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

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.410105

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.10, 741-743

Published Online October 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.410105

The Mediating Role of the Sense of Relatedness and Task

Cohesion in the Relation between Psychological Power Distance

and Efficicency of a Working Team

Laurent Auzoult

Department HSE, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France

Email: [email protected]

Received August 13th, 2013; revised September 12th, 2013; accepted September 29th, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

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.

Keywords: Power Distance; Team Effectiveness; Self-Determination Theory; Autonomy

Introduction

Along with potency (Jordan, Feild & Armenakis, 2002), co-

hesion is presented as a key determinant of work-teams’ effec-

tiveness (Evans & Dion, 1991; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Webber

& Donahue, 2001), though this psychological construct does

not always turn out to be as unambiguous as one would like

(Friedkin, 2004). Initially, cohesion reflects all forces encour-

aging a group’s members to stick together (Festinger, 1950).

Cohesion has gradually been broken up into several dimensions

that refer to interpersonal attractiveness and individual or col-

lective commitment to the task. “Task cohesion” seems to be a

better predictor of effectiveness than social cohesion (Mullen &

Cooper, 1994).

“Task cohesion” refers to team-members’ perceived spirit of

unity around the activity, i.e. to the quality of cooperation

within the team. Cooperation quality could account for a sense

of relatedness (Lavigne, Vallerand, & Crevier-Braud, 2011),

which reflects a sense of acceptance, i.e. the feeling of being

understood and accepted by others, as well as a sense of inti-

macy, i.e. feeling one is emotionally attached to colleagues. As

regards running a work-team, we can assume that the stronger

the sense of relatedness among teammates (i.e. their feeling

close to—and understood by—others), the more satisfactory the

perceived quality of cooperation. A study by Deardorff Bell and

Belohlav (2011) highlights the impact of relationships quality

(sharing ideas and communications quality) on performance. In

this case, cohesion might be expected to mediate the relation-

ship between the sense of relatedness and perceptions about the

team’s effectiveness.

From a broader perspective, cohesion mediates the effects of

psychosocial factors referring to the team’s organizational en-

vironment (Gladstein, 1984), the quality of individual interac-

tions (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) or to wage-earners’

characteristic features (Campion, Papper & Medsker, 1996).

Sharing common values has been put forward to account for

work-teams’ effectiveness (Ashkanasy & O’Connor, 1997;

Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2004). Schaubroeck,

Lam and Cha (2007) and Earley (1999) have shown a relation-

ship between power distance values, which refer to the degree

of inequality employees consider as normal (Hofstede, 2001),

and work-teams’ performance. Specifically, it has been shown

that the higher power-distance values are (i.e. when employees

consider inequality as normal), the better the team’s perform-

ance turns out to be. Power distances may also be considered as

psychological distances (Mulder, 1977), i.e. a degree of per-

ceived inequality within a power structure. Psychological dis-

tances are related with psychological values. In this case, the

more individuals can express strong power values, the closer to

their line manager they perceptually get, while distancing

themselves from the organization’s shop floor (Auzoult, 2012).

As for psychological power distances vis-à-vis the team leader,

reducing psychological power distances should increase the

team’s perceived effectiveness.

The power equalization effect, i.e. the relation between per-

formance and reduction of status and power, has already been

highlight at organizational level (Abdel-Halim, 1980) but never

in work team level. In this study, we examine the mediating

role of a sense of relatedness and cohesion between power dis-

tance and work-teams’ effectiveness. We rely on observations

made about training engineers working in teams on industrial

projects. Studies involving teams during training-periods high-

light processes similar to those seen in professional or sports

organizations (Lent, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2006; Hsu, Ya-Ling

Chen, Chiu, & Ju, 2007; Lira, Ripoll, Peirό, & González, 2007).

L. AUZOULT

We expect “task cohesion” to mediate the relationship between

psychological power distance and the team’s effectiveness (Hy-

pothesis 1); and the feeling of social acceptance to mediate the

relationship between psychological power distances and “task

cohesion” (Hypothesis 2).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Eighty-three students (12 females, 71 males, M = 22 years,

SD = 8 months) from the same engineering school were put

together in teams and participated to the study. Teams were

formed around industrial- or R & D-related projects, over a

30-week period. After four months of operation, students were

asked to fill in a questionnaire presented as meant to identify

their team’s operating modalities

Measures

Power distance. Each team member expressed his sense of

leadership and power, using five-point scales from seven items

(α = .81) referring to the importance of their work for the pro-

ject, to its contribution to conflict resolution, to the collective

success or to communications quality. Individual power dis-

tance corresponded to the difference between the team-leader’s

score and each teammate’s (Auzoult & Abdellaoui, 2011).

Cohesion. “Task cohesion” was measured using five-point

scales from 12 items (α = .78) about mutual agreement on ob-

jectives (clarity, commitment and agreement), the means im-

plemented to achieve the project (agreement on roles and

working methods) or team management (conflicts management,

mutually supportive behaviour).

Sense of relatedness. The sense of relatedness was measured

using the “feeling of relatedness” scale (Richer & Vallerand,

1998), while the sub-dimensions of intimacy and acceptance

had been separated beforehand.

Work-team’s effectiveness. An overall indicator of the

team’s effectiveness was drawn from three dimensions pro-

posed by Beaudin & Savoie (1995) to measure work-teams’

effectiveness (group life quality, durability and performance).

Respondents had to deal with 9 items (α = .78) on five-point

scales.

Results

Reducing distances can be associated with a rise in the de-

gree of acceptance (r = −.42, p<.001) or intimacy (r = −.43, p

< .001) and an increase in “task cohesion” (r = −.33, p<.01) or

in perceived effectiveness (r = −.35, p < .001). Enhanced the

task cohesion is associated with the team’s perceived effec-

tiveness (r = .73, p < .001) as well as with a heightened sense of

acceptance (r = .64, p < .001) or of intimacy (r = .60, p < .001).

We conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis (Ta-

ble 1) by introducing power distance in the first step, the two

sub-dimensions of relatedness in the second one and, in the

third step, “task cohesion”. The dependent variable was “level

of perceived work-team’s effectiveness”.

Power distance alone can account for 11% (R2 = .11, F (1,82)

= 11.27, p < .001) of the variance related to work-team’s effec-

tiveness. In the second step, the addition of two relatedness

sub-dimensions can explain 26% (ΔR2) of additional variance

(R2 = .37, F (3,82) = 16.77, p < .001). In this case, acceptance

alone contributes significantly to justify effectiveness. It can

Table 1.

Hierarchical regression analysis of team-effectiveness from its antece-

dents.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

β Student’testa β Student’test β Student’test

Power distance−.35 t = −3.36* −.09 t = −.92 −.06 t = −.80

Acceptation .38 t = 2.49* .13 t = .97

Intimacy .23 t = 1.51 .09 t = .71

Task cohesion .57 t = 5.90**

Constant 25.49** 17.72** 7.82*

Note: a. *p < .01, **p < .001.

therefore be concluded that power distances account for the

sense of relatedness through acceptance but not for intimacy

among team members. In the third step, adding “task cohesion”

justifies 19% (ΔR2) of additional variance (R2 = .56, F(4,82) =

26.65, p < .001). All these relationships lead one to conclude

that “task cohesion” mediates the relationship between psycho-

logical power distance and team’s effectiveness (Hypothesis 1

is verified) and that acceptance plays a mediating role between

power distance and “task cohesion” (Hypothesis 2 is verified).

Discussion

The results of this study show that the reduction of percep-

tual power distances between teammates and their team-leader

emphasizes “individual feeling of acceptance” within the team,

“task cohesion” and “team’s perceived effectiveness”.

The sense of relatedness proves to be a determinant factor of

participation, motivation and individual well-being at work

(Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Our re-

sults lead to the conclusion that “sense of relatedness” also im-

pacts the collective level, in this case the team’s cohesion and

effectiveness. This can be paralleled with the effects observed

about the need for autonomy and competence in the context of

the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 1999; Chirkov,

Ryan, & Sheldon, 2011). Indeed, Cabrera Collins and Salgado

(2006) have observed that “satisfaction of the need for auton-

omy” led to greater motivation to share knowledge within the

work-group. Morrison (2006) noted that “satisfaction of the

need for autonomy” was associated with enhanced pro-social

behaviour. These different results may suggest that developing

intrinsic motivation linked to “needs for autonomy” and “need

for relatedness” might be expected to lead to collective regula-

tions along the lines of strengthening ties at work and, inciden-

tally, to collective efficiency as well.

Finally, perceptual power distances are likely to account for

the regulations operating within work-teams. Unlike values,

perceptual power distances are directly related to organisations’

formal aspects, such as “type of hierarchical structure” (Ng,

1980) or unequal power resources (Raven, 1992). Our results

therefore suggest possible practical implications, since any

formal element reflecting proximity among teammates and their

leadership makes it possible to a priori reduce psychological

power distances.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1980). Power equalization and work effectiveness:

An empirical investigation. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1,

742

L. AUZOULT

223-237.

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

Auzoult, L. (2012). How psychological distances from power develop

through power distance values. Psihologia Social a, 29, 7-15.

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.

Beaudin, G., & Savoie, A. (1995). L’efficacité des équipes de travail:

Définition, composantes et mesures. Revue Québécoise de Psy-

chologie, 16, 185-201.

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

Campion, A. C., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations

between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication

and extension. Personnel Psycholo gy, 49, 429-452.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01806.x

Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Human auton-

omy 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

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

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in

a work organization. Journal of A pplied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.74.4.580

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

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

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance:

A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 2 2, 175-186.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222002

Festinger, L. (1950). Informational social communication. Psychologi-

cal Review, 57, 271-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056932

Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology,

30, 409-425.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625

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

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group

effectiveness. Admini s t r a t i o n Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392936

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences—Comparing values, be-

haviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

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

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

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

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

Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peirό, 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 lon-

gitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2888-2903.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.06.004

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & De Church, L. A. (2009). Information shar-

ing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 94, 535-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013773

Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6951-6

Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohe-

siveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin,

115, 210-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210

Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic

Press.

Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influ-

ence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.

Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction and validation of

the need to belong scale. European Review of Applied Psychology,

48, 129-137.

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 Erl-

baum Associates.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing trans-

formational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behav-

ior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-

1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020

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