Article summary with Equality versus differentiation: the effects of power dispersion on group interaction by Greer and van Kleef - 2010

Introduction

Power dispersion is the difference among group members’ power (in Dutch it is: de verspreiding van macht). The main question that the authors are trying to answer is: when does power dispersion facilitate group interactions? And when does it harm group interactions? Power is again defined as the capacity to modify others’ states.

There is conflicting literature on the topic of power dispersion: on the one hand, high power dispersion (when one member of the group has a lot more power than others in the group) can be beneficial to conflict solution, it can serve as a heuristic for the distribution of resources and it facilitates coordination. On the other hand, high power dispersion can also impair conflict resolution, because it can create feelings of inequality and injustice and heighten intergroup competition. This suggests that equality (low power dispersion) may be better. Both views can be reconciled by taking the power level of the group into account. Group power is the capacity of a group to modify others’ states in the broader collective. It is calculated as the average individual power of all group members. The authors propose that when group power is low (as in a factory team), high power dispersion will facilitate group interaction. However, when group power is high (as in a top management team), low power dispersion (more equality) will facilitate group interaction. The most important outcome in this study in conflict resolution. Also, it is identified when power struggles are most likely to occur, namely in groups with low power and low power dispersion and in groups with high power and high power dispersion. In these cases, members are dissatisfied with the current hierarchical structure, and power struggles follow.

The role of power level

The first hypothesis is that when high power dispersion is combined with low group power will lead to increased conflict resolution, but when it is paired with high group power, it will decrease conflict solution. In the second hypothesis, it is suggested that power struggles mediate the relationship that is suggested in hypothesis 1. More specifically, it is hypothesized that low power dispersion and low group power lead to more power struggles, which in turn leads to worse conflict resolution. So, low power groups need high power dispersion because they accept hierarchies, which reduces the likelihood of a power struggle, which in turn leads to better conflict resolution. On the other hand, high power dispersion coupled with a high power group leads to more power struggles because high power groups are competitive and/or want to achieve or maintain power, this leads to worse conflict resolution. So, high power groups need low power dispersion (more equality) to commit to the task and work openly together with others, it reduces power struggles and leads to better conflict resolution.

Study 1

In the first study, 42 pre-existing work groups were given an information-sharing task in which members were given unique pieces of information. The power level was measured as the average position of the group members (from 1 = low to 5 = high). Power dispersion is the standard deviation of the group members’ power level. Intragroup power struggle was rated by independent coders of the videotaped interaction. Conflict resolution was also rated by coders and measured with self-report questionnaires. Results: hypothesis 1 was confirmed: power dispersion is positively related to conflict resolution for low-power groups, but negatively related for high power groups. Hypothesis 2 was also supported: there were more power struggles when there was high group power and high power dispersion. There were less power struggles when there was low group power and high power dispersion. Power struggles mediate the relationship between power dispersion, group power and conflict resolution.

Study 2

This study took place in a laboratory setting. Both power dispersion and group power level were manipulated: each participant was given a label (consultant, senior consultant, manager, senior manager) and was coupled with another participant. The following combinations resulted from this:

• High power dispersion and low power = consultant coupled with a senior consultant

• Low power dispersion and low power = consultant coupled with another consultant or senior consultant coupled with another senior consultant

• High power dispersion and high power = manager coupled with senior manager

• Low power dispersion and high power = manager coupled with another manager or senior manager coupled with another senior manager

Each person was given a preference table with their position on 5 topics and they had to negotiate about these topics within the dyads. Power struggles were assessed with self-report measures. Conflict resolution was measured with self-report measures and the quality of the final agreement (the joint outcome points).

Results: hypothesis 1 was supported: both low power and high power dispersion and high power and low power dispersion resulted in better conflict resolution. Hypothesis 2 was also supported: there were more power struggles in low power groups with low power dispersion and in high power groups with high power dispersion. These power struggles negatively affected the joint outcomes.

Conclusion

• High power dispersion is best in low power teams

• Low power dispersion is best in high power teams

• Otherwise (high power dispersion in high power teams and low power dispersion in low power teams), power struggles will occur which negatively affect conflict resolution