Interdependence X Autonomy
1
Running head: INTERDEPENDENCE X AUTONOMY
Working Together versus Working Autonomously: A New Power-Dependence Perspective
on the Individual-level of Analysis
August 2013
Interdependence X Autonomy
2
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 taskinterdependent 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 multisource dataset (self-, peer-, manager-ratings) comprised of 182 employees drawn from 37 teams.
Keywords: task interdependence; task autonomy; individual performance; powerdependence theory; interdependence theory; asymmetry in task dependence
Interdependence X Autonomy
3
Working Together versus Working Autonomously: A New Power-Dependence Perspective
on the Individual-level of Analysis
Studies have shown that task interdependence and task autonomy are crucial to employees who
work in teams because they shape the extent to which team members must rely on fellow
coworkers for resources or the extent to which team members feel free to act on their own accord
(e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Kiggundu, 1983; Langfred,
2005; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Team members are considered task interdependent when they
require resources, such as materials, information, and/or advice, from one or more co-workers to
complete their work successfully (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van
de Vliert, 2005; Wageman, 1995). In addition, team members’ task autonomy can be defined as
the degree to which they have the discretion and freedom to determine how to carry out assigned
tasks (e.g., Langfred, 2000; Molleman, Nauta, & Jehn, 2004; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Several
recent studies have demonstrated that task interdependence and task autonomy are distinct
constructs and that the interaction between them relates to team effectiveness (Langfred, 2000),
team creativity (Gilson & Shalley, 2004), and team performance (Langfred, 2005).
However, to date only a limited amount of research has been performed and studies have
been restricted solely to the team level of analysis (e.g., Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall,
2010; Langfred, 2000, 2005; Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006). Molleman (2009, cf. p. 263) noted
that important questions have therefore remained unanswered, such as, if—and if so, how—the
interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy exerts an influence on the
individual level of analysis, in particular in relation to individual performance. More insight into
this is important for several reasons. For example, if the interaction is not found at the individual
level, interventionists can be more assured that they do not have to balance for each individual in
Interdependence X Autonomy
4
the team the extent to which he or she must rely on co-workers for resources and the extent
he/she is autonomous. Interventions could then be more confident that they can just deal with
these job and work design issues on the team level. Yet, if the interaction does exist at the
individual level, interventionists would have evidence that a more detailed look might be worth
their efforts. More importantly, besides knowing if the individual level of analysis matters for
this topic, our study aims to provide more insight into why and how this interaction affects
individual-level employees. The advantages for practitioners and researchers alike of a deeper
theoretical understanding is that it helps to guide interventions and future studies, for instance, by
indicating what other variables would fit to our new theoretical framework and might thus also
be of importance. Investigating this topic is, however, challenging given the current state of
knowledge. Because not only is empirical evidence scarce, but there has also been a limited
amount of theoretical development on this interaction (e.g., Langfred, 2005; Langfred & Moye,
2004). Consequently, although several studies have shown that the interaction between these two
constructs is important, empirical evidence is scarce, studies have only looked at the team level
of analysis, and theoretical development has been limited.
To address all these three gaps simultaneously, this study will develop, and test, an
alternative point of view focused at the individual level of analysis. To develop a firm foundation
for our research, we will draw on established theories, namely interdependence theory (Thibaut
& Kelley, 1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and Emerson’s (1972) power-dependence theory to
argue that individuals’ dependence on others makes them relatively powerless. In contrast,
individuals who have others who depend on them (but who do not depend on those others in
return) are relatively powerful. Although several other views related to power can be found in the
literature (e.g., Raven, 2001), a number of recent reviews of the power literature (e.g., Fiske &
Interdependence X Autonomy
5
Berdahl, 2007; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) have reaffirmed that Emerson’s theory on
power and dependence very appropriately describes power differences that occur between team
members (for additional reviews of the power literature, see also Guinote, 2007; Keltner, Van
Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008; Sell et al., 2004). The value of adopting a power-dependence
perspective involves a frequently overlooked, but crucial, point of interdependence theory. This
point is that two aspects determine individual task members’ levels of task interdependence: (1)
the amount of resources received from other team members and (2) the amount of resources
given to others (see also Morgenson & Humphrey, 2006).
The majority of previous studies that focused on task interdependence (e.g., Johnson &
Johnson, 1989; Van der Vegt et al., 2005; Wageman, 1995, 2001), as well as the few studies on
the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy, did not explicitly acknowledge
the two above-noted aspects. Rather, they assumed that similar task-interdependent individuals
have equal power. However, we will argue, based on the above-mentioned two theories, as well
as on other research on power and dependence (e.g., Brass, 1981; Cook & Emerson, 1978;
Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000), that this is not necessarily the case. In short, we
theorize that individuals who report both high task interdependence and high task autonomy
indicate that they give more resources to their colleagues than they receive resources from their
colleagues in return. In contrast, we argue that similar high task interdependent individuals who
report less task autonomy will need more resources from co-workers than their co-workers will
require from them. We test this logic by investigating if interdependent individuals who report
less task autonomy are more asymmetrically task dependent, and, thus, less powerful, than
individuals who report more task autonomy. Ultimately, we will extend this theorizing by an
additional step by arguing that, if the above line of reasoning is valid, then highly task
Interdependence X Autonomy
6
interdependent and highly task autonomous individuals should also be in better positions to
successfully complete their tasks than their less powerful colleagues who are also highly task
interdependent, but perceive lower task autonomy. Hence, our core expectations are that the
interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy will be related to individuals’
power and performance. Figure 1 depicts all of the expected individual level relationships
between these four variables.
-------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------Consequently, the main goal of this study is to increase currently limited insights into the
interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy (e.g., Langfred, 2005; Molleman,
2009; Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006). We will expand contemporary knowledge on this topic by
developing a new theoretical lens based on interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and
power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972) and by investigating whether this interaction is
related to power differences and individual performance. By studying this, this study will also
contribute to future research related to “power due to asymmetries in task dependence” (De Jong
et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010).
Theory and Hypotheses
Definitions and Foundations
Before we develop our theory and hypotheses we will first discuss the definitions and theoretical
foundations for our key variables. In our characterization of task autonomy, we remain close to
the definition provided by Hackman and Oldham (1975) who described task autonomy as the
amount of freedom and independence individuals possess in relation to their abilities to complete
their work assignments. Task autonomy is an important aspect of work teams because it has been
Interdependence X Autonomy
demonstrated to have a strong relationship with individuals’ well-being (Van Mierlo, Rutte,
Kompier, & Seinen, 2001), team cohesiveness (Man & Lam, 2003), and team performance
(Cohen & Bailey, 1997). According to a recent study conducted by Molleman (2009) “the focus
[of task autonomy research] has always been on task autonomy as perceived by the jobholder
because it is assumed that it is primarily these perceptions that affect psychological phenomena
such as attitudes and behavior” (p. 245). Therefore this study will focus on team members’
individual perceptions of the amounts of task autonomy they possess within their teams.
The second key variable of interest is task interdependence. Prior studies conceptualized
and measured task interdependence at both the team and individual levels of analysis (see, e.g.,
Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Van der Vegt et al., 2005; Wageman, 1995). Studies that adopted
team level approaches focused primarily on the differences between teams with respect to the
extent of average task interdependence that occurred among all team members (e.g., Johnson &
Johnson, 1989; Wageman, 1995). In contrast, studies conducted at the individual level of
analysis focused primarily on the degree to which specific individual team members were task
interdependent with other members of their teams. Based on the goals of this study, we adopted
the latter perspective and define task interdependence “as the degree to which the design of an
individual team member’s tasks and job requires that he or she coordinates activities and
exchanges materials and information with other members of the team for being able to carry out
the job” (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005, p. 75).
The perspective on task interdependence described above holds an implicit assumption
that has been applied by most studies focused on interdependence theory, namely that
relationships are symmetrical. Contemporary research has shown that this assumption is not
always valid because differences, or asymmetries, in task dependence occur in real life teams.
7
Interdependence X Autonomy
8
These differences or asymmetries can exert importance effects on work relations (De Jong et al.,
2007), as well as on intra-team processes (Van der Vegt et al., 2010). Based on Emerson’s
(1972) power-dependence theory, we expect that asymmetries in task dependence might be very
important because they may result in situations in which asymmetrically less task-dependent
team members maintain power over asymmetrically more task-dependent co-workers. By
building on this theory of power offered by Emerson (1972), as well as by drawing upon recent
insights (e.g., De Jong et al., 2007; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010), we
conceptualized that team members’ power relates to imbalances in the resource exchange
relationships between those team members and their peer team members1.
The Interaction between Task Interdependence and Task Autonomy
Before going into detail on the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy we
will briefly discuss the two main theories from which we will draw, namely interdependence
theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972). While they
have some similarities, each of them also provides crucial and unique insights into the topic of
this study. Interdependence theory describes what occurs when team members need each other to
fulfill their tasks. In short, this theory states that when team members have high need of each
other (i.e. are highly task interdependent) they tend to collaborate more, whilst coworkers tend to
work more individually when they do not need others to fulfill their tasks (i.e., are lowly task
interdependent). Yet, as mentioned earlier, research on interdependency theory has often failed
to investigate what happens when one individual needs coworkers more than vice versa (cf. De
Jong et al., 2007). It is here where power-dependency theory (Emerson, 1972), and subsequent
research on power, comes into play as it indicates that such differences in task interdependence
mean that some workers have more power than others and that the powerful have many benefits.
Interdependence X Autonomy
9
One of these benefits is that they can choose to withhold support or exit relationships at lower
costs than less powerful team members (e.g., Cook & Emerson, 1978; Giebels, De Dreu, & Van
de Vliert, 2000). Another is that they have more transaction alternatives (e.g., Brass, 1981) and
therefore have more potential partners to exchange resources with.
The application of these two theories to the interaction between task interdependence and
task autonomy (Langfred, 2000, 2005) suggests that individuals who are highly taskinterdependent and highly task-autonomous are likely to be the most powerful members in
teams. Our argument is that a) the high task-interdependence of these individuals indicates that
they exchange many resources within their teams and b) that this reveals, when viewed in
conjunction with their perceptions of high task autonomy, that these individuals need fewer
resources from others than others need from them. Hence, based on power-dependence theory
(Emerson, 1972), interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and recent studies on
power-dependence asymmetries (De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010), we expect that
these highly task interdependent and highly task autonomous individuals will be relatively
powerful within their teams.
In contrast, we reason that highly task-interdependent individuals who reported lower
task autonomy will be relatively powerless compared to the above mentioned colleagues who are
also highly task-interdependent but experience more task autonomy. Once again, drawing from
interdependence theory it can be expected that their high task-interdependence indicates that they
exchange many resources within their team. However, drawing on power-dependence theory it
can be argued that their perceptions of low task autonomy reveals that they are rather powerless
because low autonomy indicates that they are more dependent upon their colleagues for
resources to complete their tasks than colleagues are upon them.
Interdependence X Autonomy
10
As an illustration, imagine individuals who need to exchange many resources with their
coworkers yet cannot autonomously decide how to use these resources or cannot freely decide
how to schedule their tasks (cf. Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). We expect that these
individuals are likely to have little power as the resources they need are apparently under the
control of more powerful team members. Similarly, we argue that equally highly task
interdependent individuals who report that they can freely decide on such matters are more likely
to be powerful. Research on autonomy and power supports this notion, as research has indicated
that more autonomous individuals indeed perceive themselves to be more powerful (Seppälä,
Lipponen, Pirttila-Backman, & Lipsanen, 2011). Thus, at the individual level of analysis, we
expect that the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy relates to which
individuals are powerful within their teams and which not.
Hypothesis 1: The interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy is
positively related to individual team members’ power. Specifically, highly taskinterdependent team members who perceive that they possess high task autonomy will be
more powerful in comparison with equally highly task-interdependent team members who
perceive that they possess lower levels of task autonomy.
Task Interdependence, Task Autonomy, and Individual Performance
The limited number of studies (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Langfred, 2000, 2005) that
investigated the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy focused solely on
the team level of analysis. Therefore, if—and how—individual level processes and outcome are
affected by this interaction remains unexplored (cf. Molleman, 2009). Based on recent studies
focused on power that results from asymmetries in task dependence (De Jong et al., 2007; Van
der Vegt et al., 2010), as well as on literature related to power-dependence theory (e.g., Emerson,
Interdependence X Autonomy
11
1972; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Keltner et al., 2003), we argued above that the interaction of task
interdependence and task autonomy is related to the power of individual team members. Below,
we will argue that, if this is indeed a valid line of reasoning, this interaction should also be
related to individual performance because more powerful team members should be in better
positions to successfully complete their tasks than their less powerful colleagues. Although
teams often aspire to attain team goals, the reality in many teams is that individuals have
conflicting goals (e.g., Locke, Smith, Erez, Chah, & Schaffer, 1994) as they vie for bonuses,
promotions, salary increases and compete for getting more resources or better projects.
Before extrapolating our power-dependence argumentation underlying hypothesis 1 to
individual performance, it should be noted that research on the separate effects of task
interdependence and task autonomy also suggests that these variables should affect individual
performance. For example, the key works of Thompson (1967) and Steiner (1972) indicate that
workers who are less dependent, and thus need few resources from co-workers, have a better
chance of getting a high individual performance as they experience less so called ‘processes
losses’ which can interfere with their work and outputs. Processes losses can be many things,
such as conflicts over resources or goals, communication problems, misunderstandings,
cooperation issues, or unproductive waiting times. Based on these works, it can be expected that
when workers have the autonomy to decide how to work and have the resources to do their work,
such process losses are less likely to distract, or hinder, them from setting a good performance.
Additional support for an effect of our key variables on individual performance can be found in
research which has shown that employees work harder on freely chosen tasks than on assigned
tasks (e.g., Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Why this is, is described by self-determination
theory, in which choice is argued to increase one’s sense of autonomy and it is this sense of
Interdependence X Autonomy
12
autonomy which enhances one's effort and motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987; Ryan, Koestner,
& Deci, 1991). Hence, although studies on the interaction of task interdependence and task
autonomy are scarce on the individual level, prior research into the separate effects of these
variables already hints towards an impact on individual performance.
To capture these findings in one clear theoretical framework we will now continue on our
previous theorizing from a power-dependence theory perspective (Emerson, 1972). Doing so,
reveals that there are several theoretical reasons why a positive relationship between team
members’ power and individuals’ performance can be expected, including the fact that more
powerful team members are not easily hindered by other team members because they already
possess the majority of the resources they require to complete their tasks (for reviews of the
power literature see, e.g., Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Guinote, 2007; Keltner et al., 2003, 2008).
Therefore, even if other team members might attempt to influence powerful members in negative
ways, they cannot easily affect them. In addition, these attempts would involve great risks since
powerful team members might choose to punish powerless team members at a later date by
withholding critical resources (e.g., Cook & Emerson, 1978; Giebels et al., 2000). Consequently,
powerful individual can perform better than the powerless as they are less easily affected by
others.
Second, powerful team members can more easily recruit support by offering to provide
materials, means, and/or information they control in exchange for assistance. Thus, the powerful
are in better positions to employ direct influence tactics to persuade reluctant team members to
share their resources. Even if one team member refuses to cooperate, the powerful remain in
good positions to complete their tasks because they have more transaction alternatives that allow
them to exchange resources with other team members (cf. Brass, 1981). Other research supports
Interdependence X Autonomy
13
this notion by showing that different types of power can affect job performance by affecting the
bargaining and problem-solving style of individuals (e.g., Rahim, Antonioni, & Psenicka, 2001).
Hence, powerful individuals are likely to perform better than the powerless as they have more
options to influence others.
Third, powerful individuals might require less time to acquire their resources and can
thus spend more time on actual task performance. In other words, powerful members might have
lower ‘process losses’ than powerless members (cf. Steiner, 1972). Process losses not only refer
to the losses individuals encounter when they try to search for the needed resource (e.g, by
asking co-workers), but also refer to many other types of losses as well, such as conflicts,
distractions, or unproductive thoughts and emotions. As an example of such other process losses,
research by Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson (2003) argues that ”status, class, or power related
connotations may direct the attention of individuals of low-power groups away from the
substance … thus worsening performance” (p. 272). We argue that since the powerful have less
of these process losses and distractions, they are more able to focus on the tasks at hand and thus
should be better able to perform.
Hence, based on power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972), reviews of the power
literature (e.g., Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Keltner et al., 2003), and recent empirical studies focused
on power that results from asymmetries in task dependence (De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt
et al., 2010), we expect that the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy is
related to the performance of individual team members. We put forward three key reasons for
this, namely a) powerful individuals already possess the majority of resources required to
complete their own tasks and cannot be easily affected by others (Giebels et al., 2000), b)
powerful individuals possess valuable resources they can exchange with others so they can use
Interdependence X Autonomy
14
more influence and problem-solving strategies (Rahim et al., 2001), and c) powerful individuals
have fewer process losses and less distractions (Keltner et al., 2003). As described in the theory
that led to the development of Hypothesis 1, task-interdependent individuals who consider the
task autonomy within their teams to be more limited are likely to be relatively powerless because
they are more dependent on powerful team members to provide resources. Therefore, we propose
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: The interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy is
positively related to a team member’s individual performance. Specifically, a highly taskinterdependent team member who reports he/she has high task autonomy is expected to
have higher individual performance levels in comparison to an equally highly taskinterdependent team member who reports he/she has lower task autonomy.
Hypothesis 3: An individual’s power within his/her team mediates the relationship
between the interaction of task interdependence and task autonomy on the one hand and
individual’s performance on the other.
Method
Context, Procedure, and Sample
As part of a larger research project we gathered data from teams who worked in companies
throughout the Netherlands by contacting their managers. These teams worked in a variety of
different organizational settings. The top three sectors where the financial sector (16.7%), the
government sector (12.5%), and the consultancy sector (12.5%). The other teams had various
backgrounds, namely consumer goods, education, ICT, medical, technology, construction, law,
real estate, and travel sectors. We selected these teams because we expected there would be
differences between team members in the degrees of specialization, backgrounds, tenure, and so
Interdependence X Autonomy
15
on and that these intra-team differences would allow us to observe power-dependence
asymmetries within these teams. To increase the likelihood that these differences were present,
we focused on teams that included four or more members. This approach resulted in a dataset
that contained 37 teams comprised of 224 individuals. Of that total, 182 individuals (81%)
returned usable questionnaires. The average response rate within teams was 85 percent (SD=20).
The average team size was 6.05 team members (SD = 3.70).
To connect and analyze the self-, peer-, and manager-ratings, we asked supervisors to
provide the names of all team members. After this we sent out the questionnaires. Our
questionnaires contained questions related to respondents’ demographic backgrounds and task
autonomy, as well as relational level items that aimed to assess the extent of power that resulted
from asymmetries in task dependence between the specific respondent and each of his/her fellow
team members. A short introductory text explicitly guaranteed confidentiality and we explicitly
mentioned that only group-level results would be reported back and that individual team
members where thus not recognizable. The manager provided data on the performance of each
team member as they would normally also do for performance evaluations or end of year talks.
On average managers were 41.43 years old (SD=8.47) and had been 59.79 months in their
function (SD=70.21), 24 percent of the managers were women. Managers were not included in
the analyses because our attention was focused on peer-relationships (see Footnote 1). In our
sample, 110 of the 182 respondents were female (60%), the average age was 35.36 years (SD =
9.85), and the average number of years in the organization was 7.42 years (SD = 7.41).
Measures
Task interdependence. This variable was measured using team members’ responses to
three items adapted from past research (Van der Vegt et al., 2003, p. 719; see also Van der Vegt
Interdependence X Autonomy
16
& Van de Vliert, 2005). These items were adapted to be consistent with our other measures and
as such we used a 7-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree) instead of the original 5point scale. An example item is: ‘I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work
properly’. Cronbach’s alpha was .76. An ANOVA revealed that some differences occurred
between the groups (F[36,145] = 1.65, p < .05). The subsequently calculated ICC1 demonstrated
that only 8 percent of the variance occurred at the team level (ICC1 = .08). These results showed
that we needed to include a random intercept in our multi-level analysis to control for possible
differences that might occur between teams (e.g., Krull & MacKinnon, 2001).
Task autonomy. This variable was measured by the use of respondents’ responses to five
7-point items adapted from Molleman et al. (2004) which we obtained by contacting the main
author. The original items were rated on a 5-point scale. An example item is: ‘As a team we are
free to choose our work methods’. Cronbach’s alpha was .72. Although the ANOVA revealed
that some differences occurred between groups (F[36,145] = 1.85, p < .01) the subsequently
calculated ICC1 demonstrated that 10 percent of the variance occurred at the team level (ICC1 =
.10) and according to Lebreton and Senter (2008, p. 838) this can be considered as a medium
effect. This reaffirmed the need to use multilevel analyses and include a random intercept to
account for possible group-level effects.
Power. This variable was measured by the use of a peer-rating approach. Consistent with
the conceptualization that power is based on resource dependencies (Emerson, 1972; Fiske &
Berdahl, 2007), we used the same two items reported in De Jong et al. (2007) and Van der Vegt
et al. (2010) to measure the effects of asymmetries in the task dependence of team member (A)
on another team member (B): “How dependent are you on X for materials, means, information,
and so on, so you can complete your work adequately?” and “How dependent is X on you for
Interdependence X Autonomy
17
materials, means, information, and so on, so he/she can complete his/her work adequately?” (1 =
not dependent, 7 = completely dependent). X was replaced by the name of a specific fellow team
member for all items.
Given that task interdependence and task autonomy had already been measured by selfreport items, we decided to calculate each team member’s power within a dyad by calculating the
differences that occurred between the two questions answered by each co-worker in order to
diminish concerns related to common source biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). More specifically, we subtracted the first item mentioned above (i.e., …you on X…) from
the second mentioned item (i.e., …X on you…) in order to arrive at a measure of power in which
higher scores indicate more power for the target individual as viewed by his or her colleague. We
then averaged the dyadic power scores to the individual level by calculating the mean, and thus
followed an additive composition model strategy (Chan, 1998), as consensus is not required on
these items. The resulting individual-level measure reflected the average power of an individual,
with higher scores indicating that colleagues viewed this individual as more powerful. The
procedure we performed was highly similar as the procedure reported in Van der Vegt et al.
(2010, p. 352) with two key exceptions, namely a) we focused on peer ratings to circumvent
issues related to mono-source biases and b) we did not aggregate our individual level measures
to the team level given that our theory resides at the individual level2. An ANOVA revealed that
no significant differences occurred between teams (F[36,145] = 1.20, n.s.).
Individual performance. Each manager who normally rated each employee’s
performance (e.g., during performance evaluations or end of year talks) provided information on
each team member by proving responses to three questions from Wayne, Shore, and Liden
(1997, p. 98). We used a 7-point scale instead of the original 5-point scale to be consistent with
Interdependence X Autonomy
18
the other measures. As we asked the manager to rate all of his followers we shortened the
original scale to include only the three items which had the highest factor loading. Cronbach’s
alpha was .86. An ANOVA revealed that no significant differences occurred between teams
(F[36,145] = 1.44, n.s.).
Control variables. To account for the possible confounding effects of team size, we
controlled for this variable in our analyses. Additionally, since employees with more experience
in life or more experience in the organization might be better able to perform well, we controlled
for the age of each team member as well as for the time each team member had worked in the
organization. These variables were also added to control for colleagues’ and managers’
possession of possible stereotypes and biases related to these variables that might affect
individual team members’ power (e.g., Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Guinote, 2007; Keltner et al.,
2003; Keltner et al., 2008; Raven, 2001).
Discriminant and Convergent Validity
We performed a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the discriminant and convergent validity
of our scales. We computed parameter estimates by the use of the maximum likelihood method
provided in the AMOS 18 computer package. First, we tested a model in which the three task
interdependence items, the five task autonomy items, the three individual performance items, and
the aggregated power measure were loaded onto four corresponding latent constructs. For the
power measure, we followed Richardson and Van den Berg (2005) and assumed a conservative
reliability of .70. The overall fit of the four-factor model to the data was satisfactory (χ2[49, 182]
=73.94, p<.05, SRMSR=.06, GFI=.94, CFI=.96).
To further evaluate the discriminant validity of our scales, we computed an alternative
three-factor model in which the eight self-perception items related to task interdependence and
Interdependence X Autonomy
19
task autonomy were loaded on one dimension and the three supervisor-rated individual
performance items were loaded on another dimension. The peer-rated power measure was loaded
on its own dimension. The fit of this three-factor model (∆χ2[4]=171.10, p< .001, SRMSR =.13,
GFI=.82, CFI=.72) was significantly worse than the fit of the four-factor model. Additionally,
we calculated a one-factor model in which all twelve items were loaded onto one latent
construct. The fit of the one-factor model (∆χ2[6]=501.20, p< .001, SRMSR=.21, GFI=.63,
CFI=.24) was also significantly worse than the fit of the four-factor model. Therefore, we
concluded that our hypothesized four-factor measurement model was the most appropriate for
the situation under consideration. Hence, task interdependence, task autonomy, asymmetries in
task dependence, and individual performance were both theoretically and empirically distinct
from one another.
Statistical Analyses
Our model focused on the individual level of analysis. However, because we investigated our
model by studying real life teams, we were required to consider the nested structure of the data
because team members were nested within work teams. If we had neglected this, we might have
developed erroneous conclusions as interfering group effects might have been overlooked (e.g.,
Hox, 2007). Our mediation model was a “1-1-1”-model. As Krull and MacKinnon (2001)
observed, when “all three variables [are] measured at the same level, it is only the clustered
nature of the data that requires multilevel modeling” (p. 253). Therefore, we conducted
multilevel analyses by using the MIXED MODEL procedures in SPSS 20. We included a
random intercept and used fixed terms for all other variables (see p. 701 of Zhang, Zyphur, &
Preacher (2009) for the multilevel equations for 1-1-1 models). We began with model-0 which
did not include any predictor variables to establish a baseline condition. Next, we recalculated by
Interdependence X Autonomy
20
including the control variables and then we added the main effects. Subsequently, we added the
two-way interaction. The mediation term was added in the fourth model. We tested for a
decrease in log-likelihood between each of the models by performing a chi-square difference
test. In line with the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), all independent variables were
first standardized and the interaction term was calculated from the products of the standardized
variables. We used the bootstrapping techniques of Preacher and Hayes (2008) by utilizing their
SPSS macro’s to test for the indirect effect hypothesized in hypothesis 3.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, and Pearson zero-order correlations between variables are
presented in Table 1. The table shows that individual performance was positively and
significantly related to power (r=.17, p<.05). This result indicates that, in line with our
theorizing, team members who possessed more power also tended to demonstrate better
performance.
------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------Hypotheses Tests
Hypothesis 1 predicted an interaction effect between task autonomy and task interdependence on
a team member’s power. As shown in Table 2, the first model, which included the control
variables, did not have significantly more predictive power (∆χ2[3]=3.272, n.s.) than model 0 that
solely contained the random intercept. The second model also did not have more predictive
power than the first model (∆χ2[2]=2.185, n.s.). However, as expected, the interaction between
task interdependence and task autonomy added in Model 3 did significantly improve the model
Interdependence X Autonomy
21
(∆χ2=4.100, df =1, p<.05). The interaction coefficient (γ=.128, p<.05) had the expected positive
sign.
------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------Figure 2 illustrates the significant two-way interaction between task interdependence and
task autonomy for power. To create the figure, we followed procedures suggested by Aiken and
West (1991). We plotted the low conditions at -1 SD and the high conditions at +1 SD. As
expected, when task interdependence was high, higher levels of task autonomy were related to
higher levels of power (simple slope: γ=.200, se=.082, p<.05). No significant relationship was
detected between task autonomy and power when task interdependence was low (γ=-.053,
se=.097, n.s.). Hence, team members who reported high levels of task interdependence and low
levels of task autonomy were considered relatively powerless by their peers. In contrast, team
members who reported high levels of task interdependence, and who reported high levels of task
autonomy were considered relatively powerful by their peers. These results fully support
Hypothesis 1.
-------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here
-------------------------------Hypothesis 2 predicted that the interaction effect between task autonomy and task
interdependence would affect the individual performance of team members. As shown in Table
3, the first model did not have significantly more predictive power (∆χ2[3]=4.706, n.s.) than
model 0 and model 2 did not significantly improve on model 1 (∆χ2=[2]=3.091, n.s.). However,
as was hypothesized, adding the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy in
Interdependence X Autonomy
22
model 3 did significantly improve the model (∆χ2[1]=5.793, p<.05). The interaction coefficient
(γ=.166, p<.05) had the expected positive sign.
------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
------------------------------Figure 3 illustrates the significant two-way interaction between task interdependence and
task autonomy for individual performance. As expected, when task interdependence was high,
higher levels of task autonomy were related to higher levels of individual performance (γ=.189,
se=.089, p<.05). No significant relationship was detected between task autonomy and
performance when task interdependence was low (γ=-.139, se=.105, n.s.). Hence, Hypothesis 2
was fully supported.
-------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
-------------------------------Hypothesis 3 predicted that power would mediate between the interaction of task
interdependence and task autonomy on the one hand and individual performance on the other. As
shown in Table 3 (Model 4), the addition of the mediation term significantly improved the model
(∆χ2[1]=5.239, p<.05). The coefficient for power was in the expected positive direction and was
significant (γ=.159, p<.05). The interaction coefficient dropped (from γ=.166, p<.05 to γ=.139,
p<.05). Given that both of these coefficients were positive and significant our mediation can be
classified as a ‘complementary mediation’ (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). To test if mediation
indeed occurred we used the bootstrapping procedures of Preacher and Hayes (2008). The results
showed that the bootstrapped estimate for the indirect effect was .0234 and that the values of the
95% BC confidence interval (CI) were positive and did not include zero (lower 95%
Interdependence X Autonomy
23
BCCI=.0038; higher 95% BCCI=.0686). Thus, we concluded that our third hypothesis was,
indeed, supported by the data3.
Discussion
In this study, we focused on a rarely researched interaction that exerts an important impact on
employees who work in teams: the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy
(e.g., Campion et al., 1993; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Kiggundu, 1983; Langfred, 2005; Stewart &
Barrick, 2000). Although a few prior studies demonstrated that this interaction is important at the
team level (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Langfred, 2000, 2005), we decided to perform a more
detailed investigation of this interaction at the individual level of analysis. The primary reason
why we chose to perform this investigation was because previously scholars had observed that
scientific progress on this topic had been hindered by a lack of theoretical development (e.g.,
Langfred, 2005; Langfred & Moye, 2004). We based our new perspective on recent
developments in power-dependence theory and interdependence theory. Thus, we attempted to
provide more than a simple response to scholars’ calls for more research on this topic (e.g.,
Langfred, 2005; Molleman, 2009; Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006) by also providing an alternative
theoretical perspective that can be used to gain a better understanding of this interaction at a new
level of analysis.
Our alternative perspective is based on power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972),
interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), recent reviews of the power literature (e.g.,
Fiske & Berdahl, 2007), and recent studies on power that focused on asymmetries in task
dependence (De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010). Based on these theories and
studies, we hypothesized, and subsequently demonstrated, that team members who report they
are highly task-interdependent and highly task autonomous are considered relatively powerful by
Interdependence X Autonomy
24
their peers. They are also considered to be high performers by their supervisors. Additionally,
our results demonstrated that team members who report high task-interdependence, but who
perceive little task autonomy, are considered relatively powerless by their peers, as well as lower
performers by their supervisors. Furthermore, our theorizing was supported by the fact that we
found support for a mediating effect of power between the interaction between task
interdependence and task autonomy on the one hand and individual performance on the other.
Consequently, the results indicated that the power-dependence perspective (Emerson, 1972) can
be used to understand the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy and its
relationship with individual power and performance.
In the next section, we will discuss the theoretical implications of this study. Then, we
will reflect on the main strengths and limitations of this study and discuss possible implications
for future research. Finally, we will present our practical recommendations.
Theoretical Implications
In our opinion, this study makes at least two main theoretical contributions to (1) the limited
amount of literature which focused on the interaction between task interdependence and task
autonomy (e.g., Molleman, 2009; Langfred, 2005); and (2) the power-dependence perspective on
power (Emerson, 1972; Fiske & Berdhal, 2007; Keltner et al., 2003) and the related up-andcoming area that focuses on “power due to asymmetries in task dependence” research (e.g., De
Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010).
As our first main contribution, we increased the currently limited theoretical insight into a
particular interaction that can profoundly influence team members (e.g., Langfred, 2005;
Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006). While scholars had previously noticed that the study of Langfred
(2005) demanded more theoretical insights, researchers had, until now, only investigated the
Interdependence X Autonomy
25
team level of analysis (e.g., Cordery et al., 2010). By adopting a power-dependence perspective
on the individual level of analysis, we provided an alternative viewpoint, on a new level of
analysis, that can be used to understand the interaction between task interdependence and task
autonomy. Our study also response to the call of Grant and Parker (2009) to investigate in more
depth the relational perspectives on job and task design. Our results do so by demonstrating that
the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy can be understood at the
individual level by observing individuals’ power within their teams, based on the differences in
their relational task dependencies with co-workers. Hence, we contribute to scholarly
understanding of job and task design by bringing to this field the core reasoning that underlies
power-dependence theory (e.g., Emerson, 1972; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007), interdependence theory
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and the reasoning from recent studies on power and asymmetries in
task dependence (e.g., De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010).
Second, our research contributes to power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972) and
interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) because it uses a measure that is directly
related to the core of each of these theories: Power resulting from asymmetries in task
dependence (e.g., Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Keltner et al., 2003). By showing an effect on
individual performance, our results extend the results of prior studies by testing their key, but
often implicit, assumption that power that results from asymmetries in task dependence are
indeed beneficial to the powerful (e.g., De Jong et al., 2007). Additionally, no study to date has
investigated where these asymmetries in task dependence come from. Prior studies solely
examined consequences that included interpersonal processes and team processes and outcomes
(e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2010). The results of our study indicated that asymmetries in task
dependence (as rated by peers) can be related to each team member’s specific position within
Interdependence X Autonomy
26
their teams (i.e., a team member’s perception of his or her task interdependence and task
autonomy). Thus, our study not only contributes to research focused on the interaction between
task interdependence and task autonomy, it also contributes to the emerging area of research that
focuses on power that results from asymmetries in task dependence, because it demonstrates that
power resulting from asymmetries in task dependence (1) has effects on the individual level, (2)
has task interdependence and task autonomy as key antecedents, and (3) has a positive
relationship with individual performance.
Strengths and Limitations
Similar to any scientific study, the present research has some strengths and limitations. A first
potential limitation might involve the study’s use of single items in its assessment of the dyadiclevel differences in power. However, our items were drawn from existing scales used in previous
research whose value has been demonstrated (e.g., De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al.,
2010). Moreover, we constructed individual level measures from several dyadic level items. This
procedure was directly derived from power-dependence theory of Emerson (1972),
interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and the recent characterization of power
provided by Fiske and Berdahl (2007). Consequently, the method used in this study, which
measures power resulting from asymmetries in task dependence, directly assesses the resourcebased power differences as described by power-dependence theory (Emerson, 1972).
Another potential limitation might involve the use of cross-sectional data, because this
prevented us from determining the causality in our model. Therefore, the possibility remains that
power actually determines the interaction between task interdependence and task autonomy.
Hence, even though our results fall in line with our theorizing, future studies should test causality
by taking measurements at more than one point in time or by conducting laboratory experiments.
Interdependence X Autonomy
27
Moreover, future studies should also study in more detail the broader context of our new
perspective, for example by investigating boundary conditions or cross-level relationships (cf.
Diez-Roux, 1998). We think that one of the key contributions of this study lies in the fact that
these future studies can now actually draw from our theorizing about the importance of the
power-dependence perspective and are now in a better position to develop scholarly
understanding of this interaction.
Although our research design did not allow us to test causality, it did allow us to perform
rigorous tests on our hypotheses because we used three different sources of data and we used
dyadic- and individual-level measures. Scholars in the field have demanded that researchers
employ multi-source and multi-method datasets in their research (e.g., Molleman, 2009, p. 262)
because the employment of these datasets can greatly diminish alternative explanations for
findings, such as common source and common method biases (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Given that we investigated a diversity of teams, ranging from the financial sector to the
government sector, our results appear to be generalizable to various sectors and industries.
However, only further research can determine if this is indeed so.
Implications for Future Research
Future studies could conduct in-depth investigations of the interaction between task
interdependence and task autonomy. As shown in Figure 2, differences in task autonomy are not
associated with differences in power in situations of low task-interdependence. It is possible that
low task-interdependence facilitates high individual performance because team members then
have access to all resources required to complete their tasks. If low task- interdependence is
coupled with high autonomy, tasks are likely to require only limited interactions with other team
members. Moreover, individuals should then be more likely to clearly understand what must be
Interdependence X Autonomy
28
done to complete their tasks. As such, these situations can be expected to have low levels of role
ambiguity (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) or high goal and process clarity
(e.g., Sawyer, 1992). Because these would be relatively simple and clearly defined tasks, team
members can easily complete them. Although the simple slope is not significant, our results
provide some support to the arguments stated above because they indicate that low taskinterdependence is associated with high individual performance when task autonomy is low (see
Figure 3). Hence, our theory and results indicate possible ways to further improve our
understanding of this interaction and indicate that theories and research related to role ambiguity
(e.g., Kahn et al., 1964) or goal and process clarity (e.g., Sawyer, 1992) might be useful.
Alternatively, future research could also explore other mechanisms which might drive this effect
as we found that power is a significant, yet complementary, mediator (Zhao et al., 2010).
Variables which are related to process losses (e.g., Steiner, 1972; Thompson, 1967), such as
lowered trust (Langfred, 2005), increased communication needs (Puranam, Raveendran, &
Knudsen, 2012), or heightened interpersonal conflict (Jehn, 1995) might be able to shed more
light on this interaction. Thus, future research could validate our results that the powerdependence perspective can explain the interaction between task autonomy and task
interdependence and separately, or simultaneously, investigate new mechanisms such as
described above.
In addition, future research might explore power that results from asymmetries in the
power-dependence perspective in more depth by combining our results with results drawn from
other recent field studies (e.g., De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010) and/or from
broader literature focused on power. For instance, one avenue for these types of future endeavors
can be derived from Fiske and Berdahl’s (2007, p. 687) observation that power = person ×
Interdependence X Autonomy
29
position × situation. In our study, we primarily focused on the position aspect (i.e., the
interaction between task interdependence and the task autonomy). However, Van der Vegt et al.
(2010) focused more on the situation (i.e., the amount and type of feedback provided to the
team). Yet, no study to date has investigated if, and how, personality can shape perception or use
of power that result from asymmetries in task dependence. Researchers who hope to explore this
topic in more depth might choose to focus on the influence of personality differences, such as
self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997) or goal orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). We think that
these personality differences might serve as interesting moderators because they might shape
how individuals perceive their positions and power within teams and/or how individuals might
actually be tempted to use these advantages. There is some support for this notion as studies have
shown that personality can be related to individuals’ preferred influence strategies (e.g.,
Koslowsky & Schwarzwald, 2001). Thus, future studies might investigate whether individuallevel power that results from asymmetries in task dependence can be influenced by situational
factors (e.g., types and amounts of feedback, low levels of role ambiguity, or high levels of goal
clarity). Yet, we believe that an even more novel approach would be to investigate the
moderating effects of personality differences.
Practical Implications
The practical implications of the present study derive from our findings that task
interdependence, task autonomy, and power are related to individual team members’
performance. Our results indicate that interventions that attempt to increase team members’
performance must consider structural and relational mechanisms that might prevent team
members from achieving high performance (cf. Grant and Parker, 2009). Thus, managers who
want to ensure that all team members have equal chances to perform well might consider that
Interdependence X Autonomy
30
team members who must give more resources will be in better positions than team members who
must receive resources from their colleagues. Consequently, motivating, inspiring, or rewarding
underperforming team members might not work if the structural causes for low performance
(i.e., those team members’ asymmetrical task dependence on other team members) have not been
removed or at least addressed. It is important to consider this factor during team design, as well
as during normal team operations, because prior research has demonstrated that individuals tend
to strive to obtain superior power over their peers (Van Dijke & Poppe, 2007). Therefore,
managers should be aware that some individuals might attempt to change the asymmetries in task
dependence within their teams and make the conditions more favorable for themselves, possibly,
at the expense of others.
Moreover, our results indicate that resolutions of these structural causes by simply matching
amounts of task autonomy with equal amounts of task interdependence might be less appropriate
than prior studies have sometimes suggested (e.g., Molleman, 2009, p. 264). The logic
underlying the power -dependence perspective (e.g., Emerson, 1972) clarifies that attempts to
redesign tasks to increase some team members’ power (e.g., decreasing their asymmetrical task
dependence) could, simultaneously, decrease other team members’ power (e.g., increase their
asymmetrical task dependence). Consequently, if not well thought through, interventions might
simply result in exchanges of certain team members’ low performance for other team members’
low performance. Although additional research is required to examine this issue, we currently
suggest that practitioners balance their interventions when they address task interdependence and
task autonomy by considering the asymmetries in power and task dependence that might occur
between team members.
Interdependence X Autonomy
31
Footnotes
1) Leaders often maintain direct and/or indirect control over resources and outcomes of
subordinates. Thus, leader-follower relationships can differ significantly from peer
relationships, for example due to formal reward power (e.g., Raven, 2001). Therefore,
similar to recent studies, we excluded leader-follower relationships and focused on
relationships between peer team members (De Jong et al., 2007; Van der Vegt et al., 2010).
2) According to Van der Vegt et al. (2010, pp. 359–360), measures of power due to
asymmetries in task dependence “are related to but conceptually and mathematically distinct
from measures of power centralization”. Akin to Van der Vegt et al. our main theoretical
interest was focused on imbalance, rather than stratification. Therefore, we used the measure
of power imbalance.
3) To examine if our findings are robust we also re-ran our analyses by only including teams
which had 5 or more team members. The results were highly similar to those reported in the
main text. Simple slopes for power were positive and significant when task interdependence
was high (γ=.286, se=.100, p<.01) and non-significant when task interdependence was low
(γ=-.055, se=.145, n.s.). For individual performance the simple slopes were also positive and
significant when task interdependence was high (γ=.217, se=.103, p<.05) and nonsignificant when task interdependence was low (γ=-.167, se=.150, n.s.). As these additional
analyses demonstrate our findings are robust.
Interdependence X Autonomy
32
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
London, England: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 331–348. doi: 10.2307/2392511
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, 823–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
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(2), 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
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(3), 239–290. doi:
10.1177/014920639702300303
Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in exchange networks.
American Sociological Review, 43, 721–739. doi: 10.2307/2094546
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(2-3), 240-258. doi: 10.1002/job.657
Interdependence X Autonomy
33
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037. doi: 10.1037//00223514.53.6.1024
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, 6, 1625–1637. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625
Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in
multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 216-222. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.88.2.216
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals - An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Emerson, R. M. (1972). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.
doi; 10.2307/2089716
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Social Psychology: 2nd Edition: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 678–692). New York,
NY: Guilford Publishing.
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.
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. doi:
10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
Interdependence X Autonomy
34
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. doi:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the Situated Focus theory of power. European
Review of Social Psychology, 18, 256–295. doi: 10.1080/104632807016 92813
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Hox, J. (2007). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination Of The Benefits And Detriments Of Intragroup
Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
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.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, A. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of
social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 151–192. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00003-2
Interdependence X Autonomy
35
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 31(2), 145–172. doi: 10.1016/00305073(83)90118-6
Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2001). The power interaction model. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J.
A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power (pp. 195–214). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor &
Francis.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level
mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277. doi: 10.1207/
S15327906MBR3602_06
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. doi:
10.1177/104649640003100103
Langfred, C.W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect
of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31, 513–529. Doi: 10.1177/
0149206304272190
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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability
and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. doi:
10.1177/1094428106296642
Interdependence X Autonomy
36
Locke, E.A., Smith, K.G., Erez, M., Chah, D., & Schaffer, A. (1994). The Effects of Intraindividual Goal Conflict on Performance. Journal of Management, 20(1), 67-91. doi:
10.1177/014920639402000104
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. doi: 10.1002/job.227
Molleman, E. (2009). Attitudes towards flexibility: The role of task characteristics. Group &
Organization Management, 2, 241–268. doi: 10.1177/1059601108330090
Molleman E., Nauta, A., & Jehn, K. (2004). Person-job fit applied to teamwork - A multilevel
approach. Small Group Research, 35, 515–539. doi: 10.1177/104649640 4264361
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(6), 1321–1339. doi: 10.1037/ 00219010.91.6.1321
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(2),
270–300. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270
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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Interdependence X Autonomy
37
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. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Puranam, P., Raveendran, M., & Knudsen, T., (2012). Organization Design: The Epistemic
Interdependence Perspective. Academy Of Management Review, 37(3), 419-440. Doi:
10.5465/Amr.2010.0535
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(3), 191-211. doi: 10.1108/eb022855
Rasmussen, T. H., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2006). Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A
review. Work and Stress, 20, 105–128. doi: 10.1080/02678370600920262
Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations
and case studies. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power:
Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 217–240). Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press
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. doi: 10.1002/job.329
Ryan, R.M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E.L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When free choice
Behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15(3),185–205. doi:
10.1007/BF00995170
Interdependence X Autonomy
38
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, 2, 130–142. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130
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.
doi: 10.1177/1046496403259813
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(6), 755-778. doi:
10.1080/1359432X.2010.507353
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.
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(2), 135–148. doi: 10.2307/1556372
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.
Van Dijke, M. & Poppe, M. (2007). Motivations underlying power dynamics in hierarchically
structured groups. Small Group Research, 38(6), 643–669. doi: 10.1177/
1046496407304339
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(2), 347–361. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0452
Interdependence X Autonomy
39
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 C. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds.), Research in Management:
Understanding Teams (pp. 111–131). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
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, Vol. 46(6), 715–727.
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. doi:
10.1177/0149206304271382
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. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000681
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 145–180. doi: 10.2307/2393703
Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work:
Theory and research (p. 197).
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82–111. doi: 10.2307/257021
Interdependence X Autonomy
40
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical
linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-719.
doi:10.1177/1094428108327450
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. doi:
10.1086/651257
Interdependence X Autonomy
41
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations among Study Variables at the Individual Level (n = 182).
Variable
1 Team size
2 Age
3 Years in organization
4 Task interdependence
5 Task autonomy
6 Power
7 Individual performance
* p < .05
*** p < .001
M
7.48
35.36
7.42
5.35
4.70
.07
5.16
SD
4.90
9.85
7.41
1.24
1.01
.87
.96
1
-.04
.07
-.12
-.05
-.02
-.03
2
.58 ***
.02
.09
.09
-.09
3
-.02
.09
.13
-.16 *
4
5
.09
-.01
-.11
.12
.03
6
.17 *
Interdependence X Autonomy
42
Table 2
Results of Multi-level Analyses of Power.
Model 1
SE
γ
.065
.073
.070
-.024
.079
.011
.080
.111
Model 2
SE
γ
.064
.072
.068
-.022
.078
.008
.080
.103
.065
-.015
.064
.095
Model 3
SE
γ
.063
.060
.068
-.039
.078
.003
.079
.104
.065
-.001
.064
.072
.063
.128 *
.740 (.094)
.757 (.079)
Variance, team level
.004 (.055)
.000 (.000)
Variance, individual level
.744
.757
Total variance
462.662
465.934
χ2
3.272
∆χ2
Note: n = 182 at the individual level and n = 37 at the team level.
* p < .05
.735 (.077)
.000 (.000)
.735
460.477
2.185
.719 (.075)
.000 (.000)
.719
456.377
4.100 *
Model 0
SE
γ
.065
.073
Variable
ß0ij
Team size
Age
Years in organization
Task interdependence (TI)
2 Main
Task autonomy (TA)
3 Interaction TI * PTA
Model
0 Intercept
1 Controls
Interdependence X Autonomy
43
Table 3
Results of Multi-level Analyses of Individual Performance.
Mode l
0 Intercept
1 Controls
Model 0
γ
SE
5.155 *** .077
Variable
ß0ij
Team size
Age
Years in organization
3 Main
Task interdependence (TI)
Task autonomy (TA)
3 Interaction TI * TA
4 Mediation Power
Model 1
γ
5.150 ***
-.026
-.004
-.152
SE
.076
.084
.089
.089
Variance, team level
.882 (.110)
.866 (.107)
Variance, individual level
.036 (.069)
.028 (.065)
Total variance
.918
.894
χ2
500.333
495.627
∆χ2
4.706
Note: n = 182 at the individual level and n = 37 at the team level.
* p < .05
*** p < .001
Model 2
γ
SE
5.150 *** .073
-.036
.080
.000
.087
-.162
.088
-.119
.071
.051
.071
Model 3
γ
SE
5.137 *** .069
-.058
.075
.002
.085
-.164
.086
-.102
.071
.023
.070
.166 *
.068
Model 4
γ
SE
5.130 *** .075
-.053
.084
-.012
.085
-.178 *
.085
-.099
.070
.008
.070
.139 *
.068
.159 *
.068
.860 (.107)
.017 (.064)
.877
492.536
3.091
.846 (.107)
.003 (.062)
.849
486.743
5.793 *
.795 (.099)
.033 (.063)
.828
481.504
5.239 *
Interdependence X Autonomy
44
Figure Legends
Figure 1. Research Model of How the Interaction Between Task Autonomy and Task
Interdependence Relates to Power and Individual Performance at the Individual Level of
Analysis.
Figure 2. The Interaction Between Task Autonomy and Task Interdependence and Its
Relationship to Power.
Figure 3. The Interaction between Task Autonomy and Task Interdependence and its
Relationship to Individual Performance.
Interdependence X Autonomy
45
Task
autonomy
(rated by self)
Power
within the team
(rated by peers)
X
Task
interdependence
(rated by self)
Figure 1. (Sources of Measurement appear in Italics)
Individual
performance
(rated by manager)
Interdependence X Autonomy
46
0.4
0.3
0.2
Task interdependence
high
Power
0.1
0.0
Low
High
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Task autonomy
Figure 2.
Task interdependence
low
Interdependence X Autonomy
47
5.5
5.4
Individual performance
5.3
5.2
Task interdependence
high
5.1
5.0
Task interdependence
low
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
Low
High
Task autonomy
Figure 3.