Brain and Behavioral Sciences (Van de Vliert, 2013). There, Evert asks why fundamental freedom is so unevenly distributed across the earth, and proposes that humans adapt their needs, stresses, and choices of goals, means, and outcomes to the livability of their habitat. Evert predicts that freedom is expected to be lowest in poor populations threatened by demanding thermal climates, intermediate in populations comforted by undemanding temperate climates irrespective of income per head, and highest in rich populations challenged by demanding thermal climates. Support for his hypothesis is seen in survey data across 85 countries and 15 Chinese provinces and fits the results of prior studies comprising 174 countries and the 50 states in the United States. Empirical support covers freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of expression and participation, freedom from discrimination, and freedom to develop and realize one's human potential. Projecting from the theory suggests that by 2112 several rich populations will be challenged to defend current levels of freedom against worsening livability. It is telling that current times already provide ample evidence—albeit anecdotal—that richer populations across the earth indeed face increasing outside pressures on their habitat and, to name but one example, have difficulty regulating increasing migration flows. A Mentor in Science: Three Personal Reflections In much of the work, Evert worked in close collaboration with his PhD students. He would initiate projects and yet provide substantial freedom to the student to further expand, redirect, or totally change the project. Evert invested in his students. Three of us share some of our unique and shared experiences with Evert’s stewardship at the time we were his PhD student. Martin Euwema on Role Conflict and Real Conflicts economic
motivated parties, fostered more accommodating, more problem solving, more compromising, and less forcing, resulting in more de-escalation or less escalation of conflict (Janssen & Van de Vliert, 1996). Dominance turned out to be directly related to participants’ motivation and conflict behavior; it did not moderate the effects of interdependence on motivation and conflict behavior. When, soon my graduation there was a vacancy for a PhD position at the University of Groningen, supervised by Evert and Ben Emans, I decided to apply and got the job. The purpose of the project was to examine the role of interdependence in organizational work teams, building on the work of Kelly and Thibaut (1978). It soon turned out that it was difficult to directly apply their work in real-life work teams. Interdependence structures in work teams are messy and the concepts of reflexive control, fate control, and behavioral control are hard to operationalize in a field study. We therefore decided to distinguish between task and outcome interdependence as two basic forms of interdependence that can be distinguished in work groups. Task interdependence refers to the extent to which group members must exchange information and resources or actually work together to complete their jobs. Outcome interdependence is the degree to which the significant outcomes an individual receives depend on the performance of others; this is to a large extent determined by the team’s goals, the way team members receive feedback, and are rewarded for their performance. We noticed that several studies had already examined the role of task and outcome interdependence for team effectiveness, but that little was known about how group members affectively respond to intragroup interdependence. We set out to study this relationship in a series of field studies. In a first study (Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 1998), we developed scales to measure task and outcome interdependence and collected data from a sample of police officers. The results showed that task and outcome interdependence explained variance in
Van de Vliert, E. (2011). Climato-economic origins of variation in ingroup favoritism. Journal of Psychology, 42, 494-515. Van de Vliert, E. (2013). Climato-economic habitats support patterns of human needs, stresses, and freedoms. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 456 – 480. Van de Vliert, E. (2015). Current cultures in threatening, comforting, and challenging ecologies. Human Ecology Review, 21, 133 – 154. Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (1994). Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211-222. Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211-222. Van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674. Van de Vliert, E., & Hordijk, J. W. (1989). A theoretical position of compromising among other styles of conflict management. The Journal of social psychology, 129, 681-690. Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-basd measures of conflict management. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209. Van de Vliert, E., & Tol, R.S.J. (2014). Harsh climate promotes harsh governance (except in cold-dry-wealthy environments). Climate Research, 61, 19-28 Van De Vliert, E., & Van Yperen, N. W. (1996). Why cross-national differences in role overload? Don't overlook ambient temperature! Academy of Management Journal, 39, 986-1004. Van de Vliert, E., Einarsen, S., Euwema, M. C., & Janssen, O. (2009). Ecological limits to globalization of managerial situations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9, 185-198.