Hierarchy and Its Discontents: Status Disagreement Leads to Withdrawal of Contribution and Lower Group Performance

References

• Aime F, Humphrey S, DeRue DS, Paul JB (2014) The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Acad. Management J. 57:327–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brown CE (2010) The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Res. Organ. Behav. 30:55–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009a) The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 18:295–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009b) Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 96:491–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Willer R (2014) Do status hierarchies benefit groups? A bounded functionalist account of status. The Psychology of Social Status (Springer, New York), 47–70.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. 141:574–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brion S, Moore DA, Kennedy JA (2012) A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 103:718–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM (2001) Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81:116–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. J. Public Econom. 88:1605–1623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashour AS, England G (1972) Subordinates assigned level of discretion as a function of leader’s personality and situational variables. J. Appl. Psych. 56:120–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bales RF, Stodtbeck FL, Mills TM, Roseborough ME (1951) Channels of communication in small groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 16:461–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barclay P (2004) Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evolution Human Behav. 25:209–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barkow JH (1975) Prestige and culture—Biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology 16:553–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23:323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Shah NP (2012) The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Acad. Management J. 56:387–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger JM, Cohen BP, Zelditch Jr M (1972) Status characteristics and social interaction. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37:241–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M (1980) Status organizing processes. Annual Rev. Sociol. 6:479–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger JM, Fisek H, Norman RZ, Zelditch Jr M (1977) Status Characteristics Social Interaction (Elsevier, New York).Google Scholar
• Berger J, Ridgeway CL, Fisek MH, Norman RZ (1998) The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 63:379–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Brion S, Anderson C (2013) The loss of power: How illusions of alliance contribute to powerholders’ downfall. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 121:129–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown TM, Miller CE (2000) Communication networks in task-performing groups—Effects of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Res. 31:131–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS (2003) Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48:557–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Barton MA (2011) Status cues and expertise assessment in groups: How group members size one another up...and why it matters. Pearce JL, ed. Status in Management and Organizations (Cambridge University Press, New York), 215–237.Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Boumgarden P (2010) Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organ. Sci. 21:609–624.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Reagans RE (2011) Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. 22:1182–1194.Link, Google Scholar
• Buss DM, Craik KH (1980) The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and prototypically dominant acts. J. Personality 48:379–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chagnon NA (1988) Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239:985–992.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J (2013) Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 104:103–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 88:741–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellis L (1994) Social Stratification and Socioeconomic Inequality, Volume 2: Reproductive and Interpersonal Aspects of Dominance and Status (Praeger, Westport, CN).Google Scholar
• Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27:31–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Caruso E, Bazerman MH (2006) When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91:872–889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Reagans RE, Amanatullah ET, Ames DR (2006) Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91:1123–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fragale AR (2006) The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 101:243–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George JM, James LR (1993) Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 78:798–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gould R (2003) Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Polzer JT, Elfenbein HA (2011) Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high status individuals decrease group effectiveness Organ. Sci. 22:722–737.Link, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Chou E, Galinsky AD (2011) A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when hierarchical differentiation enhances group performance. Organ. Psych. Rev. 1:32–52.Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Chou E, Galinsky AD, Murnighan JK (2012) When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the national basketball association. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 3:398–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy CL, Van Vugt M (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32:1402–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heinicke CM, Bales RF (1953) Developmental trends in the structure of small groups. Sociometry 16:7–38.Crossref, 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. 22:165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofmann DA (1997) An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. J. Management 23:723–744.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofmann DA, Gavin MB (1998) Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. J. Management 24:623–641.Google Scholar
• Hofmann DA, Griffin MA, Gavin MB (2000) The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 467–511.Google Scholar
• Horowitz LM, Wilson KR, Turan B, Zolotsev P, Constantino MJ, Henderson L (2006) How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 10:67–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huo YJ, Binning KR, Molina LE (2010) Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36:200–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson DN (1984) Personality Research Form Manual, 3rd ed. (Research Psychologists Press, Port Huron, MI).Google Scholar
• James LR (1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. J. Appl. Psych. 67:219–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psych. 69:85–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jehn KA (1997) Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42:530–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jehn KA, Mannix EA (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Management J. 44:238–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson C, Dowd TJ, Ridgeway CL (2006) Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Rev. Sociol. 32:53–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jordan J, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD (2011) Something to lose and nothing to gain: The role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking. Admin. Sci. Quart. 56:530–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalma AP (1991) Hierarchisation and dominance assessment at first glance. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 21:165–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA (1994) Interpersonal Perception (Guilford, New York).Google Scholar
• Kenny DA (1995) SOREMO version V.2: A FORTRAN program for the analysis of round-robin data structures. Accessed February 1, 2015, http://davidakenny.net/srm/srmp.htm.Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, La Voie L (1984) The social relations model. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 18 (Academic Press, Orlando, FL), 142–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Bolger N (1998) Data analysis in social psychology. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 (McGraw-Hill, New York), 233–265.Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, Albright L, Malloy TE, Kashy DA (1994) Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psych. Bull. 116:245–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S, Kashy DA (2002) The statistical analysis of data from small groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 1:126–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Galinsky AD (2013) From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mindsets lead to greater status. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 105:816–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudson RM, Golding SL (1974) Comparative validity of traditional versus S-R format inventories of interpersonal behavior. J. Res. Personality 8:111–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. 108: 480–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leary MR, Cottrell CA, Phillips M (2001) Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81:898–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemonnier P (1996) Food, competition, and the status of food in New Guinea. Wiessner P, Schiefenhovel W, eds. Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Berghahn, New York), 219–234.Google Scholar
• Lind EA, Kanfer R, Earley PC (1990) Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 59:952–959.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2:351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marmot ME (2004) The Status Syndrome (Henry Holt, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck HJ (2002) Reputation helps the “tragedy of the commons.” Nature 415:424–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller DT (2001) Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual. Rev. Psych. 52:527–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owens DA, Sutton RI (2002) Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal order. Turner ME, ed. Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research (Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 299–316.Google Scholar
• Porath CL, Overbeck JR, Pearson CM (2008) Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 38:1945–1980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods, Instruments, Comput. 36:717–731.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Price ME (2003) Pro-community altruism and social status in a Shuar village. Human Nature 14:191–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raudenbush SW, Bryk T, Congdon R (2008) HLM for Windows 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International, Inc. Accessed August 10, 2015, http://www.ssicentral.com/hlm/references.html.Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (1984) Dominance, performance, and status in groups: A theoretical analysis. Lawler E, ed. Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, Vol. 1 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 59–93.Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (1987) Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52:683–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 57:637–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Berger J (1986) Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51:603–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Walker HA (1995) Status structures. Cook KS, Fine GA, House J, eds. Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (Allyn and Bacon, Boston), 281–310.Google Scholar
• Rosa E, Mazur A (1979) Incipient status in small-groups. Soc. Forces 58:18–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sacco JM, Schmitt N (2005) A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and misfit effects. J. Appl. Psych. 90:203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simpson B, Willer R (2008) Altruism and indirect reciprocity: The interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Soc. Psych. Quart. 71:37–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slatcher RB, Mehta PH, Josephs RA (2011) Testosterone and self-reported dominance interact to influence human mating behavior. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 2:531–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleebos E, Ellemers N, de Gilder D (2006a) The carrot and the stick: Affective commitment and acceptance anxiety as motives for discretionary group efforts by respected and disrespected group members. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32:244–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleebos E, Ellemers N, de Gilder D (2006b) The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 42:413–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EA, Bird RAB (2000) Turtle hunting and tombstone opening: Public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution Human Behav. 21:245–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swann Jr WB, Kwan VSY, Polzer JT, Milton LP (2003) Fostering group identification and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and self-verification. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 29:1396–1406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor SE, Brown JD (1988) Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psych. Bull. 103:193–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiedens LZ, Fragale AR (2003) Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 84:558–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiedens LZ, Unzueta MM, Young MJ (2007) An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 93:402–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tyler TR, Blader SL (2000) Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement (Psychology Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Tyler TR, Blader SL (2003) The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 7:349–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Kleef GA, Homan AC, Beersma B, van Knippenberg D (2010) On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psych. Sci. 21:1827–1834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker HA, Thomas GM, Zelditch M (1986) Legitimation, endorsement, and stability. Soc. Forces 64:620–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiggins JS, Trapnell P, Phillips N (1988) Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised interpersonal adjective scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Res. 23:517–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009a) A status theory of collective action. Thye SR, Lawler EJ, eds. Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 26 (Emerald, London), 133–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009b) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74:23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaccaro SJ, Kenny DA, Foti RJ (1991) Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership—An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. J. Appl. Psych. 76:308–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar