Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: “Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration”: Correction to Greer et al. (2018).

Reports an error in “Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration” by Lindred L. Greer, Bart A. de Jong, Maartje E. Schouten and Jennifer E. Dannals (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2018[Jun], Vol 103[6], 591-613). In this article, the hierarchical form value for the study by Cantimur et al. (2015a) was incorrectly coded as representing ‘acyclicity’ rather than ‘steepness’. Updating the coding for this study means that there is just one acyclicity study in our dataset (Bunderson et al., 2016) rather than two, and resulted in some changes to the coefficients in our moderator model presented in Table 3. The corrected Table 3 is presented in the erratum. The only substantive change to our conclusions is that Hypothesis 4a, regarding the effects of membership instability, is no longer supported at p 2018-03097-001.) Hierarchy has the potential to both benefit and harm team effectiveness. In this article, we meta-analytically investigate different explanations for why and when hierarchy helps or hurts team effectiveness, drawing on results from 54 prior studies (N = 13,914 teams). Our findings show that, on net, hierarchy negatively impacts team effectiveness (performance: ρ = −.08; viability: ρ = −.11), and that this effect is mediated by increased conflict-enabling states. Additionally, we show that the negative relationship between hierarchy and team performance is exacerbated by aspects of the team structure (i.e., membership instability, skill differentiation) and the hierarchy itself (i.e., mutability), which make hierarchical teams prone to conflict. The predictions regarding the positive effect of hierarchy on team performance as mediated by coordination-enabling processes, and the moderating roles of several aspects of team tasks (i.e., interdependence, complexity) and the hierarchy (i.e., form) were not supported, with the exception that task ambiguity enhanced the positive effects of hierarchy. Given that our findings largely support dysfunctional views on hierarchy, future research is needed to understand when and why hierarchy may be more likely to live up to its purported functional benefits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

read more

Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: The pay transparency dilemma: Development and validation of the Pay Information Exchange Preferences Scale.

Although calls for pay transparency in the workplace are growing, it remains unclear which factors determine when and why employees exchange pay information. We use a social comparison theory lens to identify the pay transparency dilemma, wherein pay i…

read more

Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: How do instrumental and expressive network positions relate to turnover? A meta-analytic investigation.

Although social network methods have proven valuable for predicting employee turnover, an informed use of network methods for turnover management requires an integration and extension of extant networks-turnover research. To that end, this article addr…

read more

Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error variance and measurement unreliability.

Dominance analysis (DA) has been established as a useful tool for practitioners and researchers to identify the relative importance of predictors in a linear regression. This article examines the joint impact of two common and pervasive artifacts—sampl…

read more

Article Correctness Is Author's Responsibility: Why sabotage customers who mistreat you? Activated hostility and subsequent devaluation of targets as a moral disengagement mechanism.

We utilize the social intuitionist approach to moral judgment and moral disengagement theory to understand why and when employees sabotage customers. We contend that when customers mistreat employees (i.e., customer mistreatment), employees experience …

read more