Sessie 5: Power, status, and
hierarchy
Power in Teams: Effects of team power structures on team conflict
and team outcomes (Greer)
Power the asymmetric control of valued resources in social relations.
Power structures in teams can be understood as existing based on the composition of the
individually held power of individual team members. In these team settings, multiple
dimensions of power may feed into the overall level of power held by each individual in the
team.
Members may all have similar overall levels of power, in part due to drawing on different
bases, or types, of power.
Three primary types of team power structures have been examined in research thus far –
team power level, team power dispersion, and team power variety.
1. Team power level = the mean level of individual-member power in the team.
2. Team power dispersion/ hierarchy = the spread of power within the team.
3. Team power variety = the degree to which members in the team draw their power
from different sources.
TEAM POWER LEVEL
Team power can activate approach systems of individual team members, and thereby
of the team as the whole.
1
, o Increasing the power level of employees in a team should promote positive
influence processes in the team, such as voice and participation in decision
making.
o When team power level is high, members may be more likely to express their
opinions, and positive influence processes such as voice can emerge, which
make members more motivated, committed, and likely to expend effort on
group tasks, thereby improving team performance.
However, team power can also activate feelings of threat and distrust.
o Team power level may increase intragroup conflicts and harm team
performance.
Team power level appears to have the potential for both positive and negative effects
on team performance. Across different areas of research, the finding that teams with
multiple individuals with high power and status have conflict and coordination
problems and lower team outcomes appears to be very robust. However, these
dynamics stand in stark contrast to the benefits of high team power as espoused in
the shared leadership literature.
TEAM POWER DISPERSION
The benefits of team power dispersion, as a form of intrateam hierarchy, have been
recently extolled in several theoretical reviews.
o These suggest that team power dispersion should predominantly benefit team
performance.
Research in sociology, political science, and international relations notes that
hierarchies, or differences in resources, are an important source of perceived
inequalities, conflicts, and even wars.
Together, the emerging body of work on the role of hierarchy in teams suggests that
both benefits and detriments of hierarchy, or team power dispersion, exist.
o On the upside, team power dispersion can improve cooperation, coordination,
and role clarity, but on the downside, it can breed feelings of inequality and
resentment.
o Whether the benefits or detriments of hierarchy arise depend largely on the
context, including the interdependence of the task or the mean level of power
of the team.
TEAM POWER VARIETY
When team power variety is high, team members draw their relative and varying
levels of power from different sources.
o This is likely to reduce power struggles and conflicts between team members
because it increases role clarity and reduces the potential for social
comparisons and jealousy over a common power source.
However, at the same time, when members draw their power from different sources,
this may also create problems.
o This type of diversity may imply that members have different thought worlds,
which can impair team communication and performance.
The empirical studies of power variety to date offer primary support for the positive
perspective on team power variety. Together, both these studies suggest that team
power variety can help clarify member roles and alleviate power struggles, thereby
improving team performance.
POTENTIAL MODERATORS OF TEAM POWER STRUCTURES
2
hierarchy
Power in Teams: Effects of team power structures on team conflict
and team outcomes (Greer)
Power the asymmetric control of valued resources in social relations.
Power structures in teams can be understood as existing based on the composition of the
individually held power of individual team members. In these team settings, multiple
dimensions of power may feed into the overall level of power held by each individual in the
team.
Members may all have similar overall levels of power, in part due to drawing on different
bases, or types, of power.
Three primary types of team power structures have been examined in research thus far –
team power level, team power dispersion, and team power variety.
1. Team power level = the mean level of individual-member power in the team.
2. Team power dispersion/ hierarchy = the spread of power within the team.
3. Team power variety = the degree to which members in the team draw their power
from different sources.
TEAM POWER LEVEL
Team power can activate approach systems of individual team members, and thereby
of the team as the whole.
1
, o Increasing the power level of employees in a team should promote positive
influence processes in the team, such as voice and participation in decision
making.
o When team power level is high, members may be more likely to express their
opinions, and positive influence processes such as voice can emerge, which
make members more motivated, committed, and likely to expend effort on
group tasks, thereby improving team performance.
However, team power can also activate feelings of threat and distrust.
o Team power level may increase intragroup conflicts and harm team
performance.
Team power level appears to have the potential for both positive and negative effects
on team performance. Across different areas of research, the finding that teams with
multiple individuals with high power and status have conflict and coordination
problems and lower team outcomes appears to be very robust. However, these
dynamics stand in stark contrast to the benefits of high team power as espoused in
the shared leadership literature.
TEAM POWER DISPERSION
The benefits of team power dispersion, as a form of intrateam hierarchy, have been
recently extolled in several theoretical reviews.
o These suggest that team power dispersion should predominantly benefit team
performance.
Research in sociology, political science, and international relations notes that
hierarchies, or differences in resources, are an important source of perceived
inequalities, conflicts, and even wars.
Together, the emerging body of work on the role of hierarchy in teams suggests that
both benefits and detriments of hierarchy, or team power dispersion, exist.
o On the upside, team power dispersion can improve cooperation, coordination,
and role clarity, but on the downside, it can breed feelings of inequality and
resentment.
o Whether the benefits or detriments of hierarchy arise depend largely on the
context, including the interdependence of the task or the mean level of power
of the team.
TEAM POWER VARIETY
When team power variety is high, team members draw their relative and varying
levels of power from different sources.
o This is likely to reduce power struggles and conflicts between team members
because it increases role clarity and reduces the potential for social
comparisons and jealousy over a common power source.
However, at the same time, when members draw their power from different sources,
this may also create problems.
o This type of diversity may imply that members have different thought worlds,
which can impair team communication and performance.
The empirical studies of power variety to date offer primary support for the positive
perspective on team power variety. Together, both these studies suggest that team
power variety can help clarify member roles and alleviate power struggles, thereby
improving team performance.
POTENTIAL MODERATORS OF TEAM POWER STRUCTURES
2
