Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41450692›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Why and how power disparity harm team performance.

Shiwen Luo, Fumitaka Furuoka, Xuelian Zuo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shiwen LuoZhejiang Financial College, Hangzhou, China.
Fumitaka FuruokaUniversiti Malaya, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Xuelian ZuoZhejiang Yuexiu University, Shaoxing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Power disparity, defined as the unequal control over valuable resources within teams, has been shown to negatively impact overall team performance, though the mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of this relationship remain inadequately explored. Grounded in power conflict theory, this study develops a conceptual model that incorporates team conflict-comprising both relationship conflict and task conflict-as a mediator, and power congruence as a moderator, to systematically explain why and how power disparity influences team performance. Methods: Survey data were collected from 62 teams. The proposed hypotheses concerning the mediating and moderating effects were tested through a series of statistical analyses, including reliability and validity tests, confirmatory factor analysis, and hierarchical regression. Results: Power disparity was found to negatively affect team performance through increased relationship conflict, while also positively influencing team performance via task conflict. However, the negative indirect effect through relationship conflict was significantly stronger than the positive effect through task conflict. Furthermore, power congruence moderated these mediating pathways: it attenuated the negative effect of relationship conflict and strengthened the positive effect of task conflict. These findings reveal a dual pathway through which power disparity affects team performance, with the overall effect being negative due to the stronger detrimental role of relationship conflict. The moderating role of power congruence helps mitigate harmful conflict and promotes beneficial debate, offering theoretical contributions to power conflict theory and practical implications for designing more effective team power structures.

Indexed as

power congruencepower disparityrelationship conflicttask conflictteam performance

Identifiers

PMID41450692
PMCPMC12727565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.