The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Riddle of Heterarchy: Power Transitions in Cross-Functional Teams
Abstract
In this paper, we develop the concept of a power heterarchy, which is a conceptualization of power structures in groups that is more dynamic and fluid than traditional hierarchical structures. Through a study of 516 directional dyads in 45 teams, we demonstrate that heterarchical structures in which the expression of power actively shifts among team members to align team member capabilities with dynamic situational demands can enhance team creativity. Our results indicate that this positive effect of power heterarchies on team creativity is contingent on the team perceiving the shifts in interpersonal power expressions as legitimate. We discuss the implications of this heterarchical power structure for research on group functioning, power, and legitimacy in organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427
All in a Day's Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259305 · Cited by 3,039
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 · Cited by 2,994
Self-citation8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211628 · Cited by 2,385
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 · Cited by 2,381
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0718 · Cited by 141
Compassionate leadership for compassionate health care
West, M. A., & Chowla, R. (2017) · Compassion · doi:10.4324/9781315564296-14 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 327-352
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2124089027
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 19.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
