Share This Article:

The Mediating Role of the Sense of Relatedness and Task Cohesion in the Relation between Psychological Power Distance and Efficicency of a Working Team

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:104KB) PP. 741-743
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.410105    3,382 Downloads   5,029 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Understanding of the effectiveness of work-teams is a major issue in the business world, where they are expected to facilitate developing individual skills and increasing organizations’ efficiency. Eighty-three engineers working in teams have responded to a questionnaire devised to measure perceptual power distances, the sense of relatedness, cohesion measured by integration around the task, and teams’ effectiveness. Results reveal that “task cohesion” and sense of relatedness mediate the relationship between power distance and perceived effectiveness. These results are related with those observed in the context of the self-determination theory and presented in order to highlight their practical implications.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Auzoult, L. (2013). The Mediating Role of the Sense of Relatedness and Task Cohesion in the Relation between Psychological Power Distance and Efficicency of a Working Team. Psychology, 4, 741-743. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.410105.

References

[1] Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1980). Power equalization and work effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 223-237.
[2] Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1997). Value congruence in leader-member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 647-662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595486
[3] Auzoult, L. (2012). How psychological distances from power develop through power distance values. Psihologia Sociala, 29, 7-15.
[4] Auzoult, L., & Abdellaoui, S. (2011). The mediating role of reflexivity and climate between power distance and efficiency of a working team. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 17, 1-10.
[5] Beaudin, G., & Savoie, A. (1995). L’efficacité des équipes de travail: Définition, composantes et mesures. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 16, 185-201.
[6] Cabrera, A, Collins, W. C, & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 17, 245-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404614
[7] Campion, A. C., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01806.x
[8] Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Human autonomy in cross-cultural context, perspectives on the psychology of agency, freedom and well-being. London: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8
[9] 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
[10] Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.74.4.580
[11] Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96, 247-262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020929
[12] Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2863
[13] Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002
[14] Festinger, L. (1950). Informational social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056932
[15] Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625
[16] Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory as a new framework for understanding organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322
[17] Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administration Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392936
[18] Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences—Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
[19] Hsu, M. H., Chen, Y.-L., I., Chiu, C. M., & Ju, T. L. (2007). Exploring the antecedents of team performance in collaborative learning of computer software. Computers & Education, 48, 700-718.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.018
[20] Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33, 121-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300104
[21] Lavigne, G. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Crevier-Braud, L. (2011). The fundamental need to belong on the distinction between growth and deficit-reduction orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1185-1201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211405995
[22] Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L., (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001
[23] Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiro, J. M., & González, P. (2007). The roles of group potency and information and communication technologies in the relationship between task conflict and team effectiveness: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2888-2903.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.06.004
[24] Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & De Church, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013773
[25] Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6951-6
[26] Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
[27] Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
[28] Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.
[29] Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction and validation of the need to belong scale. European Review of Applied Psychology, 48, 129-137.
[30] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Approaching and avoiding self-determination: Comparing cybernetic and organismic paradigms of motivation. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Perspectives on behavioral self-regulation, Volume 12 (pp. 193-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[31] Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020
[32] Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C., (2004). Value congruence and commitment to the organization and to the work group. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 10, 165-187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pto.2004.04.008

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.