interdependence and collectivism is not

150

significantly related to leader perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.18, p > .10). Thus,

hypothesis 17b is not supported (see Table 9).

Table 9. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Horizontal

Interdependence and Leader Perceptions of Distinctiveness

 

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Variables [3 [3 8
Step 1: Independent

Low Horizontal interdependence "21. -.15 -.20

High Horizontal interdependence -.29' -.26 -.20
Step 2: Moderators ‘

Leader Collectivism .29' .30*

Leader Extraversion -.02 -.06
Step 3: Interactive eflects

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .05

High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism -. 18

Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .09

High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .39*

R2 .07 .15 .29

F 1.48 1.76 1.871

 

{Vote N :45.
'p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01.

Hypothesis 18a predicted that power distance would moderate the effect of

vertical interdependence on leader perceptions of belongingness such that low (high)

power distance values would neutralize (enhance) the negative relationship between

vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness. Results indicate that

the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and power distance were not significantly

related to leader perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.05. p > .10 for the interaction term

for low vertical interdependence and power distance, and 8 = -.12, p > .10 for the

151

interaction term for high vertical interdependence and power distance). Thus, hypothesis

.18a was not supported (see Table 10).

Table 10. Results of Regression Analysis for Relationship between Vertical
Interdependence and Leader Perceptions of Belongingness

 

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables [3 [3 (3
Step 1 : Independent
Low Vertical interdependence -.30+ -.32f :30?
High Vertical interdependence -.28+ -.3BJr -.22
Step 2: Moderators
Leader Cognitive Ability .09 .19
Leader Power Distance .24 .26
Step 3: Interactive efiects
Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Distance -.05
High Vertical Interdependence X Power Distance -. 12
Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.22
High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability .21
R2 .09 .15 .29
F 2.16 1.75 1.871
TVote. N = 45.

p<.10, *p<.05, **p< .01.

Hypothesis 18b predicted that power distance would moderate the effect of
vertical interdependence on leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that low (high)
power distance values would neutralize (enhance) the positive relationship between
Vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness. Results indicate that
the interaction effects of the two dummy codes and power distance were not significantly
related to leader perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.02, p > .10 for the interaction term

for low vertical interdependence and power distance, and fl = -00, P > JO for the

152

interaction term for high vertical interdependence and power distance). Thus, hypothesis

18b was not supported (see Table 11).

Table 11. Results of Regression Ana
Interdependence and Leader Perce

lysis for Relationship between Vertical
tions of Distincti veness

 

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Variables B (3 [3
Step 1 : Independent

Low Vertical interdependence "16. -.2O -. 17

High Vertical interdependence -.29' -.42* -.36*
Step 2: Moderators

Leader Cognitive Ability -.02 .06

Leader Power Distance .41 * .43*
Step 3: Interactive eflects

Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Distance -.02

High Vertical Interdependence X Power Distance .00

Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.25

High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability .03

R2 .07 .23 .29

F 1.51 2.91 1.83

 

TVote. N=45.
'p<.10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Hypothesis 19a predicted that extraversion would moderate the effect of
horizontal interdependence on leader perceptions of belongingness such that extraversion
would enhance the positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader
perceptions of belongingness. Results indicate that the interaction effects of the two
dummy codes and extraversion were not significantly related to leader perceptions of
belongingness (8 = .06, p > .10 for the interaction term for low horizontal.

interdependence and extraversion, and 8 = .16, p > .10 for the interactron term for hrgh

153

horizontal interdependence and extraversion). Thus, hypothesis 19a was not supported
(see Table 8 for details).

Hypothesis 19b predicted that extraversion would moderate the effect of
horizontal interdependence on leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that extraversion
would enhance the positive relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader
perceptions of distinctiveness. Results indicate that the interaction effect of low
horizontal interdependence and extraversion were not significantly related to leader
perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .09, p > .10). Results further indicate that the
interaction effect of high horizontal interdependence and extraversion were significantly
related to leader perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = .39, p < .05). Figure 8 illustrates the
pattern of this interaction effect, which is not consistent with the nature of the predicted
interaction effect.

Figure 8. Moderating Efiect of Leader Extraversion on Relationship between Horizontal
Interdependence and Leader Perceptions of Distinctiveness

 

7 a» Low Extra - 'Mod Extra +Htgh Extran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.8
4.6 " .
l
4.5
~ \
g 4.4 4
g ..
:3 4 3 .
.5 t
:9: 4.2 .
n ‘®
4.1
4
3.9 ‘
3.8 a , _4
Low HI Mod HI High H1

154

Thus, hypothesis 19b was not supported (see Table 9 for details). As discussed
before, this is because there is no linear and positive effect of horizontal interdependence
on leader perceptions of distinctiveness, as Ihad predicted. Nevertheless, Figure 8 shows
that extraverted leaders experience high distinctiveness when horizontal interdependence
is high, whereas introverted leaders experience low distinctiveness when horizontal
interdependence is high. This is exactly the effect which I had predicted for team
members in hypothesis 10.

Hypothesis 20a predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the effect of
vertical interdependence on leader perceptions of belongingness such that cognitive
ability would enhance the positive relationship between vertical interdependence and
leader perceptions of belongingness. Results indicate that the interaction effects of the
two dummy codes and cognitive ability were not significantly related to leader
perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.22, p > .10 for the interaction term for low vertical
interdependence and cognitive ability, and 8 = .21, p > .10 for the interaction term for
high vertical interdependence and cognitive ability). Thus, hypothesis 20a was not
supported (see Table 10 for details).

Hypothesis 20b predicted that cognitive ability would moderate the effect of
vertical interdependence on leader perceptions of distinctiveness such that cognitive
ability would enhance the positive relationship between vertical interdependence and
leader perceptions of distinctiveness. Results indicate that the interaction effects of the
two dummy codes and cognitive ability were not significantly related to leader

perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.25, p > .10 for the interaction term for low vertical

155

interdependence and cognitive ability, and 8 = .03, p > .10 for the interaction term for
high vertical interdependence and cognitive ability). Thus, hypothesis 20b was also not
supported (see Table 11 for details)
Hypotheses between Optimal Distinctiveness and Criteria

I note that the following hypotheses draw again on the entire sample of
participants such that they do not differentiate between team members and team leaders.
Hypothesis 21 predicted an interaction effect between perceptions of distinctiveness and
belongingness and three components of subjective well-being, positive affect, self-
evaluative well-being, and negative affect. Specifically, hypothesis 21a predicted that the
effects of perceptions of distinctiveness on positive affect, negative affect, and self-
evaluative well-being would be moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that
high levels of distinctiveness in combination with high levels of belongingness would be
associated with highest levels of positive affect and self-evaluative well-being and with
lowest levels of negative affect. Hypothesis 21b predicted that the effects of perceptions
of distinctiveness on positive affect, negative affect, and self-evaluative well-being would
be moderated by perceptions of belongingness such that the combination of high (low)
levels of distinctiveness with low (high) levels of belongingness would be associated with
lowest levels of positive affect and self-evaluative well-being and highest levels of
negative affect. Results indicate that the interaction effect of perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness were significantly related to positive affect (8 = .17, p
< .01), but not significantly related to self-evaluative well-being (8 = .02, p > .10) and

negative affect (8 = .10, p > .10). Details of these results are summarized in Table 12.

156

Table 12. Regression Results Testing the Interactive Effects of Belongingness and
Distinctiveness on Positive, Negative Affect and Self-Evaluative Well-Being

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive Affect Negative Affect Self-Evaluative
Well-Being
Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Constant 2.88** 2.83** 1.51** l.49** 3.56** 3.55**
Main Effects
Belongingness .33** .36** .04 .06 .27** .28**
Distinctiveness .03 -.02 _.04 -.07 .12“ .11
Modergted Effects
Belongingness x '17:“: .10 .02
Distinctiveness
R2 .11 .14 .00 .01 .12 .12
AR2 .03 .01 .00
F 13.88** 11.66** .20 .75 14.20** 9.45**
Note. Values represent standardized regression coefficients.
N = 223.

ip<.10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Figure 12 illustrates the pattern of the significant interaction effect with positive
affect. In addition to graphing the interaction effects, I also tested for the significance of
the slopes of the two regression lines in Figure 9, using Preacher, Curran, and Bauer’s
(2006) publically available software for testing two-way interactions in multiple linear
regression analysis. As predicted in hypothesis 213, high levels of distinctiveness in
combination with high levels of belongingness were associated with highest levels of
positive affect, evidenced by a positive slope for the regression line between positive
affect and perceptions of distinctiveness when levels for belongingness were fixed at one
standard deviation above the mean (t = 1.96, p < .05). Also, results indicate a negative

slope for the regression line between positive affect and distinctiveness for low values of

157

belongingness, that is, when belongingness values were fixed at one standard deviation
below the mean (t = -2.55, p < .05). This supports hypothesis 21b, in which I predicted
that the combination of high levels of distinctiveness with low levels of belongingness
was associated with even lower levels of positive affect than the combination of low
levels of distinctiveness with low levels of belongingness.

Figure 9. Moderating Efiect of Belongingness on Relationship between Distinctiveness
and Positive Affect (Team Members and Leaders)

 

£+LWBeMQingness ' 0 ' HJgh Belongingnessl II

 

l
l
l 4
1
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5 li

”a l)

------- ii

5 3 0" ll

11

. if
: 1 Low 1 H911

l . Distinctiveness .

 

The same interaction effect was predicted in hypotheses 22-26 for the outcomes
self-efficacy, voice, learning, performance, and team identification such that the
combination of high belongingness and high distinctiveness would be associated with
highest levels of self-efficacy, voice, learning, performance, and team identification,

whereas the combination of high (low) levels of distinctiveness with low (high) levels of
belongingness would be associated with lowest levels of self-efficacy, voice, learning,

performance, and team identification.

158

Results indicate that the interaction effect of perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness were significantly related to self-efficacy (8 = .18, p < .01). Figure 10
illustrates the pattern of this interaction effect; Table 13 provides details of the results.

Figure 10. Moderating Eflect of Belongingness on Relationship between Distinctiveness
and Self-Efficacy (Team Members and Leaders)

 

l (+Lowaelongingness - a - th Belongingneesl l

 

 

 

 

 

l 5 . 1
§ " Low } l-lgh
l l Distinctiveness

159

Table 13. Regression Results Testing the Interactive Effects of Belongingness and
Distinctiveness on Self-Efiicacy, Voice, and Team Identification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self-Efficacy Voice Team
Identification

 

Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

 

 

Constant 6.99** 6.88** 3.49** 3.54** 4.21** 4.20**
Main Effects
Belongingness .04 .09 .29** .26** .56** .56**
Distinctiveness .24** .23** .25** .30** .02 .01

Moderated Effects

 

Belongingness x .18** -.16** .02
Distinctiveness
R2 .07 .10 .21 .23 .32 .32
AR2 .03 .03 .00
F 7.89** 7.72** 27.90** 21.41** 50.90** 33.84**
Note. Values represent standardized regression coefficients.
N = 223.

+p< .10, *p< .05, **p< .01.

Results further indicate that the slope for the regression line between self-efficacy
and distinctiveness at low levels of belongingness (one standard deviation below the
mean) was not statistically significant (1 = .04, p > .10), whereas the SIOpe for the
regression line between self-efficacy and distinctiveness at high levels of belongingness
(one standard deviation above the mean) was statistically significant (t = 2.73, p < .01).
These results support hypothesis 22a, which predicted that the combination of high levels
of belongingness and high levels of distinctiveness was going to be associated with
highest levels of self-efficacy. Results do not support hypothesis 22b, however, which

predicted that the combination of high levels of distinctiveness in combinatron With low

160

levels of belongingness would be associated with lower levels of self-efficacy than the
combination of low levels of distinctiveness with low levels of belongingness.

Results indicate that the interaction effect of perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness was also significantly related to voice (8 = -.16, p < .01).

Figure 11. Moderating Effect of Belongingness on Relationship between Distinctiveness
and Voice (Team Members and Leaders)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

’ + Low Belongingness - o - ligh Belongingnegfi‘I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l Low 1' '‘9'"
[ Distinctiveness

.l
a n‘
3 ll
l a V j:
1
2.5 nil
Jll
51
I

Figure 11 illustrates the pattern of the interaction effects, Table 13 provides
details of the results. Results further indicate that the slopes for the regression lines
between voice and distinctiveness are significant and positive at both low (one standard
deviation below the mean) and high levels (one standard deviation above the mean) of
belongingness (t = 5.44, p < .01, and t = 2.37, p < .01, respectively). These results are
consistent with hypothesis 23a, which predicted that the combination of high

distinctiveness with high belongingness was going to be associated with highest levels of

161

voice. The results do not support hypothesis 23b, however, which predicted that the
combination of high distinctiveness with low belongingness was going to be associated
with lower values of voice than the combination of low distinctiveness with low
belongingness.

Results further indicate that the interaction effects of perceptions of belongingness
and distinctiveness were not significantly related to learning (8 = .03, p > .10),
performance (8 = -.03, p > .10), and team identification (8 = .02, p > .10). Thus,
hypotheses 24-26 were not supported (see Tables 13 and 14 for details).

Table 14. Regression Results Testing the Interactive Effects of Belongingness and
Distinctiveness on Performance and Learning

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Learning
Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Eonstant 4.72** 4.73** 4.86** 4.85**
Main Effects
Belongingness .05 .04 .19** .20**
Distinctiveness .05 .06 -.10 -. l l
Moderated Effects
Belongingness x _.03 .03
Distinctiveness
R2 .00 .01 .03 .03
AR2 .00 .00
F .85 .63 3.63* 2.48“
Vote. Values represent standardized regression coefficients.
N = 223.

'p<.10. *p<.05, **p< .01.

162

Mediation Hypotheses

Finally, in hypotheses 27 and 28, I predicted that the psychological state of
optimal distinctiveness, that is, the interaction of belongingness and distinctiveness,
mediates the effect of the two dimensions of team structure on subjective well-being,
self-efficacy, voice, learning, and job performance. I recognize that my model conforms
to what Edwards and Lambert (2007) refer to as a second stage moderation model. To
test for mediation, I followed a series of steps: I first regressed the criteria of my model
(positive affect, negative affect, self-evaluative well-being, self-efficacy, voice, learning,
job performance, and team identification) on the dummy-coded variables for each
structural dimension, testing for both a linear and curvilinear relationship between team
structure and job performance. This first step establishes whether there is a main effect of
the structural dimension on the criterion.

Horizontal interdependence was only significantly related to two criteria: self-
efficacy and learning. Specifically, the association between the contrast low—intermediate
horizontal interdependence and self-efficacy was marginally significant and negative (8 =
-. 14, p < .10). The association between the contrast high-intermediate horizontal
interdependence and learning was significant and positive (8 = .26, p < .01). Positive
affect (8 = -.11, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence and
8 = —. 1 1, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence), negative
affect (8 = .09, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence and 8
= -.06, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence), self-
evaluative well-being (8 = -.09, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate. horizontal

interdependence and 8 = .04, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal

163

interdependence), voice (8 = .01, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal
interdependence and 8 = .06, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal
interdependence), performance (8 = -.07, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate
horizontal interdependence and 8 2 -.O3, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate
horizontal interdependence), and team identification (8 = -.03, p > .10 for the contrast
low—intermediate horizontal interdependence and 8 == -.1 l, p > .10 for the contrast high-
intermediate horizontal interdependence) were all not significantly related to the two
dummy-coded horizontal interdependence conditions, even though effect sizes were close
to reaching conventionally accepted levels of statistical significance for positive affect, (8
= -.11, p = .14 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence and 8 = -.11,
p = .15 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence). I conclude that
there can only be mediation for the effects of horizontal interdependence on learning and
self-efficacy.

Similarly, learning was the only criterion which was marginally significantly
related to the dummy-coded vertical interdependence conditions (8 = -. 13, p < .10 for the
contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence, and 8 = -.22, p < .01 for the contrast
high-intermediate vertical interdependence). Positive affect (8 = -.01, p > .10 for the
contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 == -.01, p > .10 for the contrast
high-intermediate vertical interdependence), negative affect (8 = .04, p > .10 for the
contrast low—intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 = .07, p > .10 for the contrast
high-intermediate vertical interdependence), self—evaluative well-being (8 = -.02, p > .10
for the contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 = -.05, p > .10 for the

contrast high-intermediate vertical interdependence), self-efficacy (8 = .04, p > .10 for the

164

contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 2 -.O4, p > .10 for the contrast
high-intermediate vertical interdependence), voice (8 = -.05, p > .10 for the contrast low-
interrnediate vertical interdependence and 8 = -.07, p > .10 for the contrast high-
interrnediate vertical interdependence), performance (8 = .00, p > .10 for the contrast
low-intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 = -.09, p > .10 for the contrast high-
interrnediate vertical interdependence), and team identification (8 = -.O6, p > .10 for the
contrast low—intermediate vertical interdependence and 8 = -.11, p > .10 for the contrast
high-intermediate vertical interdependence) were all not significantly related to the two
dummy—coded horizontal interdependence conditions.

Next, I determined whether there is a significant relationship between the
structural dimensions and perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. The contrast
low-intermediate horizontal interdependence was significantly and negatively related to
individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (8 = -. 16, p < .05), but the contrast high-
interrnediate horizontal interdependence was not significantly related to individuals’
perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.08, p > .10). I also note that the overall F-value for
the regression analysis is not significant. The two dummy coded horizontal
interdependence conditions were also not significantly related to individuals’ perceptions
of distinctiveness (8 = —.O7, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal
interdependence, and 8 = -.09, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal
interdependence). Results for vertical interdependence indicate that the two dummy
coded vertical interdependence conditions were significantly related to individuals’
perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.16, p < .05 for the contrast low-intermediate vertical

interdependence, and 8 = -.15, p < .05 for the contrast high-intermediate vertical

165

interdependence). The two dummy coded vertical interdependence conditions were not
significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.03, p > .10 for
the contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence; 8 =, -.02, p > .10 for the contrast
high—intermediate vertical interdependence). In sum, since neither horizontal
interdependence nor vertical interdependence is significantly associated with individuals’
perceptions of distinctiveness, there can also be no mediation. Restated, the two
dimensions of team structure only relate to one of two elements of optimal distinctiveness.
Given that I predicted that the interaction of belongingness and distinctiveness would
mediate the effect of team structure on the criteria, the lack of a significant association
between the two dimensions of team structure and perceptions of distinctiveness also
renders a test of mediation meaningless.

This also renders steps 3 and 4 of the formal test for mediation meaningless. Step
three would have used the results of hypotheses 21-26 to document whether there was a
significant relationship between the interaction effect of belongingness and
distinctiveness and the outcomes. Step 4 of the formal test for mediation would have
regressed each outcome for which a significant effect could be observed in step 3 on the
two dimensions of team structure after controlling for the interaction between
belongingness and distinctiveness. The decrease in the strength of the relationship
between horizontal interdependence and job performance would have indicated the
amount of variance that is mediated by the psychological state of optimal distinctiveness.
A Sobel test would then be used to assess the statistical significance of the mediation; if

the relationship was fully mediated, the relationship between horizontal interdependence

166

and job performance would become nonsignificant when including the product term for
belongingness and distinctiveness as mediator.

At this point, it is important to emphasize the possibility of a Type I error in these
analyses. Cohen and colleagues (2003) pointed out the danger of committing Type 1
errors specifically for hierarchical multiple regressions which rely on a large pool of
potential independent variables. Specifically, Cohen and colleagues noted the following:
“Because the significance tests of each IV’s contribution to R2 and associated confidence
intervals proceed in ignorance of the large number of other competing IVs, there can be
very serious capitalization on chance and underestimation of confidence intervals” (p.
161). Given the relatively large pool of variables entered in the previously discussed
analysis, I acknowledge that results which were in support of predicted relationships (i.e.
hypothesis 9) may actually be the product of chance.

Supplemental Analyses
Aggregating Data for Leaders and Team Members

Overall, the results showed that the differential predictions for the effects of
horizontal and vertical interdependence on team member self-construals and leader self-
construals were not supported. Instead, the empirical results suggest that the effects of
team structure on belongingness and distinctiveness may be similar for team members
and leaders, evidenced by the negative correlation coefficients obtained for the effects of
low and high horizontal and vertical interdependence on leader self-construals. Based on
these findings, I chose to perform supplemental analyses in which I aggregated responses
for team members and leaders, essentially testing the predictions of hypotheses 1-2 and 5-

16 with the entire sample of research participants. Results will be summarized below,

167

following the same analysis strategy which I used to test hypotheses 1-2 and 5-16 (see

Tables 15-18 for details).

168

Table 15. Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Relationship between
Horizontal Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness All Team Members (incl.
Team Leader)

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

 

Variables 13 j} 8
Step 1: Independent
Low Horizontal Interdependence 416* -.16* -. 18*
High Horizontal Interdependence -.08 -.07 -.08
Step 2: Moderators
Collectivism .28*1_* .29**
Extraversion . 12 ' . 10
Cognitive Ability -.O9 -.08
Step 3: Interactive eflects
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism -.01
High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism .00
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .10
High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion .19*
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability .05
High Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.02
R2 .02 .12 .15
F 2.03 6.04** 3.36**
Note. N = 223.

*p<.1o, *p< .05. **p< .01.

169

Team Leader)

 

Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1: Independent
Low Horizontal Interdependence
High Horizontal Interdependence

Step 2: Moderators
Collectivism
Extraversion
Cognitive Ability

Step 3: Interactive efi‘ects
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism
High Horizontal Interdependence X Collectivism
Low Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion
High Horizontal Interdependence X Extraversion
Iow Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability
High Horizontal Interdependence X Cog. Ability

R2
F

 

 

 

Wore. N=223.
'p<.10,*p<.05, **p<.01.

170

Table 17. Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Relationship between
Vertical Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness All Team Members (incl.
Team Leader)

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

 

 

Variables [3 B B
Step I : Independent *
Low Vertical interdependence -. 16* -. 15* -.l4*
High Vertical interdependence -.15* -.18* -.17*
Step 2: Moderators
Power Distance .14* .16*
Emotional Stability .17* .18*
Cognitive Ability -.13* -. 13*
Step 3: Interactive efi‘ects
Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. .04 .
High Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. -.12'
Low Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.07
High Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.03
Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.09
High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.01
R2 .03 .09 .12
F 3.12* 4.16** 2.64**
Tote. N = 223.

p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01.

171

Table 18. Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Relationship between
Vertical Interdependence and Perceptions of Distinctiveness All Team Members (incl.
Team Leader)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables p p 5
Step I : Independent
Low Vertical interdependence -.03 -.03 .01
High Vertical interdependence -.02 -.04 -.03
Step 2: Moderators
Power Distance .12f .13l
Emotional Stability .05 .06
Cognitive Ability -.O4 -.03
Step 3: Interactive effects
Low Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. .03
High Vertical Interdependence X Power Dist. -.08
Low Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. .00
High Vertical Interdependence X Emot. Stab. -.05
Low Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -.22*
High Vertical Interdependence X Cog. Ability -. 10
R2 .00 .02 ' .07
F .11 .91 1.44
TVote. N = 223.

'p<.10,*p<.05,**p<.01.

The main effects of the two dimensions of team structure on individuals’ self-
construals was already reported above as step 2 of the formal test for mediation. Results
indicated that the contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence is significantly
and negatively related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.16, p < .05).
Results further indicate that the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence
was not significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (8 = -.08, p

> .10). I also note that the overall F—value for the regression analysis is not significant. In

172

sum, this provides only weak support for the effects proposed in hypotheses 1a when
using the entire sample of research participants. The two dummy coded horizontal
interdependence conditions were also not significantly related to individuals’ perceptions
of distinctiveness (8 = -.O7, p > .10 for the contrast low-intermediate horizontal
interdependence, and 8 = -.09, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate horizontal
interdependence). Details of the results for the association between horizontal
interdependence and individuals’ perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness are
summarized in Tables 15 and 16.

Results for vertical interdependence indicate that the two dummy coded vertical
interdependence conditions were significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of
belongingness (8 = -.16, p < .05 for the contrast low-intermediate vertical
interdependence, and 8 = -. .15, p < .05 for the contrast high-intermediate vertical
interdependence). This is consistent with the hypothesized effect in hypothesis 2a
according to which low and high vertical interdependence would be associated with
lower levels of belongingness than intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence. The
two dummy coded vertical interdependence conditions were not significantly related to
individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.O3, p > .10 for the contrast low-
interrnediate vertical interdependence; 8 = -.02, p > .10 for the contrast high-intermediate
vertical interdependence). Details of the results for the association between vertical
interdependence and individuals’ perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness are
summarized in Tables 17 and 18.

In sum, the results based on the entire sample of research participants provide

Partial support for the predictions of hypotheses l and 2 which predicted a curvilinear

173

relationship between the two dimensions of team structure and individuals’ perceptions
of belongingness and distinctiveness.

Results for the moderator analysis for the entire sample of research participants
follow a similar pattern as the results discussed for the sample of team members,
excluding team leaders. Consistent with the previously reported results, the interaction
effect of the high horizontal interdependence condition and extraversion was significantly
related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (8 = .19, p < .05). Figure 12
illustrates the pattern of this interaction effects.

Figure 12. Moderating Efiect of Extraversion on Relationship between Horizontal
Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness (Team Members and Leaders)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r_

g .. we Low Extra -l -Mod Extra +High Extra]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.4 7

4—4
1
fix I a
53 I
/ ;
SZ—x 8” film
/' \-\‘\. i

" ‘I

/ .«

_ .- ‘1
$514 1
a '2’ “ J
'5. 5‘ .
5 ' l
349l\\ — a,

48px j
l
4.7-K—k 7

 

 

Low HI MOd HI High HI

The other interaction effects for the low and high horizontal interdependence

conditions and collectivism, extraversion, and cognitive ability were not srgnrficantly

174

related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (p > .10). None of the interaction

effects for the low and high horizontal interdependence conditions and collectivism,

extraversion, and cognitive ability were significantly related to individuals’ perceptions

of distinctiveness (p > .10), which is consistent with the previously reported results for

team members.

The interaction effect for high vertical interdependence and power distance was

marginally significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (8 = -. 12, p

< .10). Figure 13 illustrates the pattern of this interaction effect.

Figure 13. Moderating Eflect of Power Distance on Relationship between Vertical
Interdependence and Perceptions of Belongingness (Team Members and Leaders)

5.4
5.3
5.2
5.1

when

Belongingness
5a a

4.6
4.5

4.4

 

~- Low PD - 'Mod PD +Htgh Po]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!

M 3' . _

kt—
.. k.
e" \
U \ J
._ \ ,
2|" ‘3
Low v1 Mod VI High VI

None of the other interaction effects for the dummy coded vertical

interdependence conditions and power distance, emotional stability, and cognitive ability

175

were significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness (p > .10). Results
further indicate that the interaction effect of low vertical interdependence and cognitive
ability was significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness (8 = -.22, p
< .05). Figure 14 illustrates the pattern of this interaction effect. Consistent with the
previously reported results for team members, none of the other interaction effects of the
dummy coded vertical interdependence conditions and power distance, emotional
stability, and cognitive ability were significantly related to individuals’ perceptions of
distinctiveness (p > .10).

. Figure 14. Moderating Efiect of Cognitive Ability on Relationship between Vertical
Interdependence and Perceptions of Distincti veness (Team Members and Leaders)

 

r

1 ~ -—+ Low Cog: Ability —a - Mod Cog Ability +Hl_gh Cotg Abilityl

 

 

6.5

 

_-JL A. - M--. «.1

 

9'
0'
t

"I
k
L

 

 

Distinctiveness
l
I
I
I
l
I
.'.

b
uh "I
L L

 

3.5 /
l

Low VI Mod VI High VI

 

176

Team—Level Analyses

All hypotheses of this study use criteria on the individual level of analyses. This is
consistent with the predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory, which argues that
individuals need to satisfy both perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness so that
they can experience high levels of well-being and function effectively at work. Because
of the focus of optimal distinctiveness theory on the individual as the level of analysis, it
is not surprising that the predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory have not been
tested on the team level of analysis. Even though I did not advance formal hypotheses on
the effects of belongingness and distinctiveness on team-level criteria, I sought to explain
these relationships in an exploratory manner.

Specifically, I was interested in the following relationships. First, the analyses on
the individual level of analyses demonstrated significant main effects of belongingness
and distinctiveness on some of the individualolevel criteria of the study, such as self-
efficacy, voice, and team identification. Based on these significant main effects on the
individual level of analysis, I investigated the main effects of the two needs
belongingness and distinctiveness on three objective criteria which are provided by the
simulation: team overall performance, team gains, and team losses. Team gains represent
the extent to which the team succeeds in promotion—oriented activities (Higgisn, 1997),
that is, in the engagement of opportunities and threats which increase the offensive score
of the team. Team losses represent the extent to which the team succeeds in prevention-
oriented activities (Higgins, 1997), that is, the extent to which the team avoids assets
losses or base attacks, which reduce the defensive score of the team. Taken together,

team gains and team losses represent the score for overall team performance. As can be

177

expected, team gains and team losses are strongly correlated with overall team
performance (r = .75, p < .01 for team gains and r = .61, p < .01 for team losses). Team
gains and team losses are not significantly correlated with each other (r = .05, p > .10).
Second, I was interested in the effects of team variance in the two constructs
belongingness and distinctiveness on overall team performance, team gains, and team
losses. Recent research indicates that the distribution of individuals’ perceptions of need
satisfaction and team and leadership processes can have important consequences for team
processes and team outcomes (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Spitzmuller & Ilies,
2010). Third, I examined the interaction effects of variance in belongingness and
distinctiveness with their respective main effects. This seeks to answer the question
whether the main effects of belongingness and distinctiveness are contingent upon team
variance in these constructs. I expected that teams which experience high levels of
belongingness and/or distinctiveness should be better able to deal with high variance in
these constructs, whereas teams who are characterized by low belongingness and/or
distinctiveness should experience negative effects of high variance in these constructs.
This is because teams which allow individuals to satisfy their basic needs for
belongingness and distinctiveness may provide enough psychological nutriments to team
members so that they can deal effectively with individuals who diverge from the overall
high levels of belongingness and/or distinctiveness. Restated, I expect that team members
will be relatively immune against individuals who experience low levels of
belongingness and distinctiveness when overall levels of belongingness and

distinctiveness are high.

178

Fourth, consistent with optimal distinctiveness theory, I investigated the
interactive effects of belongingness and distinctiveness on overall team performance,
team gains, and team losses. This seeks to answer the question whether a state of optimal
distinctiveness also translates into superior performance on the team level of analyses.

Before presenting the results of the analyses, 1 note that the relatively small
sample size on the team level of analysis (N = 45 teams) introduces the possibility of a
Type 11 error when investigating these relationships. Thus, the following analyses should
best be viewed as a first step in a program of research which investigates the role of
belongingness and distinctiveness for team processes and team performance. I conducted
these analyses using hierarchical linear regression, entering the main effects of
belongingness and distinctiveness in step 1, followed by the main effect of the variance
of these two constructs in step 2. In step 3, I entered the interaction effect of the main
effects and their respective variances, which was followed by the interaction terms for
belongingness and distinctiveness in step 4. Detailed results of these analyses are

presented in Tables 19-21.

179

Table 19. Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Overall Team Performance

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step?

Variables [l (3 l3 B _

Step 1: Main efiects

Belongingness .30" 33* -.1o .14
Distinctiveness -. 12 -. 17 -.09 .13

 

 

 

 

Step 2: Variances
Variance Belongingness .04 240* -2.29
Variance Distinctiveness -.25 .10 .22

Step 3: Interactive eflects — Main effects and

variances
Belongingness X Variance Belongingness 2.45* 2.33
Distinctiveness X Variance Distinctiveness -.33 -.43

Step 4: Interactive effects — Belongingness and

 

Distinctiveness
Belongingness X Distinctiveness -.37
R2 .07 .12 .20 .20
F 1.58 1.40 1.60 1.34
TvOre. N = 45.

'p<.10,*p<.05,**p<.01.

180

Table 20. Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Team Gains

 

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

 

 

Variables [3 [3 [3 B
Step 1: Main effects i
Belongingness .39* .43* .34 1.61
Distinctiveness 228+ -.34* -.43 .78
Step 2: Variances
Variance Belongingness .03 -.39 .16
Variance Distinctiveness -.28 -.91 -.30
Step 3: Interactive eflects — Main efi‘ects and
variances
Belongingness X Variance Belongingness .42 -.17
Distinctiveness X Variance Distinctiveness .63 .09
Step 4: Interactive efi‘ects — Belongingness and
Distinctiveness
Belongingness X Distinctiveness -195
R2 .13 .20 .20 .22
F 3.13 2.42 1.59 1.47
{Vote N = 45.

'P<-10. *p< .05, **p< .01.

181

Table 21 . Results for Supplemental Regression Analysis for Team Losses

 

Step1 Step2 Step3 Step?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables l3 B l3 B
Step 1: Main eflects a
Belongingness :03 -.01 -.58* -l.60

Distinctiveness . 13 . 1 1 .27 -.70

Step 2: Variances
Variance Belongingness .02 -3.25* -3.69*
Variance Distinctiveness -.10 .74 .25

Step 3: Interactive efiects — Main efiects and

variances
Belongingness X Variance Belongingness 3.28* 3.75*
Distinctiveness X Variance Distinctiveness -.81 -.37

Step 4: Interactive efi‘ects — Belongingness and

 

Distinctiveness
Belongingness X Distinctiveness 1.57
R2 .02 .02 .18 .19
F .33 .23 1.36 1.22
Note. N = 45.

*p< .10, *p< .05, **p < .01.

Results indicate that belongingness was significantly related to overall team
performance (8 = .30, p < .10) and to team gains (8 = .39, p < .05), but the effect on
overall team performance was only marginally significant. The effect of belongingness
on team losses was not statistically significant (p > .10). The effect of distinctiveness on
team gains was marginally significant and negative (8 = -.28, p < .10), whereas the

effects of distinctiveness on team overall performance and team losses were not

significant (p > .10).

182

Results further indicate that variance in belongingness and distinctiveness was not
significantly related to any of the three criteria (p > .10). Interestingly, however, the
interaction of belongingness with variance on belongingness significantly predicted
overall team performance (8 = 2.45, p < .05) and team losses (8 = 3.28, p < .05). The
nature of this interaction effect is illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. I note, however, that
the overall F—value for these regression analyses was not significant, despite the
significant effects of the interaction terms (p > .10), which suggests that the two
interaction effects should be interpreted with caution.

Figure 15. Moderating Effect of Team Variance in Belongingness on the Relationship
between Belongingness and Overall Team Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_._—z

: (lo—Low Var Bel - O - l-I'gh VanglT;l l,
l
l 90 i
l 80 .“3 n'l
’ l
70 4 a,
l t... " 1'
#— 4|
#— ’ l
50 ’2 it!
I E 40 #1, —ii
( at 0 .’ fl
1 3 j!
1;
( 1°; . 74
W , Low 1; High !;
l l Belongingness H
L

 

183

Figure 16. Moderating Effect of Team Variance in Belongingness on the Relationship
between Belongingness and Team Losses

 

 

 

l+LowVar Bel - 4" I-igh Var Bel }

 

 

l
l
l .
l -125 T I
l
l

!

 

 

 

 

 

l
l
l
l

l
Belongingness l

The interaction of distinctiveness with variance on distinctiveness was not
significantly related to any of the three team outcomes. Finally, results indicate that the
interaction effect of belongingness and distinctiveness did not significantly predict any of
the three team outcomes (p > .10).

DISCUSSION

This study examined the social psychological consequences of team structures
with varying degrees of coupling between team members, differentiating between tightly
coupled, loosely coupled, and decoupled teams. Specifically, by drawing on Optimal
distinctiveness theory, the study investigated whether loosely coupled team structures

create the best fit for individuals by allowing them to satisfy basic human needs for

184

belongingness and distinctiveness. To accomplish this, I developed and tested a series of
predictions which relate two dimensions of team structure —- horizontal and vertical
interdependence — to individuals’ perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. I
further hypothesized that the simultaneous satisfaction of individuals’ desires for
belongingness and distinctiveness would be associated with a broad range of positive
outcomes, such as subjective well-being, self-efficacy, voice behaviors, performance,
learning, and team identification. Moreover, drawing from structural contingency theory,
I predicted that the effects of team structure on self-construals would be contingent upon
the internal fit of team structures with individuals’ cultural and personality characteristics
and their cognitive ability. I tested these predictions in a laboratory study using the
leadership development simulator (LDX). Participants provided self-ratings of self-
construals after the end of the first half of the simulation. Data for the criteria were
obtained at the end of the simulation via self— or observer ratings.

First, results provided only very weak support for the predictions relating the two
dimensions of team structure to team members’ and to leaders’ self-construals.
Specifically, there was only a marginally significant and negative association between the
contrast low-intermediate horizontal interdependence and team member perceptions of
belongingness and between the contrast low-intermediate vertical interdependence and
team member perceptions of belongingness. Also, there was a marginally significant and
negative association between the contrast high-intermediate horizontal interdependence
and leader perceptions of distinctiveness, between the contrast low-intermediate vertical
interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness, and between the contrast high-

interrnediate vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness. Finally,

.185

there was a marginally significant and negative association between the contrast high-
intermediate vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness.

Second, results do not support the differential predictions for team members and
for leaders. According to my hypotheses, horizontal interdependence and vertical
interdependence should exhibit a curvilinear relationship with team member perceptions
of belongingness and distinctiveness such that intermediate degrees of horizontal and
vertical interdependence would be associated with highest levels of belongingness and
distinctiveness. Conversely, I predicted a linear and positive relationship between
horizontal and vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness. Results provide only weak support for the team member predictions, and
they provide no support for the predicted linear and positive relationship between
intensity of coupling and leaders’ self-construals. Contrary to my predictions, results
indicate that leaders and team members may actually exhibit similar social psychological
reactions to horizontal and vertical interdependence.

Specifically, the four regression coefficients representing the marginally
significant relationships between the dummy-coded dimensions of team structure and
leader self—construals were negative. The negative regression coefficient representing the
relationship between the contrast low—intermediate vertical interdependence and leader
perceptions of belongingness is still consistent with the predicted linear and positive
relationship between vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness,
indicating that low vertical interdependence is associated with lower belongingness than
intermediate degrees of vertical interdependence. More importantly, however, the three

marginally significant relationships between the contrast high-intermediate horizontal

186

interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness, between the contrast high-
intermediate vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of belongingness, and
between the contrast hi gh-intermediate vertical interdependence and leader perceptions of
distinctiveness were also negative. This supports the notion of an inverted U-shaped
relationship between the two dimensions of team structure and leader perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness. In sum, I conclude that there is no support for the
differential predictions for leaders and team members and that it is possible that leaders
and team members may exhibit similar social psychological reactions to different degrees
of coupling in teams.

Third, based on these findings, 1 aggregated data for team members and leaders to
test the relationships of horizontal and vertical interdependence with individuals’
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness for the entire sample of research
participants. And indeed, findings provide some support for the predicted curvilinear
relationships of the two dimensions of team structure with individuals’ perceptions of
belongingness. The contrast low—intermediate horizontal interdependence was negatively
associated with individuals’ perceptions of belongingness, and the contrasts low-
interrnediate and hi gh-intermediate vertical interdependence were both negatively
associated with individuals’ perceptions of belongingness.

No support was obtained for the predictions for individuals’ distinctiveness, even
after aggregating team member and leader data. This finding is problematic for the
discussion of the interactive effect of belongingness and distinctiveness on work
outcomes. In fact, since the two dimensions of team structure are not related to

individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness, a state of optimal distinctiveness (that is, the

187

simultaneous satisfaction of the needs of belongingness and distinctiveness) can also not
assume the role of a mediator in the relationships between team structure and work
outcomes. Nevertheless, I will discuss the support for the interaction hypotheses, that is,
the predictions derived from optimal distinctiveness theory according to which the
simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness is associated
with optimal psychological functioning and work outcomes. Based on the disappointing
fmding that team structure and individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness were not
related, any variation in individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness should better be
attributed to individual differences in chronically accessible self-construals and to
situational variables which affect individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness, even though
they were not part of the design of this study.

Fourth, results provide some support for the internal fit predictions of this study
according to which the effects of team structure on perceptions of belongingness and
distinctiveness are contingent upon cultural characteristics, personality characteristics,
and cognitive ability. Specifically, for team members (excluding team leaders) data were
supportive of a moderating effect of extraversion in the relationship between horizontal
interdependence and belongingness and of a moderating effect of cognitive ability in the
relationship between vertical interdependence and distinctiveness. For leaders,
extraversion moderated the relationship between horizontal interdependence and leader
perceptions of distinctiveness. Supplemental analysis for all individuals (aggregating
team member and leader data) also showed a moderating effect of extraversion in the
relationship between horizontal interdependence and individuals’ perceptions of

belongingness. Moreover, the moderating effect of power distance in the relationship

188

between vertical interdependence and individuals’ perceptions of belongingness was
marginally significant in a sample of all research participants, and cognitive ability
moderated the relationship between vertical interdependence and individuals’ perceptions
of distinctiveness.

For extraversion, the nature of the interaction effects was consistent with my
predictions such that high horizontal interdependence was associated with high levels of
belongingness for extraverted individuals, whereas introverted individuals experienced a
sharp decline in their perceptions of belongingness when horizontal interdependence was
high. Similarly, individuals with high power distance values enjoyed high levels of
belongingness when horizontal interdependence was high, whereas individuals with low
power distance values experienced low belongingness when horizontal interdependence
was high. Contrary to my expectations, however, individuals with high cognitive ability
did not experience higher levels of distinctiveness when vertical interdependence was
low. In fact, the nature of the results were exactly the opposite of what I had predicted
such that individuals with low cognitive ability were able to enjoy high levels of
distinctiveness when vertical interdependence was low, whereas individuals with high
cognitive ability experienced low levels of distinctiveness when vertical interdependence
was low. One potential explanation for this finding is that individuals with high cognitive
ability find it easier to discern the strategic vacuum that exists in teams with low vertical
interdependence. Thus, even though individuals with high cognitive ability are best-
equipped to deal with the requirements of low vertical interdependence, they are also
best-equipped to understand the problems and risks associated with low vertical

interdependence. In extreme cases, low vertical interdependence can create teams which

189

operate without strategic guidance and leadership. Understanding these risks can
undermine the positive value which team members ascribe to their status as autonomous
and empowered group member in teams with low vertical interdependence, leading to
lower perceptions of distinctiveness.

Fifth, results provide some support for the predicted interaction effect between
perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness. To reiterate, drawing from optimal
distinctiveness theory, I predicted that the simultaneous satisfaction of belongingness and
distinctiveness (a state of optimal distinctiveness) would be associated with a broad range
of outcomes, such as subjective well-being, self-efficacy, voice, job performance,
learning, and team identification. And indeed, the data support the notion that the effects
of distinctiveness on study outcomes are contingent upon the degree to which
belongingness is satisfied. The nature of the interaction effects, however, varies from
criterion to criterion and deserves special attention. As predicted by optimal
distinctiveness theory, positive affect is highest when both needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness are satisfied. Moreover, positive affect was lowest when perceptions of
belongingness were low and perceptions of distinctiveness were high. In fact, this
combination was associated with a level of positive affect which was even lower than the
positive affect associated with low belongingness and low distinctiveness.

For self-efficacy, the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for distinctiveness
and belongingness was again associated with highest levels of self-efficacy, which is
consistent with optimal distinctiveness theory and with the findings obtained for the
interaction effect of belongingness and distinctiveness on positive affect. Interestingly,

however, the combination of low distinctiveness and low belongingness is associated

190

with a level of self-efficacy which is equivalent to the level of self-efficacy associated
with low distinctiveness and high belongingness. Thus, for self-efficacy, belongingness
assumes the role of an enhancer in the relationship between distinctiveness and
belongingness. This is different from the moderating effect of belongingness in the
relationship between distinctiveness and positive affect, where the nature of the
relationship changes depending on the level of belongingness (the relationship is positive
when belongingness is high but negative when belongingness is low).

For voice, high levels of belongingness and distinctiveness are associated with
highest levels of voice behaviors, which is again consistent with the predictions of
optimal distinctiveness theory. Interestingly, however, the slope of the regression line
between voice and distinctiveness is higher when belongingness is low, which is different
from the pattern of results obtained for self-efficacy, where the slope was higher when
belongingness was high. The pattern of the interaction effect in Figure 14 suggests that
voice behaviors can also be high when distinctiveness is high and belongingness is low,
and when distinctiveness is high and belongingness is low. Restated, for voice behaviors,
it is not only the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness which is associated with high levels of voice behaviors. Instead,
belongingness and distinctiveness can substitute for each other such that the satisfaction
of one of the two needs is enough to produce high levels of voice behaviors, even though
the level of voice behaviors associated with these combinations of distinctiveness and
belongingness is slightly lower than the level of voice behaviors associated with high

levels of belongingness and distinctiveness.

191

In sum, these findings suggest that the relationships between self-construals and
outcomes may be more complicated than previously assumed by optimal distinctiveness
theory according to which only the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for
belongingness and distinctiveness leads to optimal psychological functioning and work
outcomes. Also, the finding that the combination of high levels of distinctiveness with
low levels of belongingness was associated with higher levels of voice behaviors than the
combination of low levels of distinctiveness with low levels of belongingness cannot be
explained based on the predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory.

Sixth, the data are not supportive of a mediating role of optimal distinctiveness —
that is, the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs of belongingness and distinctiveness —
in the relationship between the two dimensions of team structure and the study outcomes.
This is because there is no significant relationship between the two dimensions of team
structure and individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness, which would have been a
necessary requirement for mediation to exist in the model. Thus, this study cannot fully
explain the mechanisms through which different dimensions of team structure affect a
broad range of affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes, all of which relate to
individuals’ ability to function effectively at work. Put in different words, the study
provides only a first step in a program of research which is targeted at illuminating the
black box between different degrees of coupling in teams and relevant criteria.

Implications for Research

This study is one of the first empirical studies to investigate the social

consequences of team structures on individuals. As such, this study has at least five

implications for research on team structures and optimal distinctiveness. First, by

192

applying optimal distinctiveness theory to research on team structure, the study provides

a theoretical extension of team research. The notion that individuals can simultaneously
satisfy their needs for belongingness and distinctiveness in social settings constitutes an
important extension of previous team research. Indeed, previous research advocated the
use of either decoupled or tightly coupled team structures, emphasizing either

individuals’ distinct selves, or the identity of the entire team and the social embeddedness
of the individual team member. For example, the research of Wageman and Gordon
(Wageman, 1995; Wageman & Gordon, 2005) found that increasing task interdependence
strengthens lateral ties in teams and is associated with superior team outcomes. Similarly,
Deutsch’s social interdependence theory argued that the identity of teams should be
strengthened by creating team goals which eliminate competitive individual behavior.
What these two approaches have in common is that they advocate the use of tightly
coupled team structures in which the identity of the team should be strengthened at the
expense of the independent individual. Other research, however, concluded that team
structures should be decoupled in order to allow individuals to experience high personal
autonomy and to express their true selves. Spreitzer’s (1995) research on empowerment
in teams is a prominent example of this line of thinking.

The important theoretical contribution of optimal distinctiveness theory is that
team structures do not have to emphasize either the related self OR the independent self.
Instead, optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that team structures can create a set of
role relationships and connections between team members which allow individuals to

satisfy their needs for belongingness and distinctiveness simultaneously. Most notably,

I93

the positive relationship between the constructs belongingness and distinctiveness in this
study provide additional evidence in support of this conclusion.

Conclusions drawn from optimal distinctiveness theory should not be viewed as
negating previous research on team structure which has advanced our understanding of
tightly coupled and decoupled team structures. However, applying optimal
distinctiveness theory to research on team structure broadens our understanding of teams
and provides us with a theoretical framework with which we can study the positive and
negative social psychological implications of each team structure simultaneously.
Focusing exclusively on the positive effects of task interdependence for the intensity of
lateral connections between team members ignores the possibly de—individuating
influence of tightly coupled team structures. Similarly, focusing exclusively on the
liberating influence of team empowerment ignores the potentially negative consequences
of loosely coupled team structures for individuals’ perceptions of belongingness and
relatedness. In fact, the focus of previous research on the positive effects of either tightly
coupled or decoupled team structures also explains why there has been a scarcity of
research on loosely coupled team structures which can capitalize on the strengths of
tightly coupled and decoupled team structures, while at the same time keeping their
potential risks in check.

Second, this study also contributes to our understanding of team structures by
providing one of the first empirical investigations of loosely coupled teams (cf. Ellis et al.,
2003; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Results for the entire sample of research participants
indicate that loosely coupled vertical structures are associated with higher perceptions of

belongingness than decoupled or tightly coupled vertical structures. supporting the notion

194

that loosely coupled vertical team structures can maintain the identity of the team, while
ensuring that the de-individuating effects of high vertical interdependence do not
undermine individuals’ commitment to the team.

Similarly, even though the results for horizontal interdependence were not as
clear-cut as they were for vertical interdependence, results from this study suggest that
loosely coupled horizontal structures may be associated with highest levels of
belongingness among team members and leaders. Consistent with my theorizing on the
advantages of loosely coupled team structures, this finding suggests that loosely coupled
horizontal team structures can capitalize on the advantages of intensive lateral
connections between team members, while at the same time reducing the downsides of
tightly coupled horizontal structures, such as the higher risk for conflict between team
members.

Third, in spite of providing some empirical support for the use of loosely coupled
team structures, the results of this study also suggest that the mechanisms through which
team structures affect team members’ thoughts, feelings, and actions are manifold and
more complicated than anticipated. Most notably, with the exception of self-efficacy and
learning for horizontal interdependence and learning for vertical interdependence, none
of the criteria of this study were significantly related to the dummy-coded dimensions of
team structure. Most importantly, this finding points to the many contingencies which can
determine the effectiveness of different dimensions of team structure. Previous research
on structural contingency theory and structural adaptation theory (Hollenbeck et al.,

2002; Johnson et al., 2006) showed that the effectiveness of any team structure depends

195

on the external fit of the team structure with its environment and on the internal fit of the
team structure with team member characteristics.

And indeed, findings from this study provide some support for structural
contingency theory: Given the dominant influence of team structure for team member’s
cognition and behavior (Blau, 1978), the lack of a significant association between the
dummy-coded dimensions of team structure and study outcomes strongly suggests that a
number of critical contingencies exist for the effects of team structure on criteria.
Moreover, I found some support for the internal fit hypotheses according to which the
effect of team structure on selfvconstruals is moderated by individual difference
constructs.

Results indicate that extraversion, power distance, and cognitive ability
moderated the effect of horizontal interdependence or vertical interdependence on
individuals’ perceptions of belongingness. For example, extraversion moderated the
relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of belongingness such
that extraverted individuals experienced high levels of belongingness when horizontal
interdependence was high, whereas moderately extraverted individuals experienced
moderate levels of belongingness, and introverted individuals experienced low levels of
belongingness when horizontal interdependence was high. This result directly
demonstrates how the moderating influence of extraversion masks the important role
which horizontal interdependence has for different individuals.

Fourth, the results from this study also have important implications for Optimal
distinctiveness theory itself. First, the study provides some support for optimal

distinctiveness theory. Most notably, the finding that high levels of belongingness and

196

distinctiveness were also associated with maximum levels of positive affect, self-efficacy,
and voice behaviors supports the notion that a state of optimal distinctiveness is
associated with important outcomes. At the same time, however, it is also important to
point out that the interactive effect of belongingness and distinctiveness did not predict
the other criteria of the study, i.e., negative affect, self-evaluative well-being, learning,
performance, and team identification.

Moreover, the pattern of the interaction effects for the different criteria is more
complicated than previously assumed by optimal distinctiveness theory: Results from this
study support the notion that the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for belongingness
and distinctiveness results in positive outcomes, but the results cast doubts on other
predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory. For positive affect, the combination of low
belongingness and high distinctiveness was associated with lowest levels of positive
affect. Restated, for positive affect, individuals’ perceptions of belongingness determined
the nature of the relationship between distinctiveness and positive affect which was
positive when belongingness was high and negative when belongingness was low. This is
consistent with the predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory which argues that the
strength of one need (i.e., belongingness) increases with the extent to which the opposing
need (i.e., distinctiveness) is satisfied (Brewer, 1991). Thus, the satisfaction of the need
for distinctiveness in combination with an unsatisfied need for belongingness should
indeed be especially detrimental for individuals and be associated with lowest levels of
well-being, as is the case for low levels of positive affect.

The pattern of the interaction effects for self-efficacy and voice, however, is

strikingly different. For example, low levels of belongingness and low levels of

197

distinctiveness are associated with lowest levels of voice, even though Optimal
distinctiveness theory would predict that the combination of high levels of distinctiveness
and low levels of belongingness would be associated with lowest levels of voice
behaviors. Moreover, instead of changing the nature of the relationship between
distinctiveness and the outcomes, belongingness functions as an enhancer (for self-
efficacy) or substitute (for voice) in the relationship between distinctiveness and the
criteria. In sum, this suggests optimal distinctiveness theory cannot capture the
complexity of the interactive effects between belongingness and distinctiveness for
different criteria.

One potential explanation for this finding is that social psychological research has
generally placed a stronger focus on well-being related outcomes (cf. Brewer, 2003;
Brewer & Roccas, 2001) and less of a focus on criteria which attract the interest of
scholars in the field of Organizational Behavior, such as voice or self-efficacy. Thus, the
inconsistent findings for the pattern of the interaction effects for voice and self-efficacy
may simply be due to an extension of the criterion space for optimal distinctiveness
theory which has originally been deve10ped as a theory to explain how individuals
experience high levels of collective identification and well-being as members of a group
or collective. In sum, what is needed is more theoretical and empirical research on the
mechanisms through which the interactive effect of belongingness and distinctiveness
affects different criteria. I will return to this point when discussing an agenda for future
research based on the findings of this study.

Moreover, optimal distinctiveness theory cannot explain the strong size of the

main effects between the individual needs of belongingness and distinctiveness with

198

some of the criteria. In fact, most Of these relationships are stronger than the interactive
effects of belongingness and distinctiveness on these criteria. For example, the

correlation coefficients for the relationships between team member (excl. leader)
perceptions of belongingness and team member positive affect, self-evaluative well-being,
self-efficacy, and team identification are .41, .37, .24, and .62, respectively, and the
correlation coefficients for the relationships between team member (excl. leader)
perceptions of distinctiveness and self-efficacy, voice, and team identification are .17, .33,
and .22, respectively. This finding receives additional support from the supplemental
analyses which I conducted on the team level of analyses, which showed a significant
main effect of belongingness on overall team performance and team gains, whereas the
interaction effect of belongingness and distinctiveness was not related to any of the three
team outcomes.

These results cannot be explained by optimal distinctiveness theory, which
proposes that only the simultaneous satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and
distinctiveness allows individuals to experience high subjective well-being and to
function effectively at work. Instead, the strong nature of these main effects suggest that
the satisfaction Of only one of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness can already
provide important psychological nutrition to the self which can already lead to a number
of positive outcomes.

What surprises most is the large magnitude of the relationship between
perceptions of belongingness and team identification, evidenced by the correlation
coefficient of .62. One of the central predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory is that

individuals will experience highest levels of identification with a collective when both the

199

needs for belongingness and distinctiveness are satisfied (Brewer, 1991). The results
from this study, however, suggest that perceptions of belongingness may already be
sufficient to activate high levels of team identification, a proposition which receives
additional support when considering the non-significant nature of the moderating effect
of perceptions of distinctiveness in the relationship between belongingness and team
identification. In sum, findings from this study suggest that a state of optimal
distinctiveness is only one of several mechanisms which translate the effects of different
degrees of coupling in teams to the criteria investigated in this study.

Fifth, supplemental analyses on the team level of analysis provide some evidence
that the two constructs belongingness and distinctiveness also have important
implications for team outcomes. Due to the relatively small sample size on the team level
of analysis, this result has to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, findings from this
study indicate a significant association of belongingness with overall team performance
and team gains and of distinctiveness with team gains. In addition, results suggest that the
effects of belongingness on team outcomes may also be contingent upon team variance in
belongingness: Teams with high levels of belongingness realize higher overall
performance scores and lower team losses when team variance in belongingness is high,
whereas teams with low levels of belongingness realize lower overall performance and

higher team losses when team variance in belongingness is high.
Implications for Practice

There are at least three important implications for practice. First, the association

of loosely coupled vertical interdependence with highest perceptions of belongingness

200

supports the use of loosely coupled vertical team structures in organizations as a means to
satisfying individuals’ needs for belongingness and distinctiveness. Similarly, even
though the results were not as clear—cut for horizontal interdependence, the results

suggest the possibility that loosely coupled horizontal structures are also associated with
highest levels of belongingness.

This coincides with recent developments in organizations which have started to
converge on loosely coupled team structures. Not only do loosely coupled team structures
allow individuals to experience a psychological state of Optimal distinctiveness, they are
also viable solutions to conflicting environmental demands which today’s organizations
face.

Structural contingency theory argues that organizational structures should be
tightly coupled when efficiency requirements are high, and decoupled when requirements
for adaptation and flexibility are high (Hollenbeck et al., 2002). Given that organizations
today are operating in a dynamic environment in which efficiency has become a key
factor to determine the competitive position of an organization, it has become
increasingly difficult to structure organizations around decoupled individuals, and there
are only very few organizations who still advocate the use Of decoupled organizational
structures. Instead, organizations have turned to team-based structures which emphasize
the interdependence between individuals and which seek to capitalize on the different
backgrounds and knowledge bases of team members.

At the same time, however, organizations also have to compete in a dynamic
market environment in which the performance metrics for industries and organizations

change continuously. Based on structural contingency theory, this would argue for the

201

use of flexible, decoupled organizational structures which can adjust very effectively to
changing demands of the market environment. And indeed, organizations have endowed
individuals with greater autonomy in their work to be better prepared for the demands of
a dynamic environment. In sum, this suggests that organizations have to balance the
needs for efficiency with the need to remain flexible and adaptive — a balance of conflict
which has made loosely coupled team structures the structure of choice for many
organizations.

Second, even though loosely coupled teams have become the most commonly
employed team structure in organizations, it is important to note that there are situations
in which tightly coupled team structures or decoupled team structures may still be
necessary. In such situations, organizations should ensure that individuals can maintain
high levels Of distinctiveness when the requirements Of a task or environment demand
tightly coupled team structures, just as organizations should ensure that individuals can
still experience high levels of belongingness when decoupled teams have to be created in
organizations. By doing so, organizations can reap the benefits that the simultaneous
satisfaction of the needs for belongingness and distinctiveness provides for individuals’
positive affect, self-efficacy, and voice behaviors.

For example, the structure Of teams who are performing a routine set of tasks in a
relatively stable environment should lean towards tight coupling so that the superior
efficiency of tightly coupled team structures can be utilized. In order for such teams to
perform successfully over extended periods of time, however, it is necessary that
organizations provide vehicles for individuals to express their unique selves and to

emphasize their personal identity. For example, recognition of outstanding individual

202

contributions to team success affirms the distinctive identity of the individual. Similarly,
by creating functionally specialized roles which match individuals’ preferences and
backgrounds, individuals will find it easier to express their uniqueness.

Conversely, if organizations see themselves forced to employ decoupled team
structures, organizations have to ensure that individuals experience enough belongingness
and connectedness with other team members so that individuals remain psychologically
invested in their team and organization. Managers can accomplish this by emphasizing
the value of face-to-face communications and the value of interpersonal relationships in
decoupled team structures. Also, organizations can enhance perceptions of belongingness
in teams through the use of teambuilding exercises and through reward structures which
emphasize cormnon goals.

Third, findings from this study call for a match of team members’ personality,
cultural values, and cognitive ability with a team’s structure. At the very least, hiring
decisions should match individuals’ extraversion with the degree to which the team
structure is loosely or tightly coupled. Findings from this study indicate that
organizations should select extraverted individuals to teams with high horizontal
interdependence because extraverts are better equipped to deal with the high
communication requirements of such structures and because of extraverts’ higher
characteristic levels of activation. At the same time, however, this suggestion has to be
balanced with recent research which suggests that teams are most effective when they
balance the number of extraverted and introverted team members (Humphrey,

Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007).

203

Despite the significant moderating effect of cognitive ability in the relationship
between vertical interdependence and individuals’ perceptions of distinctiveness, it is
questionable whether organizations should really consider selecting individuals with
lower cognitive ability when vertical interdependence is low or high. Cognitive ability
has consistently been identified as a powerful predictor of job performance in a wide
variety of settings (Ree et al., 1994), which makes it difficult to argue that the selection of
individuals with lower cognitive ability could be desirable for organizations. At the same
time, however, the finding that individuals with high cognitive ability experience low
distinctiveness when vertical interdependence is low or high calls for programs which
emphasize the positive distinctiveness of team members in decoupled or tightly coupled
vertical team structures. Otherwise, organizations run the risk of loosing their most
talented employees who appear to be especially sensitive to the negative effects that low
and high levels of vertical interdependence can have.

Finally, results on the internal fit hypotheses from this study should not be
interpreted in isolation. Instead, organizations should interpret them together with recent
research on structural contingency theory and structural adaptation theory, which already
identified a number of important individual difference constructs as predictors of
individuals’ ability to function effectively in different team structures. For example,
Hollenbeck et al. (2002) reported that emotional stability is associated with performance
when horizontal interdependence is low, but not in team structures which are more tightly
coupled.

Limitations and Future Research

204

Despite the positive features of this study, the study also has several limitations
which are worth noting.

First, the study takes place in a laboratory context in which team members have
no common history of working together as a team. This could potentially limit the
generalizability of the results to a field setting. In addition, the laboratory context may
reduce the salience that individuals ascribe to their team membership, and it may
attenuate the strength of the psychological reactions which individuals experience in
response to different types of team structures. For example, individuals may become less
involved and committed to their team in a laboratory context than they would in an
organizational context, and as a result deveIOp lower levels of belongingness. Similarly,
even though teams were eligible to win cash prizes for above average performances on
the simulation, performance consequences in the study were less severe than they are for
teams in an organizational context, where the level of variable compensation, salary
increases, or promotions are contingent upon performance.

Despite these limitations, the laboratory design allowed me to study the social
psychological implications of different dimensions of team structure in a controlled
setting. Given that this was one of the first empirical investigations of different degrees of
coupling on individuals’ self-construals, the high internal validity of the laboratory design
offers a noteworthy advantage. Moreover, the laboratory setting allowed me to maximize
the variance on the independent variables, that is, on the manipulations of the two
dimensions of team structure. This presents an important advantage of the laboratory
design over a field study in which the variance on different degrees Of coupling in team

structures would be severely limited, given that most organizations have converged on

205

loosely coupled organizational structures. Finally, given that the salience of team
membership is lower in a laboratory context than in a field setting, it is likely that this
study actually provides conservative estimates of the actual strength of the relationships
between different degrees of coupling in teams and self-construals. In sum, future
research should replicate results from this study in a field setting to document the
generalizability of the study findings. Some of the previously mentioned aspects of field
settings which increase the salience of group membership, such as compensation designs,
opportunities for salary increases or promotions, could be incorporated into study designs
as potential moderators of the effects of different dimensions of team structure on self-
construals.

Second, the manipulation checks for horizontal interdependence and to a lesser
degree for vertical interdependence indicate that the experimental manipulations were not
able to pull apart the different experimental conditions as much as anticipated. This is
evidenced by the lack of a significant difference in the manipulation check for the
moderate and high horizontal interdependence conditions. Also, the overall range in
mean values across the three horizontal interdependence conditions was limited, ranging
from 5.49 to 6.03 (on a 7-point scale). Similarly, even though the manipulation checks for
the vertical interdependence conditions indicated significant differences between these
conditions, results also indicate that there is not as much variation in individuals’
perceptions of vertical interdependence across the three experimental conditions as
expected. In fact, the range of mean values for the three vertical interdependence
conditions also only ranges between 4.99 and 5.71 (on a 7-point scale), indicating that the

manipulation was not able to cover the full spectrum of vertical interdependence in teams.

206

The lack of variation between experimental conditions has implications for the
interpretation of the study findings. The fact that the experimental design was not able to
capture the full spectrum of different degrees of coupling in horizontal and vertical
interdependence implies that results of this study have to be interpreted with some
caution. It is possible that other relationships between the two dimensions of team
structure and self-construals would become statistically significant if the differences
between the experimental conditions were more salient to research participants. Similarly,
it is possible that the nature of some of the significant relationships in this study (i.e., the
significant effect of vertical interdependence on belongingness) would change at very
low levels of horizontal and vertical interdependence which are not represented in this
study.

Moreover, the experimental design rested on the assumption that the low,
moderate, and high experimental conditions were equidistant. Manipulation checks
revealed that this was indeed the case for vertical interdependence, but that this was not
the case for horizontal interdependence, where participants could not differentiate
between the high and moderate horizontal interdependence condition. Because of that,
results for the relationship between horizontal interdependence and perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness also have to be interpreted with caution. Specifically,
the non-significant effect of the contrast high-moderate horizontal interdependence on
perceptions of belongingness may very well be the result of the nonesignificant
differences between the moderate and high horizontal interdependence conditions. To
reiterate, the effect of the contrast high-moderate horizontal interdependence on

belongingness was the only non-significant effect between the two dimensions of team

207

structure and individuals’ perceptions of belongingness after aggregating team member
and leader data. Restated, with sufficient variation between these two experimental
conditions, it is possible that the contrast between these two experimental conditions
would have been associated with significant differences in team member perceptions of
belongingness.

Third, the manipulation for vertical interdependence consisted of four sets of
instructions and features of the simulation. This complex manipulation was used in an
attempt to maximize the variance between the experimental conditions. To reiterate, I
manipulated vertical interdependence first by varying the extent to which the strategy
discussion was dominated by the leader or whether the strategy discussion was conducted
in a participative manner. This included a manipulation of decision making rules related
to a goal-setting exercise in which teams engaged as part of the strategy discussion.
Second, I varied instructions on communication rules given to teams right before the start
of the session. Third, I varied the time that leaders or other team members had available
for their moves during the simulation, and fourth, I manipulated the extent to which
leaders were capable of overriding actions of team members during the simulation. Given
the relatively low variability between experimental conditions, the use of such a strong
and complex manipulation appears justified. At the same time, however, the study is not
able to discern which of the four manipulations drives perceptions of vertical
interdependence most strongly. Thus, future research should investigate the effectiveness
of the different components of the manipulation of vertical interdependence used in this

study.

208

Fourth, given that the predictions regarding the relationships between the
dimensions of team structure and distinctiveness were not supported for team members
and for the entire samme of research participants, the question arises as to whether this is
due to a lack of conceptual support for these hypotheses, or whether these non-significant
relationships are due to the research design of the study. First, it is possible that the
timing of measurements for the relationships led to the non-significant findings between
team structure and perceptions of distinctiveness. According to Vignoles et al. (2002),
positive distinctiveness results from distinct networking positions which individuals
occupy in teams and from differences in traits, abilities, and attitudes between team
members. It is possible that it takes a longer time period to develop distinct networking
positions in teams and to discern differences in traits and abilities than the laboratory
context allowed. This would mean that the present study underestimates the actual
strength of the relationship between team structure and perceptions of distinctiveness.

Also, the question arises as to whether the operationalization of distinctiveness
was appropriate to test the hypothesized relationships. Due to the poor psychometric
properties Of the Vignoles et al. (2002) measure, I was forced to only rely on the
distinctiveness measure by Janssen and Huang (2008). This measure demonstrated
adequate psychometric properties, but the measure by itself may be a deficient measure to
capture the relevant subdimensions of distinctiveness. Most notably, the J anssen and
Huang (2008) measure of distinctiveness does not capture network positions as one
possible source of distinctiveness in teams. Instead, it focuses solely on the perceived
uniqueness of team members with respect to differences in opinions,traits, abilities, or

performance contributions.

209

What is needed is a better operationalization of the distinctiveness construct
which matches the conceptual definition provided by optimal distinctiveness theory. Two
aspects are important here: First, such a measure should not be deficient in the sense that
it has to capture the different aspects of distinctiveness, such as differences in traits,
abilities, and attitudes, as well as distinct networking positions which individuals can
occupy in teams. Second, a measure of distinctiveness should not be contaminated, that is,
research on distinctiveness has to establish clear construct boundaries with related

constructs, such as autonomy or volition, which are frequently discussed in research on

 

individuals’ self-construals (i.e., Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001), even though they are not
consistent with the way that optimal distinctiveness theory defined distinctiveness
(Brewer, 1991).

Fifth, the lack of support for the differential predictions for leaders and team
members raises the question as to whether future research on self-construals should still
develop differential predictions for individuals on different hierarchical levels in an
organization. The present study supports the notion that the two dimensions of team
structure exhibit curvilinear relationships with team members’ and leaders’ self-
construals such that intermediate degrees of coupling in teams are associated with highest
levels of belongingness and distinctiveness. The present study cannot, however, provide
an answer to the question whether some relationships between team structure and self-
construals are more salient for leaders than they are for team members. For example,
results for leaders indicate a marginally significant relationship between high horizontal
interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness and between high vertical

interdependence and leader perceptions of distinctiveness, whereas the relationships

210

between the two dummy-coded dimensions of team structure and perceptions of
distinctiveness are not significant for team members and for the entire sample of research
participants. As I mentioned before, the lack of significant relationships of team structure
with distinctiveness in this study may in part stem from the fact that one of the two
measures Of distinctiveness suffers from poor psychometric properties. Nevertheless, the
marginally significant relationships with distinctiveness for leaders also raise the question
as to whether the effects of team structure on distinctiveness are more pronounced for
leaders.

A closer look at the correlation table also provides some support to the notion that
differential predictions for team members and team leaders may be warranted. Most
notably, the strength of the association between belongingness and distinctiveness differs
markedly between leaders and team members, evidenced by the moderately strong
relationship between the constructs for team members (r = .34) and the strong
relationship between the construct for leaders (r = .63). The difference in these two
correlation coefficients suggests the possibility of a moderator in the relationship between
the two constructs belongingness and distinctiveness. For example, for individuals who
occupy distinct networking positions in teams (i.e., leaders), high distinctiveness may be
a stronger reinforcer of perceptions of belongingness than is the case for individuals who
occupy less central networking positions in teams. In sum, what is needed is additional
research which investigates the possibility of differential predictions for leaders and team
members.

Sixth, the present study presents different patterns of the interaction effects of

belongingness and distinctiveness on positive affect, self-efficacy, and voice behaviors.

211

Specifically, the nature of the interaction effects predicting self-efficacy and voice are not
consistent with the predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory. It is possible that the
divergent nature of these interaction effects is due to a more broadly defined criterion
space - the present study extends predictions of optimal distinctiveness theory to
constructs which have traditionally received little to no interest in social psychology. But
ultimately, the different nature of the interaction effects cannot be fully explained solely
based on the findings of this study. What is needed is additional research which replicates
the findings presented in this study. Moreover, future research should address the
mechanisms through which the interaction effects influence these criteria.

Seventh, this study operationalized tightly coupled, loosely coupled, and
decoupled team structures with two dimensions of team structure — horizontal
interdependence and vertical interdependence. These two dimensions of team structure
have received the most research attention in the past, but at the same time, it is important
to note that horizontal and vertical interdependence are only two Of a number of different
dimensions of team structure along which teams could be tightly coupled, loosely
coupled, or decoupled. Thus, future research should investigate the social psychological
consequences of other dimensions of team structure.

Team structures can vary the extent to which individuals work towards the same
goals and to which they receive the same rewards, also referred to as outcome
interdependence (Schippers et al., 2003). In tightly coupled teams, all individuals would
be working towards the same goals and share the same rewards, whereas decoupled team
structures would emphasize individual goals and rewards. Moreover, team structures

differ in the extent to which they facilitate direct, frequent and rich face-tO-face

212

 

communication between team members, also referred to as communication
interdependence. Tightly coupled teams would be collocated and interacting with each
other frequently and face-to-face, whereas individuals in decoupled teams would be
operating from different locations, interacting with each other only sporadically and via
electronic means of communication.

Similar to my predictions on the effects of horizontal and vertical interdependence
on self-construals, future research should investigate how outcome and communication
interdependence influence individuals’ self-construals, and how these effects influence
individuals’ ability to function effectively at work. In addition to investigating the
isolating effects of outcome and communication interdependence on self-construals,
future research could also investigate how the configuration of different dimensions of
team structure affect individuals’ self-construals and behavior. Specifically, a promising
avenue for future research is to investigate how the alignment of different dimensions of
team structure affects individuals’ self-construals and behavior. Such a program of
research could answer the question whether the combination of a decoupled horizontal
team structure and a tightly coupled vertical structure is associated with the same
consequences for individuals’ self-construals as a team structure which is loosely coupled
on both horizontal and vertical interdependence.

Eighth, this study investigated only some individual difference constructs as
potential moderators of the effects of team structure on self-construals and found some
support for a moderating role of extraversion, power distance, and cognitive ability.
Based on these results and consistent with the predictions of structural contingency

theory, future research should investigate additional potential moderators of the effects of

213

 

team structure on self-construals. Promising candidates for additional moderators are
narcissism and masculinity. Both of these constructs influence how individuals approach
social situations and how they emphasize the distinct self in interpersonal relationships,
which makes them relevant for the discussion of the effects of team structure on self-
construals.

In addition to these individual difference constructs, future research should also
investigate characteristics of the external environment as potential moderators of the
effects of team structure on self-construals. Recent research on structural contingency
theory found that tightly coupled team structures are more effective when the task
environment is stable and predictable, whereas decoupled team structures are more
effective when task environments are dynamic and complex (Hollenbeck et al., 2002).
The fit of the team structure with the external environment should also have implications
for the way that individuals conceive of their group membership and for individuals’
perceptions of themselves such that a good fit should facilitate the development of high
belongingness and distinctiveness, whereas a bad fit will probably lead to greater conflict
in teams and lower levels of perceived belongingness and distinctiveness.

Another aspect of the external environment which may moderate the relationship
between team structure and self-construals is the perceived similarity of the team with
other teams Of the organization. For example, if individuals perceive strong differences
between their own team and other teams in the organization, then it is likely that
individuals may also respond more positively to tightly coupled team structures which
emphasize the identity of the entire team over the identity of the individual group

members. This is because individuals perceive a stronger need for group membership and

214

social inclusion when other groups appear as a potential threat to the interests of the self
and relevant others (Brewer, 2003).

Ninth, following the example of Detert and Burris (2007), I relied on self-reported
voice behaviors in this study. Previous research indicates that the frequency with which
individuals engage in voice behaviors is relatively low and that self-reports of voice
behaviors may overrepresent the frequency with which voice behaviors are actually
performed. Future research should attempt to replicate the interaction effect of
belongingness and distinctiveness on voice behaviors, relying on peer-reported voice.

Tenth, a number of constructs in this study were self—rated, such as perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness, levels of well-being, voice behaviors, self-efficacy, or
team identification. This introduces the possibility of common-method variance as an
alternative explanation for some of the study findings. A number of arguments speak
against this possibility, however. First, perceptions of belongingness and distinctiveness
and study outcomes were collected at different times. Specifically, perceptions of
belongingness and distinctiveness were collected after the end of the first half of the
simulation, whereas data on study outcomes were created at the end of the simulation.
Second, I hypothesized that only the simultaneous satisfaction of belongingness, that is,
the interaction of the two constructs, would predict study outcomes. Evans demonstrated
in an extensive Monte Carlo study that interaction effects are much less prone to common
method variance than main effects (Evans, 1985). In sum, the lagged study design and the
hypothesized interaction effects severely reduce the possibility of common method

variance as a driver of significant findings in this study.

215

 

Eleventh, supplemental analyses suggest the possibility that the two constructs
belongingness and distinctiveness also have important implications for team outcomes.
Due to the relatively small sample size on the team level of analysis, however, these
results have to be interpreted with caution. Future research should replicate the results
reported in the supplemental analyses of this study. Any such effort should investigate the
main effects of belongingness and distinctiveness on team outcomes and how these
effects may be contingent upon the level of team variance in these constructs. Moreover,
future research should investigate whether the simultaneous satisfaction of belongingness
and distinctiveness is also associated with positive team outcomes, as would be expected
based on optimal distinctiveness theory. The current study found no support for such an
interactive effect, but this could also be due to the small sample size on the team level of
analysis.

CONCLUSION

Organizations have started to converge on loosely coupled structures. The
majority of available research on team structures, however, has advocated the use of
decoupled or tightly coupled team structures. The current research provides one of the
first empirical investigations of the social psychological implications of team structures
with varying degrees of coupling in an attempt to explain why loosely coupled team
structures may provide the best fit for individuals. Examining how individuals define
themselves as members Of collectives and how group membership influences perceptions
of the self and others represent fundamental questions that have occupied organizational
scholars since research on organizational issues has begun. Although the current study

adds to this research, clearly much more needs to be done.

216

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Strategy Development Session

Strategic Decision #1 - Operations Missions: Risk versus Reward

Operational missions in LDX can emphasize high risk/reward strategies or low
risk/reward strategies. One way to capture this is in how often you conduct unescorted
Operation missions to unknown spaces. Any time a UAV moves into a space blind, it runs
a risk of being destroyed if it is not escorted or double escorted. Only a few missions can
be escorted, however. The list below show several levels of risk/reward trade-offs, where
the first option reflects the least amount of risk, but the least potential reward, and the last
option reflects the most amount of risk, but the most potential reward. Thus, a critical
decision in LDX is how you should balance risk/reward. Circle the best decision option:

Double Escort Every Blind Mission = 2 Blind Missions/Round Cautious
Double Escort 1, Single Escort 2 = 3 Blind Missions/Round -

Single Escort Every Blind Mission = 4 Blind Missions/Round -

Single Escort 4, Run 4 Unescorted = 8 Blind Missions/Round -

Single Escort 4, Run 8 Unescorted = 12 Blind Missions/Round -

No Escort, Run 12 Unescorted = 16 Blind Missions/Round Risky

Decision #2 - Intelligence Missions: Breadth versus Dmh

Intelligence missions in LDX can be single-sourced (one asset to the space) or double-
sourced (two assets to the space). In the initial rounds, when you do not know where each
asset is best, double-sourcing intelligence missions increases accuracy because the pair is
as accurate as the best source. However, double-sourcing decreases the amount of space
that can be uncovered in any one round, and also makes it more difficult to learn where
each asset works best. Thus, a critical decision in LDX is what percentage Of time to you
should double-source versus single source intelligence assets. Circle the best decision
Option:

Double Source 100% of Intel Missions = 16 Missions/Round Depth
Double Source 75% of Intel Missions = 20 Missions/Round -
Double Source 50% of Intel Missions = 24 Missions/Round -
Double Source 25% of Intel Missions = 28 Missions/Round -
Double Source 0% of Intel Missions = 32 Missions/Round Breadth

Decision #3 - Integrated Missions: Exploratory versus Conflrmatorv

Intelligence assets and operational assets can go to the same spaces. Exploratory
strategies send the Intel assets to the space first, followed by the Operational assets in
later rounds. Since Intel assets cannot be destroyed, they can explore the space and make
sure it is safe for future operations. However, since the accuracy of Intel is less than

217

100%, this exploration is not always perfect. Alternatively, Operations and Intel can go in
the space at the same time — we call this an integrated mission. Integrated missions allow
Intel to confirm the accuracy of their sources and quickly learn where they are most
accurate. However, integrated missions to blind Spaces are risky. Integrated missions also
reduce the breadth of coverage. Thus, a critical decision in LDX is what percentage of
Intel Operations should be Exploratory or Confirmatory. Circle your decision:

75 % of Intelligence Missions Should be Confirmatory
50% of Intelligence Missions Should be Confirrnatory
25% of Intelligence Missions Should be Confirmatory
00% of Intelligence Missions Should be Confurnatory

218

Appendix B: High Vertical Interdependence Instructions
In this simulation, there is a lot of information that needs to be coordinated. There is so
much information that your team members can only coordinate their actions toward the
same goals by following guidance from the commander. It is important that every team
member keeps in mind the overall team strategy. Though your commander cannot review
every bit of information, he/she is in the best position to integrate the actions of your
team members. We expect that you respect his/her decisions and that you follow the
instructions which you get from your commander. The commander is authorized to
modify all of the decisions taken by staff members during the commander planning
phase, where he/she can delete or modify staff members’ decisions which were entered

during the staff planning phase.

219

Appendix C: Low Vertical Interdependence Instructions
In this simulation, there is a very large amount of information that must be processed.
There is so much information processing involved that no one person can successfully
conduct the simulation alone. It is important that every team member fills the duties of
their role. Though your commander has the ability to modify staff member orders, he/she
does not have the time to review all of the information required to re-examine every
single order. We expect that you will be proactive team members and that you will show
initiative in your actions. If there is disagreement between team members, your
commander should poll all team members regarding their preferences on how to proceed.
Discussions of the team’s strategy should best take place during the commander planning

phase and be moderated by the mission commander.

220

Appendix D: Moderate Vertical Interdependence Instructions
In this simulation, there is a very large amount of information that must be processed.
There is so much information processing involved that it is important that both your
commander and every team member work together to stay on top of this complexity. It is
important that every team member fills the duties of their role. There are times when your
commander will have to make decisions by himself/herself without consulting your team.
By contrast, there are also situations when your commander should involve all team

members and poll each team member regarding their preferences when decisions have to

be made. We expect that you will be sensitive to the different demands of these situations.

Also, note that the commander is authorized to modify decisions taken by staff members
during the commander planning phase, where he/she can delete or modify staff members’
decisions which were entered during the staff planning phase. When making changes,
however, the commander should consult first with the staff member whose decision is to

be overruled.

221

 

Appendix E: Measures Used in Laboratory Study

Horizontal interdependence

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your
team
1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

The tasks of the other team members depended on the performance of my task.
I depended on information provided by other people so that I could perform my task.
My task could not have been performed unless other team members complete their tasks.

Vertical interdependence - Self-rated

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements which
describe your team. In this case, the term “team” refers to the four staff members,
excluding the commander.

I = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

We made our own choices without being told by our commander.

We had significant autonomy in determining how we completed our tasks.

We had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how we performed on
the simulation.

Vertical interdependence - Commander-rated

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements which
describe your team. In this case, the term “team” refers to the four staff members,
excluding you as a commander.

I = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

The team could make their own choices without being told by me as their commander.
The team had significant autonomy in determining how they completed therr tasks.
The team had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom 1n how they

performed on the simulation.

Perceptions of belongingness

Think of how you felt in relation to the other members of your team during this
experiment,
1 = not at all, 7 = extremely

During this experiment, I. ..

felt close and connected with my team.
felt understood and appreciated by my team.

222

felt a sense of relatedness with my team.

Please circle the picture below which best describes your relationship with the other
teammates

OO“@

Self Others Self Others Self Others Self Others
Self Others Self Others Self Others

Perceptions of distinctiveness

To what extent did you feel different from the members of your team during this
experiment,
I = not at all, 7 = extremely

Owing to your remarkable skills and abilities

Owing to your unique say in the matter

Owing to your unique view on problems

Because you think, feel, and behave in different ways
Owing to your vigorously individual contribution

Please use the rating scale below to describe your relationship with your team?
1 = not at all, 7 = extremely

To what extent did you feel unique among your team members?

To what extent did you feel that you have a distinctive position in your team?
To what extent did you feel that you have a different personality from the other team

223

members?
To what extent do you see yourself as separate from the other members of the team?

Collectivism

Think about the work groups to which you currently belong (excluding the team in this
experiment) and have belonged to in the past. The items below ask about your
relationship with, and droughts about, those particular groups. Respond to the following
questions, as honestly as possible, using the response scales provided.

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

I preferred to work in those groups rather than working alone.
Working in those groups was better than working alone.

I wanted to work with those groups as opposed to working alone.

I felt comfortable counting on team members to do their part.

I was not bothered by the need to rely on group members.

I felt comfortable trusting group members to handle their tasks.

The health of those groups was important to me.

I cared about the well-being of those groups.

I was concerned about the needs of those groups.

I followed the norms of these groups.

I followed the procedures of these groups.

I accepted the rules of those groups.

I cared more about the goals of those groups than about my own goals.
I emphasized the goals of those groups more than my individual goals.
Group goals were more important to me than individual goals.

Power distance ,
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements
2 slightly or not at all, to 7 = very much

It is better not to disagree with management decisions.

When my supervisor at work makes a decision with which I disagree, I prefer to accept it
rather than question it.

I believe that it is not right to disagree with my boss.

Extraversion and Emotional Stability

Listed below are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the rating scale below
to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself as you
generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly
see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly
your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses
will be kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully, and then
indicate your response to each statement by choosing your answer in the right column.
1=very inaccurate to 5 = very accurate

224

Items for Extraversion:

I am the life of the party.

I don’t talk a lot. (R)

I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
I keep in the background. (R)

Items for Emotional Stability:

I have frequent mood swings. (R)
I am relaxed most of the time.

I get upset easily. (R)

I seldom feel blue.

Positive affect/Negative affect

Please indicate the extent to which you are feeling right now, that is, in the present
moment.

I = slightly or not at all, to 7 = very much

Active
Afraid
Alert
Ashamed
Attentive
Determined
Distressed
Enthusiastic
Excited
Guilty
Hostile
Inspired
Interested
Irritable
Jittery
Nervous
Proud
Scared
Strong
Upset

Self-evaluative well-being,

Please indicate the extent to which you are feeling right now, that is, in the present
moment.

I = slightly or not at all, to 7 = very much

Able to concentrate on whatever I have been doing

Feeling reasonably happy
Making useful contributions

225

 

Capable of making decisions
Able to face up to my responsibilities

Self-efficacy

Please indicate the extent to which you feel confident that you will be able to achieve a
score which is higher than the lowest 10% of scores for participants who have played the
exact same role as you will play.

0 =not at all, to 10 extremely confident

Please indicate the extent to which you feel confident that you will be able to achieve a

score which is higher than the average of scores for participants who have played the

exact same role as you will play. i
0 =not at all, to 10 extremely confident

Please indicate the extent to which you feel confident that you will be able to achieve a j
score which is higher than the scores for 90% of participants who have played the exact

same role as you will play. i
0 =not at all, to 10 extremely confident

 

Voice

Please describe the extent to which you engaged in the following behaviors during this
experiment

I = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

I developed and made recommendations concerning issues that affected this team.

I spoke up and encouraged others in the group to get involved in issues that affected the
team.

I communicated my opinions about important aspects of our team behavior even if my
opinion was different and others in the team disagreed with me.

I kept well informed about issues where my opinion could have been useful for this team.
I got involved in issues that affected the quality of team processes.

I spoke up with ideas for changes in procedures.

Job Performance - Peer-rated

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements for team
member A (B, C, D, E) which describe this person’s behavior during the simulation.
1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

This team member is superior to other team members.

The overall level of performance that I have Observed for this team member is
outstanding.

My personal opinion of this team member is that he/she is very effective.

Overall, I feel that this team member has been effectively fulfilling his or her roles and
responsibilities.

Learning Behaviors - Peer-rated

226

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements for team
member A (B, C, D, E) which describe this person’s behavior during the simulation.
1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

This team member actively reviewed his/her progress and performance.

This team member performed on the simulation without stopping to consider all the
information that other team members have. (R)

This team member ignored feedback from others in the team. (R)

This team member asked for help from others in the team when something came up that
he/she did not know how to handle.

Team Identification — Self-rated

Please describe the extent to which you engaged in the following behaviors during this
experiment

I = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent

I feel emotionally attached to this team

I feel a strong sense of belonging to this team
I feel as if the team’s problems are my own

I feel like part of the family in this team

227

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y. & Sackheim, H. A. (1977). A paradox of depression: Uncontrollability
and self—blame. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 838-851.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1 - 18.

Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & N aquin, C. (1999). Group learning in organizations. In M.
E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 369-411).
New York: Erlbaum.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative
time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and
support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 963-970.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Barrick, M. B., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1 I 7,
497-529.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D.
R. (2003). COOperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a
contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572-590.

Berger. P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of. reality. A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

228

Bettencourt, B. A., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanisms for psychological
need satisfaction within social groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 81, 1131-1143.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice-taking and decision-making: An integrative
literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

Brewer, M. B. (1997). On the social origins of human nature. In C. McGarty & S. A.
Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp. 54-62). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.

Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness theory, social identity, and the self. In M.
R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480-491).
New York: Guilford Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity
and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 , 83-93.

Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal
distinctiveness. In C. Sedikides & M. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational
self} collective self (pp. 219-237). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Bunderson, J. S. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002).Comparing alternative conceptualizations of
functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effect.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875-893.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

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, 823-850.

Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations
model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, I, 276-298.

Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Ostracism: A metaphor for death. In J. Greenberg,
S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential
psychology (pp. 336-351). New York: Guilford.

229

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the
emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 956-974.

Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of
demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 273-287.

Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems-theory of motivated behavior in work
teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-267.

Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Codol, J -P. (1984). Social differentiation and nondifferentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed), The
social dimension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, J ., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed. ). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness
research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,
239-290.

Cohen, S.G., Chang, L., Ledford, GE. (1997). A hierarchical construct of self-
management leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived
work group effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50, 275-308.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self—managing teams: A
quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO F ive-F actor (NEO-FFI ) inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL:
PAR.

Davis. K. (1949). Human society. New York: Macmillan.

Deci. E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, I I, 227-268.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-
152.

230

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-
being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 403-425.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-[PIP
scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 1 8, 192—203.

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective
leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In J. L. C. Cheng, & R. B. Patterson (Eds.),

Advances in international comparative management, (Vol. 3, pp. 127-150).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Douglas, C. & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Transition to self-directed work teams:
Implications of transition time and self-monitoring for managers’ use of influence
tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 47-65.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). The proficiency trap: How to balance enriched job designs and
the team’s need for support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 979-996.

Druskat, V. U. & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
435-457.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test
of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.

Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2005). Why it hurts to be left out: The
neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams, J. P.
Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,
rejection, and bullying (pp. 109-130). New York: Psychology Press.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An
fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization,
commitment to the group, and group self-esteem as related yet distinct aspects of
social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-3 89.

231

Ellis, A. P. J ., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J ., & Ilgen, D.
R. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 821-835.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance 1

moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.

Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety - The cognitive perspective. Hover: UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Fayol, H. (1930). Industrial and general administration. London: Pitman & Sons.
Original work published 1916.

Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. L., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and
validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
1348-1366.

Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 737-750.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. New York: Pantheon.

Gardner, D. G., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Activation theory and task design: Review
and reconceptualizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds). Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Gelfand, M. J ., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., N ishii, L. H., & O’ Brien K. (2006).
Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-451.

Gerber, J ., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta—analysis of experimental
research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468-488.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and
standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521-531.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical‘analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, I 7, 183-211.

Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the General Health
Questionnaire. NFER-Nelson, Basingstoke.

232

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe,
Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R.,
& Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of
public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-
96.

Griffm, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West. M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork:
The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537-550.

Hackman, J. R. (2009, May). Why teams don’t work. Harvard Business Review, 99-105.

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical,
conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342.

 

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and how team leaders matter. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-74.

Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity
generalization, minority issues, and the general aptitude test battery. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

Hastie, R., & Parks, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends
on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review,
93, 258-268.

Hedlund, J., Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Decision accuracy in computer-
mediated versus face-to-face decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 76, 30-47.

Heller, D., & Watson, D. (2005). The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and
marriage: The role of time and mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1273-
1279.

Higgins, E. T. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences: International difi‘erences in work related
values. Sage: London.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J ., West, B. J ., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., Porter,
C. O. L. H., & Wagner, J. A. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual
differences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 599-607.

233

Hollenbeck, J.R., & Spitzmuller, M. (in press). Team design: Tight versus loose coupling
in task-oriented groups. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

London, England: Oxford Press.

Holmvall, C. M., & Bobocel, D. R. (2008). What fair procedures say about me: Self-
construals and reactions to procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 105, 147-168.

Homsey, M. J ., & J etten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need
to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

8, 248-264.

Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J ., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait
configuration in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of
seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 885-892.

Hurvich, L. M., & Jameson, D. (1974). Opponent process as a model of neural
organization. American Psychologist, 29, 88-102.

1] gen, D. R. (1999). Teams in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist,
54, 129-139.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
From I-P—O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-544.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among
personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience-sampling study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139.

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). (2010). Retrieved February 2010, from
http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/.

Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006).
Psychological collectivism, A measurement validation and linkage to group member

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884-899.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships
between job demand, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of

Management Journal, 44, 1039—1050.

234

 

J anssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual

differentiation as complementary drivers of team members’ citizenship and creative
behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 69-88.

Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness:
The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual
support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904.

Jetten, J ., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of
distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1481-1492.

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory,
research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58, 931-945.

 

Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., J undt, D., & Meyer, C.
(2006). Cutthroat c00peration: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team
reward structure. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103-119.

Jones, J. R. (1995). Organizational theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits — self
esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability — with job

satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
80-92.

Kerlinger, R. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of
Management Review, 6, 499-508.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172.

Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In W. A.
Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development, (Vol. 10, pp. 131-167). An annual series featuring advances in
theory, methodology, and research. US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and

consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-
74.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team

empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face
interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175-192.

235

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 5, 48-60.

Koffka, K. (1922). Perception — An introduction to the gestalt-theorie. Psychological
Bulletin, 19, 531-585.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World.

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 (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.

Kozlowski, S. W. J ., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups
and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.

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

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmermann, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group
autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 563-585.

Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management. A longitudinal study of the
effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence self-managing
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885-900.

Latané, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The
causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 822-832.

Lau, D. C. & Mumighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The
effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645-659.

Leiden, R. C., Wayne, S. J ., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early
development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
662-674.

LePine, J .A., Hollenbeck, J .R., & I] gen, D.R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual
differences on the performance of hierarchical decision making teams: Much
more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803-811.

236

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. E, 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, 273-308.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting
forms of contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with Big
Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86 (2), 326-336.

Le’vi-Strauss, C. (1958). Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Plon.

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, 794-813.

Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positi ve psychology (pp. 395-410). London: Oxford
University Press.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topical psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Man, I). C., & Lam, S. K. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on
cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups. A cross-cultural

analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 979-1001.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves. The external
leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quaterly, 32,

106-129.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

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, 97-108.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1991-
2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of

Management, 34, 410-476.

McAdams, , D. P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 7-

22). New York: Wiley.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (2nd ed.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

237

Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Maue, B. (2003). The tripartite model of
neuroticism and the suppression of depression and anxiety within an escalation of
commitment dilemma. Journal of Personality, 71, 347 ~368.

Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., West, 3., Ellis, A. P. J., &
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as
one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 681-695.

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.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, SB. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orton, J. D. & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 203-223.

Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and
the mediating role of work characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
620-634.

Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A
personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational
citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10, 111-132.

Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Assimilation and differentiation needs as
motivational determinants of perceived in- group and out-group homogeneity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 341-348.

Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and
differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup
size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546-558.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,

26, 513-563.

Preacher, K. J ., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent
curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.

238

Ree, M. J ., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 321-332.

Ree, M. J ., & Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not
much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518-524.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well—
being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26: 419-435.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8 7, 698-714.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior:
A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306-1314.

Rusbult. C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and
relationship. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375.

Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational change via group
methods. New York: Wiley.

Schippers, M. C., Den Hartoog, D. N ., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity
and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and

group longevity and the mediating effects of reflexivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Scott, W. R. (2002). Organizations. Rational, natural, and Open systems (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sewell, G. (1998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work

through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,
397-428.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliott, A. J ., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2000). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

239

 

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-
construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 53, 550-562.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference.
New York: Plenum.

Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation. The costs of
pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712.

Spitzmuller, M. & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they [all] see my true self? Leader’s relational
authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 304-332.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Staw, B. M. (1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1,
253-273.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in
organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26, 501-524.

Stewart, G. L. & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity of theory of intergroup behavior. In
S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago:

Nelson—Hall.

Tesluk, P. & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness:
Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200-217.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L.
Berkowity (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-
227). San Diego, DC: Academic Press.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative
theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

240

—J

 

 

 

 

 

Triandis, H. C. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives on personality. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology, (pp. 439-464).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J ., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. ( 1994). Self and collective:
Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
454-463.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J ., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds) (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Uhl-Bien, M. & Graen, G. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of
professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 340-350.

Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays,
ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918-928.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of
interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job
and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity
and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence
and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715-722.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in
multidisciplinary teams. The importance of collective team identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters).
Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.

Van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Social identity and persuasion: Reconsidering the role of
group membership. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity and
Social Cognition (pp. 315-331). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

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

Vignoles, V. L., & Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, A. G. M. (2002). Sources of
distinctiveness: position, difference and separateness in the identities of Anglican
parish priests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 761-780.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 145-180.

241

Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. (2005). As the twig is bent: How group values shape
emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16, 687-700.

Wagner, J. A. (2000). Organizations. In A. E. Kadzin (Ed), Encyclopedia of Psychology
(Vol. 6, pp. 14-20). New York: Oxford Press and the American Psychological
Association.

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative
aflect schedule - Expanded form. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Iowa,
Iowa City.

Weber. M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, edited by H. H. Gerth and C.
Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization, edited by Talcott
Parsons. New York: Free Press.

Wegner, D. M. (1980). The self in prosocial action. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher
(Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 131-157). New York: Oxford University
Press.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2], 1-19.

Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Wener, A. E. & Rehm, L. P. (1975). Depressive affect: A test of behavioral hypotheses.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 221-227.

Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II. Psychologische
Forschung, 4, 301-350.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84-
94.

Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by
a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.

242

MICHIGAN SIATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

III III III. I

0306

I I