Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Kim, Robin Pinkley, Alison Fragale (2005)
Power Dynamics In NegotiationAcademy of Management Review, 30
C. Carver, T. White (1994)
Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS ScalesJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67
A. Edmondson (1999)
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work TeamsAdministrative Science Quarterly, 44
P. Curșeu, Kimzana Sari (2015)
The effects of gender variety and power disparity on group cognitive complexity in collaborative learning groupsInteractive Learning Environments, 23
P. Curșeu, T. Brink (2016)
Minority dissent as teamwork related mental model: Implications for willingness to dissent and group creativityThinking Skills and Creativity, 22
Markus Baer, M. Frese (2003)
Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performanceJournal of Organizational Behavior, 24
N. Henley, M. LaFrance (1984)
Gender as culture: Difference and dominance in nonverbal behavior.
Rebecca Wolfe, Kathleen McGinn (2005)
Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on NegotiationsGroup Decision and Negotiation, 14
W. Berg, P. Curșeu, M. Meeus (2014)
Emotion regulation and conflict transformation in multi-team systemsInternational Journal of Conflict Management, 25
Murat Tarakci, L. Greer, P. Groenen (2016)
When does power disparity help or hurt group performance?The Journal of applied psychology, 101 3
B. Gray, S. Schruijer (2010)
Chapter 7 Integrating Multiple Voices: Working with Collusion in Multiparty Collaborations, 7
Sigal Barsade (2002)
The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group BehaviorAdministrative Science Quarterly, 47
C. Dreu, M. West (2001)
Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making.The Journal of applied psychology, 86 6
C. Ansell, A. Gash (2007)
Collaborative Governance in Theory and PracticeJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18
K. Sijtsma (2008)
On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s AlphaPsychometrika, 74
Leopold Taillieu (1997)
Diversity in Collaborative Task-systemsEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6
S. Schulz-Hardt, F. Brodbeck, A. Mojzisch, Rudolf Kerschreiter, D. Frey (2006)
Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality.Journal of personality and social psychology, 91 6
Paul Jones, P. Roelofsma (2000)
The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanismsErgonomics, 43
P. Curșeu (2006)
Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems perspectiveJournal of Information Technology, 21
J. Turner (2005)
Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theoryEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 35
M. Marks, J. Mathieu, S. Zaccaro (2001)
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team ProcessesAcademy of Management Review, 26
R. Bouwen, T. Taillieu (2004)
Multi‐party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource managementJournal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14
C. Dreu, L. Weingart (2003)
Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis.The Journal of applied psychology, 88 4
P. Curșeu, S. Schruijer, S. Boroș (2007)
The effects of groups' variety and disparity on groups' cognitive complexityBiological Psychology
Carol Watson, L. Hoffman (1996)
Managers as negotiators: A test of power versus gender as predictors of feelings, behavior, and outcomesLeadership Quarterly, 7
J. McGrath, Holly Arrow, Jennifer Berdahl (2000)
The Study of Groups: Past, Present, and FuturePersonality and Social Psychology Review, 4
S. Schruijer (2016)
Working with group dynamics while teaching group dynamics in a traditional classroom settingTeam Performance Management, 22
K. Jehn (1995)
A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup ConflictAdministrative Science Quarterly, 40
Erik Dane, M. Pratt (2007)
Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision MakingAcademy of Management Review, 32
Deborah Gruenfeld, Melissa Thomas-Hunt, P. Kim (1998)
Cognitive Flexibility, Communication Strategy, and Integrative Complexity in Groups: Public versus Private Reactions to Majority and Minority StatusJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34
P. Curșeu, Steffie Janssen, Jörg Raab (2012)
Connecting the dots: social network structure, conflict, and group cognitive complexityHigher Education, 63
K. Jehn, G. Northcraft, M. Neale (1999)
Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in WorkgroupsAdministrative Science Quarterly, 44
Bernie Mayer (1987)
The dynamics of power in mediation and negotiationConflict Resolution Quarterly, 1987
P. Curșeu, H. Pluut, S. Boroș, Nicoleta Meslec (2015)
The magic of collective emotional intelligence in learning groups: No guys needed for the spell!British journal of psychology, 106 2
D. Harrison, K. Klein (2007)
What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations.Academy of Management Review, 32
B. Gray (1989)
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
E. Mannix, M. Neale (1993)
Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiationGroup Decision and Negotiation, 2
Leslie DeChurch, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Daniel Doty (2013)
Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: toward a process-state perspective.The Journal of applied psychology, 98 4
S. Schruijer (2006)
Research on Collaboration in ActionInternational journal of action research, 2
C. Dreu (2002)
Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivityEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11
L. James, R. Demaree, Gerrit Wolf (1984)
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69
A. Galinsky, Joe Magee, Deborah Gruenfeld, Jennifer Whitson, Katie Liljenquist (2008)
Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance.Journal of personality and social psychology, 95 6
R. Kramer (1990)
Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty ProblemsAcademy of Management Review, 15
Alexander Newman, Ross Donohue, N. Eva (2017)
Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literatureHuman Resource Management Review, 27
K. Quaghebeur, J. Masschelein, Hoai Nguyen (2004)
Paradox of participation: giving or taking part?Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14
P. Curșeu, S. Schruijer, S. Boroș (2012)
Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups' cognitive complexity.The British journal of social psychology, 51 4
L. Greer, H. Caruso, K. Jehn (2011)
The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116
B. Gray (2008)
Intervening to Improve Inter‐organizational Partnerships
S. Schruijer, L. Vansina (2004)
Multiparty collaboration and leadership
D. Keltner, Deborah Gruenfeld, C. Anderson, Stanford Grad, M. Banaji, Jack Glaser, Charles Judd, Joseph Newman, David Owens, Steve Sutton, Larissa (2003)
Power, Approach, and Inhibition
E. Cohen (1994)
Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small GroupsReview of Educational Research, 64
B. Brummans, Linda Putnam, B. Gray, Ralph Hanke, R. Lewicki, C. Wiethoff (2008)
Making Sense of Intractable Multiparty Conflict: A Study of Framing in Four Environmental DisputesCommunication Monographs, 75
Collaborative systems are particular cases of multi-team systems in which several groups representing various interests meet to debate and generate solutions on complex societal issues. Stakeholder diversity in such systems often triggers power differences and disparity and the study explores the dual role of power disparity in collaborative settings. The purpose of this paper is to extend the power approach-inhibition model (Keltner et al., 2003) to the group level of analysis and argue that, on the positive side, power disparity increases the cognitive activity of the interacting groups (i.e. task-related debates), while on the other hand it generates a negative affective climate.Design/methodology/approachThe authors collected data at two time points across nine behavioral simulations (54 teams, 239 participants) designed to explore the cognitive and affective dynamics between six parties interacting in a collaborative decision task.FindingsThe results show that power disparity increases cognitive activity in collaborative multi-party systems, while it hinders the affective climate, by increasing relationship conflict and decreasing psychological safety among the stakeholders.Practical implicationsThis study provides important theoretical and practical contributions mostly for the consultation processes, as interventions might be directed at fostering the positive effects of power disparity in collaborative setting, while mitigating its drawbacks.Originality/valueBy extending the approach-inhibition model to the group level, this is one of the first empirical studies to examine the dual nature of the impact that power disparity has on the cognitive (i.e. positive effect) and affective (i.e. negative effect) dynamics of multi-party collaborative systems (i.e. multi-team systems).
Journal of Managerial Psychology – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 18, 2017
Keywords: Collaboration; Psychological safety; Conflict; Emergent states; Power disparity
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.