Survival of the Flattest: Teams with Low (but Not High) Status Differentiation Turn Failure into Success by Adding High-Status Members

References

• Anderson C, Brown CE (2010) The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Res. Organ. Behav. 30:55–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009) The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 18(5):295–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Hildreth JAD, Howland L (2015) Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psych. Bull. 141(3):574–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow H, McGrath JE (1993) Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Res. 24(3):334–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Locke EA, Smith KG (2000) The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Acad. Management J. 43(5):837–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balkundi P, Harrison DA (2006) Ties, leaders, and times in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad. Management J. 49(1):49–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balkundi P, Kilduff M (2006) The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quart. 17(4):419–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ballinger GA (2004) Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 7(2):127–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB, Wright PM (1998) On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in becoming a strategic partner. Human Resources Management 37(1):31–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron JN, Pfeffer J (1994) The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Soc. Psych. Quart. 57(3):190–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST (2007) Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 92(3):595–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST, Brown SG, Colaneri A, Outland N (2018) Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. Amer. Psychologist 73(4):349–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL (2011) Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. J. Management 37(3):709–743.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23(2):323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Pai J (2018) Status dynamics. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 5:183–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bird M, Zellweger T (2018) Relational embeddedness and firm growth: Comparing spousal and sibling entrepreneurs. Organ. Sci. 29(2):264–283.Link, Google Scholar
• Bligh MC, Kohles JC, Pearce CL, Justin JE, Stovall JF (2007) When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership. Appl. Psych. 56(4):528–557.Google Scholar
• Boeker W (1992) Power and managerial dismissal: Scapegoating at the top. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(3):400–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boone C, Olffen WV, Witteloostuijn AV (2005) Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study. Acad. Management J. 48(5):889–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Soc. Networks 27(1):55–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cannella AA Jr, Rowe WG (1995) Leader capabilities, succession, and competitive context: A study of professional baseball teams. Leadership Quart. 6(1):69–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cannon MD, Edmondson AC (2001) Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. J. Organ. Behav. 22(2):161–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan D (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. J. Appl. Psych. 83(2):234–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen G (2005) Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Acad. Management J. 48(1):101–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi HS, Levine JM (2004) Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 40(2):273–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi HS, Thompson L (2005) Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 98(2):121–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooke NJ, Kiekel PA, Salas E, Stout R, Bowers C, Cannon-Bowers J (2003) Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Practice 7(3):179–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cronin MA, Weingart LR, Todorova G (2011) Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):571–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice Hall, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• De Dreu CK, De Vries NK (2001) Group Consensus and Minority Influence: Implications for Innovation (Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• DeShon RP, Kozlowski SWJ, Schmidt AM, Milner KR, Wiechmann D (2004) A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. J. Appl. Psych. 89(6):1035–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doyle SP, Lount RB (2023) Rising above vs. falling below: When and why status change affects interpersonal helping in workgroups. Organ. Sci. 34(3):1157–1183.Link, Google Scholar
• Fath S, Kay AC (2018) “If hierarchical, then corrupt”: Exploring people’s tendency to associate hierarchy with corruption in organizations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 149:145–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST (2010) Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey D, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), 941–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gamson WA, Scotch NA (1964) Scapegoating in baseball. Amer. J. Soc. 70(1):69–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gemmill G (1989) The dynamics of scapegoating in small groups. Small Group Behav. 20(4):406–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilson LL, Mathieu JE, Shalley CE, Ruddy TM (2005) Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Acad. Management J. 48(3):521–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Google (2025) Engineering productivity careers. Accessed September 3, 2025, https://landing.google.com/engprod/careers/.Google Scholar
• Gould SJ (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psych. 103(6):591–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2003) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grijalva E, Maynes TD, Badura KL, Whiting SW (2020) Examining the “I” in team: A longitudinal investigation of the influence of team narcissism composition on team outcomes in the NBA. Acad. Management J. 63(1):7–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Håkonsson D, Eskildsen JK, Argote L, Mønster D, Burton RM, Obel B (2016) Exploration versus exploitation: Emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions. Strategic Management J. 37(6):985–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Chou EY, Galinsky AD (2011) A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organ. Psych. Rev. 1(1):32–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen T, Levine JM (2009) Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers’ behavioral style and teams’ performance optimism. Soc. Influence 4(1):46–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy CL, Van Vugt M (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(10):1402–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1199–1228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Mohammed S, McGrath JE, Florey AT, Vanderstoep SW (2003) Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psych. 56(3):633–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Bendersky C (2015) Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108(6):867–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Li HJ, Yang X, Oh JK, Yu A, Chen Y-R, Hollenbeck JR, Jamieson BB (2022) A tale of two hierarchies: Interactive effects of power differentiation and status differentiation on team performance. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2085–2105.Link, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Gil-White FJ (2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution Human Behav. 22(3):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP, Gerras SJ (2003) Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. J. Appl. Psych. 88(1):170–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, LePine JA, Colquitt JA, Hedlund J (1998) Extending the multilevel theory of team decision making: Effects of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Acad. Management J. 41(3):269–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Sego DJ, Hedlund J, Major DA, Phillips J (1995) Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. J. Appl. Psych. 80(2):292–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Rev. Psych. 56:517–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Knight AP (2015) Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Acad. Management J. 58(1):59–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Roh H (2009) The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Acad. Management J. 52(3):599–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Judd CM, McClelland GH (1989) Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach (Routledge, San Diego).Google Scholar
• Kakkar H, Sivanathan N, Gobel MS (2020) Fall from grace: The role of dominance and prestige in the punishment of high-status actors. Acad. Management J. 63(2):530–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kameda T, Ohtsubo Y, Takezawa M (1997) Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 73(2):296–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane AA, Argote L, Levine JM (2005) Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 96(1):56–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kearney AT (1995) The trouble with teams. Economist 61.Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Song H, Valentine MA (2023) Learning in temporary teams: The varying effects of partner exposure by team member role. Organ. Sci. 34(1):433–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Kling G, Harvey C, Maclean M (2017) Establishing causal order in longitudinal studies combining binary and continuous dependent variables. Organ. Res. Methods 20(4):770–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kollock P (1998) Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 24(1):183–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 3–90.Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1996) Social networks and liability of newness. Trends Organ. Behav. 3:159–173.Google Scholar
• Levine JM, Choi HS (2004) Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and cognition. Salas E, Fiore SM, eds. Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance (American Psychological Association, Washington DC), 153–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine JM, Choi HS, Moreland RL (2003) Newcomer innovation in work teams. Paulus PB, Nijstad BA, eds. Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (Oxford University Press, New York), 202–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis LK, Russ TL (2012) Soliciting and using input during organizational change initiatives: What are practitioners doing. Management Comm. Quart. 26(2):267–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li AN, Tangirala S (2022) How employees’ voice helps teams remain resilient in the face of exogenous change. J. Appl. Psych. 107(4):668–692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li J, van Knippenberg D (2021) The team causes and consequences of team membership change: A temporal perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 15(2):577–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liang KY, Zeger SL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73(1):13–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin N (1999) Social networks and status attainment. Annual Rev. Sociol. 25(1):467–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Song Y, Trainer H, Carter D, Zhou L, Wang Z, Chiang JT-J (2023) Feeling negative or positive about fresh blood? Understanding veterans’ affective reactions toward newcomer entry in teams from an affective events perspective. J. Appl. Psych. 108(5):728–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loch CH, Huberman BA, Stout S (2000) Status competition and performance in work groups. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 43(1):35–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louis MR (1990) Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers. Schneider B, ed. Organizational Climate and Culture (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 85–129.Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maidique MA, Zirger BJ (1984) A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 31:192–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Management Rev. 26(3):356–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marr JC, Thau S (2014) Falling from great (and not-so-great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss. Acad. Management J. 57(1):223–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Wolfson MA, Park S (2018) The evolution of work team research since Hawthorne. Amer. Psychologist 73(4):308–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Donsbach JS, Alliger GM (2014) A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Management 40(1):130–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard M, Resick CJ, Cunningham QW, DiRenzo MS (2017) Ch-Ch-Ch-changes: How action phase functional leadership, team human capital, and interim vs. permanent leader status impact post-transition team performance. J. Bus. Psych. 32:575–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayo AT (2022) Syncing up: A process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(3):821–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mesmer-Magnus JR, Dechurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 94(2):535–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA, Jimenez-Rodriguez M, Wildman J, Shuffler M (2011) A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 115(2):214–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molnar A (2019) SMARTRIQS: A simple method allowing real-time respondent interaction in Qualtrics surveys. J. Behavioral Experment. Finance 22:161–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mortensen M, Haas MR (2018) Perspective—Rethinking teams: From bounded membership to dynamic participation. Organ. Sci. 29(2):341–355.Link, Google Scholar
• Moscovici S (1985) Social influence and conformity. Lindzey G, Aronson E, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2 (Random House, New York), 347–412.Google Scholar
• Nemeth C, Owens P (1996) Making work groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. West MA, ed. Handbook of Work Group Psychology, vol. 11 (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 125–142.Google Scholar
• Nemeth CJ, Ormiston M (2007) Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 37(3):524–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nyberg AJ, Moliterno TP, Hale D, Lepak DP (2014) Resource-based perspectives on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. J. Management 40(1):316–346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostroff C, Kozlowski SW (1992) Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psych. 45(4):849–874.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearsall MJ, Christian MS, Ellis APJ (2010) Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between? J. Appl. Psych. 95(1):183–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettit NC, Yong K, Spataro SE (2010) Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 46(2):396–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Schilke O (2023) The dual function of organizational structure: Aggregating and shaping individuals’ votes. Organ. Sci. 34(5):1914–1937.Link, Google Scholar
• Preacher K, Rucker DD, Hayes AF (2007) Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42(1):185–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prislin R, Limbert WM, Bauer E (2000) From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79(3):385–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reh S, Tröster C, Van Quaquebeke N (2018) Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. J. Appl. Psych. 103(4):399–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (1982) Status in groups: The importance of motivation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 47(1):76–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2019) Understanding the nature of status inequality: Why is it everywhere? Why does it matter? Thye SR, Lawler EJ, eds. Advances in Group Processes, vol. 36 (Emerald Publishing, Leeds, UK), 1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rink F, Kane AA, Ellemers N, van der Vegt G (2013) Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):247–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ronay R, Greenaway K, Anicich EM, Galinsky AD (2012) The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psych. Sci. 23(6):669–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepherd DA, Covin JG, Kuratko DF (2009) Project failure from corporate entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process. J. Bus. Venturing 24(6):588–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shuffler ML, Cronin MA (2019) The challenges of working with “real” teams: Challenges, needs, and opportunities. Organ. Psych. Rev. 9(4):211–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sitkin SB (1992) Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Res. Organ. Behav. 14:231–266.Google Scholar
• Slater D (2025) Powering innovation and speed with Amazon’s two-pizza teams. Accessed September 3, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/executive-insights/content/amazon-two-pizza-team/.Google Scholar
• Staats BR, Upton DM (2011) Lean knowledge work. Harvard Bus. Rev. (October), https://hbr.org/2011/10/lean-knowledge-work/.Google Scholar
• Staw BM (1980) The consequences of turnover. J. Occupational Behav. 1(4):253–273.Google Scholar
• Suls J, Martin R, Wheeler L (2002) Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions Psych. Sci. 11(5):159–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swaab RI, Schaerer M, Anicich EM, Ronay R, Galinsky AD (2014) The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psych. Sci. 25(8):1581–1591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson L (2003) Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Acad. Management Perspect. 17(1):96–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• To C, Yan TT, Sherf EN (2022) Victorious and hierarchical: Past performance as a determinant of team hierarchical differentiation. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2346–2363.Link, Google Scholar
• Trainer HM, Jones JM, Pendergraft JG, Maupin CK, Carter DR (2020) Team membership change “events”: A review and reconceptualization. Group Organ. Management 45(2):219–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tingley M, Zheng W, Ejdemyr S, Lane S, McFarland C, Rhines A, Liu S, et al. (2022) Experimentation is a major focus of Data Science across Netflix. Netflix Technology Blog (January 11), https://netflixtechblog.com/experimentation-is-a-major-focus-of-data-science-across-netflix-f67923f8e985.Google Scholar
• Trow DB (1960) Membership succession and team performance. Human Relations 13(3):259–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tost LP (2011) An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Acad. Management J. 36(4):686–710.Google Scholar
• Tyler TR, Blader SL (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 7(4):349–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber U, Mummendey A, Waldzus S (2002) Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: Its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 32(4):449–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woehler M, Floyd TM, Shah N, Marineau JE, Sung W, Grosser TJ, Fagan J, Labianca GJ (2021) Turnover during a corporate merger: How workplace network change influences staying. J. Appl. Psych. 106(12):1939–1949.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright SC (1997) Ambiguity, social influence, and collective action: Generating collective protest in response to tokenism. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 23:1277–1290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright PM, Boswell WR (2002) Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. J. Management 28(3):247–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright SC, Taylor DM, Moghaddam FM (1990) Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 58:994–1003.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu F, Wu L, Evans J (2022) Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(23):e2200927119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu A, Hays NA, Zhao EY (2019) Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 152:84–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao W, Zhou X (2004) Chinese organizations in transition: Changing promotion patterns in the reform era. Organ. Sci. 15(2):186–199.Link, Google Scholar
• Ziller RC, Behringer RD, Goodchilds JD (1962) Group creativity under conditions of success or failure and variations in group stability. J. Appl. Psych. 46(1):43–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziller RC, Behringer RD, Jansen MJ (1961) The newcomer in open and closed groups. J. Appl. Psych. 45(1):55–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zyphur MJ, Narayanan J, Koh G, Koh D (2009) Testosterone–status mismatch lowers collective efficacy in groups: Evidence from a slope-as-predictor multilevel structural equation model. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 110(2):70–79.Crossref, Google Scholar