Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g98kq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T16:59:49.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working Together versus Working Autonomously: a New Power-Dependence Perspective on the Individual-Level of Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2014

Simon B. de Jong
Simon B. de Jong*
Affiliation:
EADA Business School (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Simon B. De Jong. EADA Business School. Department of People Management. Calle Aragó, 204. 08011. Barcelona (Spain). Phone: +34–934520844. Fax: +34–933237317. E-mail: sdejong@eada.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies have indicated that it is important to investigate the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy because this interaction can affect team effectiveness. However, only a limited number of studies have been conducted and those studies focused solely on the team level of analysis. Moreover, there has also been a dearth of theoretical development. Therefore, this study develops and tests an alternative theoretical perspective in an attempt to understand if, and if so why, this interaction is important at the individual level of analysis. Based on interdependence theory and power-dependence theory, we expected that highly task-interdependent individuals who reported high task autonomy would be more powerful and better performers. In contrast, we expected that similarly high task-interdependent individuals who reported less task autonomy would be less powerful and would be weaker performers. These expectations were supported by multi-level and bootstrapping analyses performed on a multi-source dataset (self-, peer-, manager-ratings) comprised of 182 employees drawn from 37 teams. More specifically, the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy was γ =.128, p <.05 for power and γ =.166, p <.05 for individual performance. The 95% bootstrap interval ranged from .0038 to .0686.

Keywords

interdependenceautonomyperformancepower-dependence theoryasymmetry in task dependence

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 17 , 2014 , E37
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 331–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392511 Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43, 721–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094546 Google Scholar
Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 240–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.657 Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 Google Scholar
De Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1625–1637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625 Google Scholar
Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 216–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.88.2.216 Google Scholar
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals-An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5 Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089716 Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2 nd Ed., pp. 678–692). New York, NY: Guilford Publishing.Google Scholar
Giebels, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 255–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<255::AID-EJSP991>3.0.CO;2–7 Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001 Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520903047327 Google Scholar
Guinote, A. (2007). Behavior variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 256–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280701692813 Google Scholar
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546 Google Scholar
Hox, J. (2007). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393638 Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.Google Scholar
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, A. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265 Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003-2 Google Scholar
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 31, 145–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90118-6 Google Scholar
Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2001). The power interaction model. In Lee-Chai, A. Y. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), The use and abuse of power (pp. 195–214). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06 Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2000). Work group design and autonomy: A field study of the interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31, 54–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100103 Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272190 Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 934–945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934 Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642 Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., Smith, K. G., Erez, M., Chah, D., & Schaffer, A. (1994). The effects of intra-individual goal conflict on performance. Journal of Management, 20, 67–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000104 Google Scholar
Man, D. C., & Lam, S. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.227 Google Scholar
Molleman, E. (2009). Attitudes towards flexibility: The role of task characteristics. Group & Organization Management, 34, 241–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601108330090 Google Scholar
Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Jehn, K. (2004). Person-job fit applied to teamwork. A multilevel approach. Small Group Research, 35, 515–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640 4264361 Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 Google Scholar
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270 Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Google Scholar
Puranam, P., Raveendran, M., & Knudsen, T., (2012). Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37, 419–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/Amr.2010.0535 Google Scholar
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 191–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022855 Google Scholar
Rasmussen, T. H., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2006). Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A review. Work and Stress, 20, 105–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370600920262 Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In Lee-Chai, A. Y. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 217–240). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. A., & Van den Berg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.329 Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When free choice Behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00995170 Google Scholar
Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 130–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130 Google Scholar
Sell, J., Lovaglia, M. J., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research, 35, 44–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259813 Google Scholar
Seppälä, T., Lipponen, J., Pirttila-Backman, A., & Lipsanen, J. (2011). Reciprocity of trust in the supervisor-subordinate relationship: The mediating role of autonomy and the sense of power. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 755–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.507353 Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intra-team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556372 Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2007). Motivations underlying power dynamics in hierarchically structured groups. Small Group Research, 38, 643–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304339 Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21, 347–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0452 Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). The congruence hypothesis of intra-team interdependence in organizations: Some recent findings and their implications for theory and practice. In Schriesheim, C. & Neider, L. (Eds.), Research in management: Understanding teams (pp. 111–131). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040663 Google Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of Management, 31, 73–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271382 Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Kompier, M. A. J., & Seinen, B. (2001). Autonomous teamwork and psychological well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 291–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000681 Google Scholar
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393703 Google Scholar
Wageman, R. (1999). The meaning of interdependence. In Turner, M. E. (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257021 Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695–719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450 Google Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651257 Google Scholar