Formal Hierarchy As a Source of Upward Status Disagreement? A Theoretical Perspective

References

• 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. Curr. Dir. 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.Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brion S, Moore DA, Kennedy JA (2012a) 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 traits and physical attractiveness in social groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81:116–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kraus MW, Galinsky AD, Keltner D (2012b) The local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psych. Sci. 23:764–771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Srivastava S, Beer JS, Spataro SE, Chatman JA (2006) Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 91:1094–1110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anicich EM, Swaab RI, Galinsky AD (2015) Hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in high-stakes teams. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 112:1338–1343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Archer J (2006) Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30:319–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aries EJ, Gold C, Weigel RH (1983) Dispositional and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 44:779–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Johnson SA (2001) Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. Hogg MA, Terry DJ, eds. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts (Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA), 31–48.Google Scholar
• Astley WG, Zajac EJ (1990) Beyond dyadic exchange: Functional interdependence and sub-unit power. Organ. Stud. 11:481–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Augier M, Knudsen T, Mcnab R (2014) Advancing the field of organizations through the study of military organizations. Indust. Corporate Change 23:1417–1444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barclay P, Willer R (2007) Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274:749–753.Google Scholar
• Bargh JA, Lombardi WJ, Higgins ET (1988) Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception – It’s just a matter of time. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 55:599–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnard C (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Person. Psych. 44:1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beersma B, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Moon H, Conlon DE, Ilgen DR (2003) Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Acad. Management J. 46:572–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23:323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Shah NP (2013) 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
• Benoit-Smullyan E (1944) Status, status types, and status interrelationships. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 9:151–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J (1977) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach (Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT).Google Scholar
• Berger J, Bernard PC, Morris ZJ (1966) Status characteristics and expectation states. Berger J, Zelditch JM, Anderson B, eds. Sociological Theories in Progress, vol. 1 (Houghton Mifflin, Boston), 29–46.Google Scholar
• Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M (1980) Status organizing processes. Annual Rev. Sociol. 6:479–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Fisek MH, Norman RZ, Zelditch M (1977) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction (Elsevier, New York).Google Scholar
• Berger J, Norman R, Balkwell J, Smith R (1992) Status inconsistency in task situations: a test of four status processing principles. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 57:843–855.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Chen Y (2012) Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102:994–1014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blaker NM, Van Vugt M (2014) The Status-Size Hypothesis: How Cues of Physical Size and Social Status Influence Each Other. The psychology of Social Status (Springer, New York), 119–137.Google Scholar
• Blaker NM, Rompa I, Dessing IH, Vriend AF, Herschberg C, Van Vugt M (2013) The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Process Interg. 16:17–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bloom M (1999) The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Acad. Management J. 42:25–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boone C, Hendriks W (2009) Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Sci. 55:165–180.Link, Google Scholar
• Boroumand S, Eys M, Benson AJ (2018) How status conflict undermines athletes’ willingness to help new teammates. J. Appl. Sport Psych. 30:358–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyce CJ, Brown GDA, Moore SC (2010) Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psych. Sci. 21:471–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 17:475–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brinton MC, Nee V (1988) The New Institutionalism in Sociology (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).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
• Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM (2002) Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Acad. Management J. 45:875–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Van Der Vegt GS, Cantimur Y, Rink F (2016) Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Acad. Management J. 59:1265–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell WK, Sedikides C (1999) Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 3:23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell WK, Goodie AS, Foster JD (2004) Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude. J. Behav. Decis. Making. 17:297–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell WK, Bush CP, Brunell AB, Shelton J (2005) Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 31:1358–1368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carli LL, LaFleur SJ, Loeber CC (1995) Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 68:1030–1041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carney DR, Hall JA, LeBeau LS (2005) Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. J. Nonverbal Behav. 29:105–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carter LF, Schooler K (1949) Value, need, and other factors in perception. Psych. Rev. 56:200–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatman JA (2010) Norms in mixed sex and mixed race work groups. Acad. Management Ann. 4:447–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Anderson C (2014) The Psychology of Social Status (Springer Verlag, New York).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
• Cho Y, Overbeck JR, Carnevale PJ (2011) Status conflict in negotiation. Mannix EA, Neale MA, Overbeck JR, eds. Negotiation and Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams), vol. 14 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley), 111–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology (McGraw-Hill), 151–192.Google Scholar
• Clement J, Puranam P (2018) Searching for structure: Formal organization design as a guide to network evolution. Management Sci. 64:3879–3895.Link, Google Scholar
• Cortina LM (2008) Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 33:55–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JA (1966) The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. Amer. J. Sociol. 72:17–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denison DR, Mishra AK (1995) Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 6:204–223.Link, Google Scholar
• Deutsch M (1949) A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations 2:129–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diener E (1996) Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being. J. Res. Personality 30:389–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Driskell JE, Mullen B (1990) Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 16:541–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Du Gay P (2000) In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber-Organization-Ethics (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44:350–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR, Bingham CB (2010) CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ. Sci. 21:1263–1273.Link, Google Scholar
• Ellyson SL, Dovidio JF (1985) Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior (Springer-Verlag, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsass PM, Graves LM (1997) Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experiences of women and people of color. Acad. Management Rev. 22:946–973.Crossref, 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
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7:117–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske AP, Kitayama S, Markus HR, Nisbett RE (1998) The cultural matrix of social psychology. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology (McGraw-Hill), 915–981.Google Scholar
• Fleeson W (2004) Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Curr. Dir. Psych. Sci. 13:83–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank RH (1985) Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford).Google Scholar
• French JRP, Raven BH (1959) The Bases of Social Power (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
• Galbrith J (2010) The multi-dimensional and reconfigurable organization. Organ. Dynam. 39:115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, Leslie LA, Lun J, Lim BC, Duan L, et al. (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science. 332:1100–1104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R, Henderson R (2012) Relational contracts and organizational capabilities. Organ. Sci. 23:1350–1364.Link, Google Scholar
• Grebe NM, Del Giudice M, Thompson ME, Nickels N, Ponzi D, Zilioli S, Maestripieri D, Gangestad SW (2019) Testosterone, cortisol, and status-striving personality features: A review and empirical evaluation of the Dual Hormone hypothesis. Horm. Behav. 109:25–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psych. 103:591–613.Google Scholar
• Gregory SW, Webster S (1996) A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 70:1231–1240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P, Tushman M (2012) Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management J. 33:571–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Chou EY, Galinsky AD, Murnighan JK (2012) When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the national basketball association. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 3:398–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall JA, Coats EJ, Smith LeBeau L (2005) Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 131:898–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Cannella AA Jr (1993) Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. Acad. Management J. 36:733–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen MJ (1996) The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41:659–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton LD, Carré JM, Mehta PH, Olmstead N, Whitaker JD (2015) Social neuroendocrinology of status: A review and future directions. Adapt. Human Behav. Physiol. 1:202–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han JH, Pollock T (2021) The two towers (or somewhere in between): The behavioral consequences of positional inconsistency across status hierarchies. Acad. Management J. 64:86–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Bendersky C (2015) Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status vs. power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108:867–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Gil-White FJ (2001) The evaluation of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol. Human Behav. 22:165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirsh CE, Kornrich S (2008) The context of discrimination: Workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. Amer. J. Sociol. 113:1394–1432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ho DYF (1994) Filial piety, authoritarian moralism and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social, and General Psych. Monographs 120:349–365.Google Scholar
• Ho DYF (1996) Filial piety and its psychological consequences. Bond MH, ed. The Handbook of Chinese Psychology (Oxford University Press, Hong Kong), 155–165.Google Scholar
• Hofstede G, ed. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (1998) Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical approach. J. Management Stud. 35:2–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollinger RC, Clark JP (1982) Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. Sociol. Quart. 23:333–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H, Andrews SB (1993) Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38:277–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson EF (1962) Status consistency and symptoms of stress. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27:469–480.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
• Kacewicz E, Pennebaker JW, Davis M, Jeon M, Graesser AC (2014) Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. J. Lang. Soc. Psych. 33:125–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kets de Vries M, Miller D (1985) Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective. Human Relations 38:583–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff GJ, Willer R, Anderson C (2016) Hierarchy and its discontents: Status disagreement leads to withdrawal of contribution and lower group performance. Organ. Sci. 27:373–390.Link, Google Scholar
• Kim HY, Pettit NC (2015) Status is a four-letter word: Self vs. other differences and concealment of status-striving. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 6:267–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klotz F (2019) Why teams still need leaders. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 60:1–4.Google Scholar
• Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. 108:480–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lenski G (1954) Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 19:405–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li J, Hambrick DC (2005) Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic fault lines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Acad. Management J. 48:794–813.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li HJ, Chen YR, Blader SL (2016) Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective. Res. Organ. Behav. 36:185–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lovelace K, Shapiro DL, Weingart LR (2001) Maximizing cross- functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Acad. Management J. 44:779–793.Google Scholar
• Lukaszewski AW, Simmons ZL, Anderson C, Roney JR (2016) The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 110:385–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynn F, Podolny J, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de)construction of the relationship between status and quality. Amer. J. Sociol. 115:755–804.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
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Marsh HW (1987) The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. J. Ed. Psych. 79:280–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Parker J (1984) Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 47:213–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Maynard MT, Taylor SR, Gilson LL, Ruddy TM (2007) An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance: a meso‐mediational model. J. Organ. Behav. 28:891–910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mazur A, Booth A (1998) Testosterone and dominance in men. Behav. Brain Sci. 21:353–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83:340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller DT, Turnbull W, McFarland C (1988) Particularistic and universalistic evaluation in the social comparison process. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 55:908–917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1980) Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Sci. 26:322–341.Link, Google Scholar
• Mischel W (1979) On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person–situation debate. Amer. Psych. 34:740–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell RL, Bae KK, Case CR, Hays NA (2020) Drivers of desire for social rank. Current Opinion Psych. 33:189–95.Google Scholar
• Moore JJC (1968) Status and influence in small group interactions. Sociometry 31:47–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nadler DA, Tushman ML (1997) Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nkomo SM, Bell MP, Roberts LM, Joshi A, Thatcher SM (2019) Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Acad. Management Rev. 44:498–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pai J, Bendersky C (2020) Team status conflict. Curr. Opin. Psych. 33:38–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrow C (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 32:194–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1981) Power in Organizations (Pitman, Boston).Google Scholar
• Pinto MB, Pinto JK, Prescott JE (1993) Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Sci. 39:1281–1297.Link, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39:458–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 107:33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Raven BH, French JRP (1958) Legitimate power, coercive power, and observability in social-influence. Sociometry 21:83–97.Crossref, 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, Erickson KG (2000) Creating and spreading status beliefs. Amer. J. Sociol. 106:579–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Boyle EH, Kuipers KJ, Robinson DT (1998) How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 63:331–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberson QM (2019) Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 6:69–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberson Q, Ryan AM, Ragins BR (2017) The evolution and future of diversity at work. J. Appl. Psych. 102:483–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ronay R, Greenaway K, Anicich EM, Galinsky AD (2012) The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psych. Sci. 23:669–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salovey P (1991) Social comparison processes in envy and jealousy. Suls J, Wills TA, eds. Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 261–285.Google Scholar
• Sampson EE (1963) Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry 26:146–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schein EH (1990) Organizational Culture (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Schein EH (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).Google Scholar
• Schreyögg G, Sydow J (2010) Crossroads—organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organ. Sci. 21:1251–1262.Link, Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH (1999) Theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl. Psych. 48:23–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sedikides C, Campbell WK, Reeder GD, Elliot AJ (1998) The self-serving bias in relational context. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74:378–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheridan JE, Slocum JW, Buda R, Thompson RC (1990) Effects of corporate sponsorship and departmental power on career tournaments. Acad. Management J. 33:578–602.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) A Comment on The Science of Public Administration. Public Admin. Rev. 7:200–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106:467–482.Google Scholar
• Simons TL, Peterson RS (2000) Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. J. Appl. Psych. 85:102–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sobieszek B (1972) Multiple sources and the formation of performance expectations. Sociol. Rev. 15:103–122.Google Scholar
• Swaab RI, Schaerer M, Anicich EM, Ronay R, Galinsky AD (2014) The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psych. Sci. 25:1581–1591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiedens LZ, Ellsworth PC, Mesquita B (2000) Stereotypes about sentiments and status: Emotional expectations for high- and low-status group members. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26:560–574.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todorov A, Olivola CY, Dotsch R, Mende-Siedlecki P (2015) Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Rev. Psych. 66:519–545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad. Management Rev. 3:613–624.Google Scholar
• Tyler TR (1997) The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 1:323–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ury WL, Brett J, Goldberg S (1993) Getting Disputes Resolved (PON Books, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Uskul AK, Kitayama S, Nisbett RE (2008) Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105:8552–8556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, van Schie ECM (2000) Foci and correlates of organizational identification. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 73:137–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varnum ME, Grossmann I, Kitayama S, Nisbett RE (2010) The origin of cultural differences in cognition: The social orientation hypothesis. Curr. Dir. Psych. Sci. 19:9–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner DG, Berger J (1997) Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociol. Perspect. 40:1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M (2013) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Routledge, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74:23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yap AJ, Mason MF, Ames DR (2013) The powerful size others down: The link between power and estimates of others’ size. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. 49:591–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang L (2020) An institutional approach to gender diversity and firm performance. Organ. Sci. 31:439–457.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Bond MH (1998) Personality and filial piety among college students in two Chinese societies: The added value of indigenous constructs. J. Cross-Cultural Psych. 29:402–417.Google Scholar