Cited by 141Team Dynamics and PerformanceInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness

Joshi, Aparna, Knight, Andrew P.·2015·Academy of Management Journal

Abstract

We develop and test predictions about how demographic differences influence dyadic deference in multidisciplinary research teams, and how differential patterns of dyadic deference emerge to shape team-level effectiveness. We present a dual pathway model that recognizes that two distinct mechanisms—task contributions and social affinity—account for how team members' demographic attributes contribute to deference. Furthermore, we propose that the extent to which these different mechanisms are prevalent in a team has implications for the team's research productivity, with deference based on social affinity detracting from it and deference based on task contributions enhancing it. Using longitudinal data from a sample of 55 multidisciplinary research teams comprising 619 scientists, we found general support for our conceptual model. Our findings underscore the importance of accounting for multiple interpersonal mechanisms to understand the complex, multilevel nature of deference in teams.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2013.0718

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Published
2015-02
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
59-84
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
OpenAlex
W2133051426
Cited by
141
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
15.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
multidisciplinary research teams, team effectiveness, demographic differences, social affinity, research productivity, dual-pathway model

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