A Longitudinal Study of Power Dispersion and Upper Management Conflict on Intragroup Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the consequences of changes in the prevalence of four specific power configurations among team members and the trickle- down effect of changes in the team leader’s perceptions of upper- level management conflict on intragroup relationship and task conflict dynamics over time. Our study of 3343 respondents nested within 174 pooled stores, sampled over a 9-year period comprising 6 measurement occasions, showed that the prevalence of power dispersion configurations was associated with higher levels of average intragroup conflict (both task conflict and relationship) across all stores, but that increases in power dispersion configurations over time were associated with decreases in intragroup conflict, particularly task conflict, over time. In addition, we found that store managers’ perceptions of task and relationship conflict within the upper-management team were positively associated with average levels of task and relationship conflict among the employees they supervised. Moreover, increases in managers’ perceptions of task conflict within the upper- management team predicted increased task conflict among supervised employees over time, consistent with a positive trickle-down effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".