The role of group bonding (friendship ties among group members) and the relationships between group members and the formal leader in the prediction of effectiveness was studied. A theoretical mediated-moderation process model was tested. The model was examined through a longitudinal research with 91 natural groups, that included social network analysis to capture the relationship between group members and a leadership differentiation measure to revel their relationship with the leader. As hypothesized, group bonding predicted group effectiveness, group cohesion mediated only one dimension of group effectiveness, and leadership differentiation moderated this process.
BalkundiP.HarrisonD. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785500
3.
BlieseP. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
4.
BolinoM. C.TurnleyW. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader–member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 276–286. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.001
5.
BollenK. A.HoyleR. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–450. http://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.479
6.
BrewerM. B.KramerR. M. (1986). Choice behaviour in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543
7.
BrowerH. H.SchoormanF. D.TanH. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0
Casey-CampbellM.MartensM. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion - Performance literature. International Journal of Management Review, 11(2), 223–246. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x
10.
ChanD. (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. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
11.
ChungS.LountR. B.Jr.ParkH. M.ParkE. S. (2018). Friends with performance benefits: A meta-analysis on the relationship between friendship and group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 63–79. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733069
12.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. R. (2011). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 232–250.
13.
CleggS. R.KornbergerM.PitsisT. (2015). Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Sage.
14.
CohenS.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920639702300303
15.
CsárdiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network Research. Inter Journal, Complex Systems, 2006: 1695.
16.
DieneschR. M.LidenR. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242
17.
DionK. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 7–26. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7
18.
DvirT.EdenD.AvolioB. J.ShamirB. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744. http://doi.org/10.5465/3069307
19.
EdwardsJ. R.LambertL. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
20.
EllwardtL.SteglichC.WittekR. (2012). The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks. Social Networks, 34(4), 623–633. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.002
GerstnerC.DayD. A. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827−844. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
25.
GraenG. B.NovakM. A.SommerkampP. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 30(1), 109–131. http://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90236-7
26.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. http://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
27.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. http://doi.org/10.1086/22831
28.
GreyC.SturdyA. (2007). Friendship and organizational analysis: Toward a research agenda. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(2), 157–172. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F1056492606295500
29.
GrundT. U. (2012). Network structure and team performance: The case of English premier league soccer teams. Social Networks, 34(4), 682–690. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.08.004
30.
HanH. G.BaiY. (2014). In need of each other: The moderator of task interdependence between LMX variability and justice. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(6), 743–750. http://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12009
31.
HarrisK. J.WheelerA.R.KacmarK.M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006
32.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
33.
HenttonenK. (2010). Exploring social networks on the team level: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1–2), 74–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.03.005
34.
HenttonenK.JohansonJ. E.JanhonenM. (2014). Work-team bonding and bridging social networks, team identity and performance effectiveness. Personnel Review, 43(3), 330–349. http://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2011-0187
35.
HowellJ. M.ShamirB. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96–112. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281435
36.
IbarraH. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501. http://doi.org/10.5465/256589
37.
IbarraH.AndrewsS. B. (1993). Power, social influence and sense-making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 277–303. http://doi.org/10.2307/2393414
38.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
39.
JehnK. A.ShahP. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775–790. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.775
40.
KalishY.LuriaG.TokerS.WestmanM. (2015). Till stress do us part: On the interplay between perceived stress and communication network dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1737. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000023
41.
KleinC.Diaz GranadosD.SalasE.LeH.BurkeC. S.LyonsR.GoodwinG. F. (2009). Does team building work?Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496408328821
42.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass
43.
KrackhardtD. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In AndrewsS. B.KnockeD. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 16, pp. 183–210). JAI.
44.
KratzerJ.LeendersR.Van EngelenJ. (2005). Informal contacts and performance in innovation teams. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6), 513–528. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437720510625430
45.
LidenR. C.ErdoganB.WayneS. J.SparroweR. T. (2006). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.409
46.
LittlepageG.RobisonW.ReddingtonK. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2677
47.
LottA. J.LottB. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64(4), 259–309. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0022386
48.
MaL.QuQ. (2010). Differentiation in leader–member exchange: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 733–744. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.004
49.
MartinR.ThomasG.LegoodA.Dello RussoS. (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2202
50.
MathieuJ. E.HollenbeckJ. R.van KnippenbergD.IlgenD. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. http://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
51.
MehraA.DixonA. L.BrassD. J.RobertsonB. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0158
52.
MolmL. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming and structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 163–176. http://doi.org/10.2307/2786874
53.
MoodyJ.WhiteD. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127. http://doi.org/10.2307/3088904
54.
MullenB.CopperC. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
55.
O’ReillyC. A.ChatmanJ. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492
56.
PodolnyJ. M.BaronJ. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693. http://doi.org/10.2307/2657354
57.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. http://doi.org/10.3758%2FBRM.40.3.879
SalasE.StaglK. C.BurkeS. C.GoodwinG. F. (2007). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 52, 185–243.
60.
SelfhoutM.BurkW.BranjeS.DenissenJ.Van AkenM.MeeusW. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and big five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 509–538. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00625.x
61.
ShahP. P. (2000). Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 101–112. http://doi.org/10.5465/1556389
62.
ShahP. P.DirksK. T.ChervanyN. (2006). The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 299–317. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.368
63.
SparroweR. T. (2014). Leadership and social networks: Initiating a different dialog. In DayD. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 434–454). Oxford University Press.
64.
SparroweR. T.EmeryC. (2015). Tracing structure, tie Strength, and cognitive networks in LMX theory and research. In BauerT.ErdoganB. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 293–310). Oxford University Press.
65.
SparroweR. T.LidenR. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 505–535. http://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.50.4.505
66.
SparroweR. T.LidenR. C.WayneS.KraimerM. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. http://doi.org/10.5465/3069458
67.
TingS. C.HoM. H. (2017). The influence of workplace friendship, job involvement, and organizational identification on job performance: Administrative staffs of private science and technology universities in South Taiwan as an example. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(6), 46–57.
68.
WagnerJ. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation ingroups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–172. http://doi.org/10.5465/256731
69.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
