1

AMicropoliticsModelofStatusHierarchiesinTeams

CameronAnderson

JessicaA.Kennedy

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

CameronAndersonHaasSchoolofBusiness545StudentServices#1900UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyBerkeley,CA94720‐1900(510)643‐0325Fax:(510)643‐1412anderson@haas.berkeley.edu

2

Inthepastseveralyearswehavewitnessedasurgeofinterestinhierarchy.A

simplekeywordsearchfoundthatthenumberofarticlesfocusingon“hierarchy,”“status,”

or“power”jumpedthreefoldbetween2004and2010injournalstypicallytargetedby

RMGTreaders(seeFigure1).Thisintensifiedinterestinhierarchyisatestamenttoits

importance.Ontheindividuallevel,wherepeoplestandsinahierarchystronglyshapes

theirsocialandmaterialwelfare,psychologicalwell‐being,andevenphysicalhealthand

longevity(forareview,seeMagee&Galinsky,2008).Onthelevelofthegroup,hierarchies

determinehowcollectivedecisionsaremade,resourcesaredistributed,laborisallocated,

andultimatelyhowsuccessfulthegroupisinachievingitsgoals(forreviews,seeAnderson

&Brown,2010;Gruenfeld&Tiedens,2010).

Hierarchyisespeciallyimportantinthecontextofteams.Asmanyscholarshave

noted,hierarchiesareubiquitousinteamsettings.Theydevelopinteamsofallkinds

(Leavitt,2005),evenwhenteamsareinitiallycomprisedofpeersofequalstatus(Bales,

Strodtbeck,Mills,&Roseborough,1951),andevenwhenteamsstrivetobeegalitarian

(Magee&Galinsky,2008).Hierarchicaldifferencesdevelopquicklyandnaturallywhen

individualsworktogetheronjointtasks(Tiedens&Fragale,2003),suggestingthathumans

mayevenhaveadispositionalpropensitytoformhierarchieswhenworking

collaboratively(e.g.,House,1988;VanVugt,Hogan,&Kaiser,2008).

Oncedeveloped,hierarchieshaveaprofoundimpactonhowteammemberswork

together.First,theyprovideindividualsatthetopofthehierarchywithdisproportionate

influenceoverthegroup.Howdisproportionatecanthisinfluencebe?Bales’classicstudies

ofsmallgroupsfoundthatthetop‐rankinggroupmembersspoke15timesmorefrequently

thanthelowest‐rankinggroupmembersandnearlyfivetimesmorethanthenexthighest‐

3

rankingmembers(Balesetal.,1951).BuzagloandWheelan(1999)foundthathigher‐

statusmembersofateamdominatedteamdiscussionsmorethan75%ofthetime,even

thoughtheyrepresentedonly30%oftheteam’smembership.Ourownstudiesonteams

foundthat94%ofthetime,teamschosethefirstproposalofferedbyanymemberastheir

finalanswer–andthatthetwotop‐rankingmemberswerenearlythreetimesmorelikely

toprovidethefirstproposalthananyoneelseontheteam(Anderson&Kilduff,2009).

Teammembersatthetopofthehierarchyalsoreceiveamultitudeofsocial,

psychological,andmaterialbenefits.Theirinputsandcontributionsareevaluatedmore

positivelythaniswarranted(Berger,Rosenholtz,&Zelditch,1980,p.495;Sande,Ellard,&

Ross,1986;Sherif,White,&Harvey,1955;Whyte,1943),theyaregivenmorefavorable

jobsandduties(Homans,1950;Roethlisberger&Dickson,1939)aswellasmoresupport

intheirdutiesfromfellowgroupmembers(Blau,1964).Theyarecompensatedmore

highlyfortheircontributionstotheteam(Thibault&Kelley,1959),andenjoyelevated

subjectivewell‐beingandhappiness(Anderson,Kraus,Galinsky,&Keltner,2012).

Giventheimportanceofhierarchiestoteamdynamics,itiscriticalforscholarsto

understandhowhierarchiesdevelop,howmembersbecomeorganizedintohighandlow

statusranks,howhierarchieschangeovertime,andhowandwhytheyaffectgroup

performance.Thecurrentchapterthusfocusesonresearchthathasexaminedstatus

hierarchiesinteams.InlinewiththebroadaimsofthisRMGTvolume,ourgoalistoreview

priorresearchanddiscussthestateofthescience,outlineissuesaboutwhichweknow

little,andsuggestdirectionsforfutureresearchonstatushierarchiesinteams.

Aswewilldiscuss,therearetwomajoraccountsofstatushierarchiesinteams‐‐

functionalistanddominancetheory‐‐thatoffertwocompletelycontrastingviewsof

4

hierarchy.Thesetwotheoriesencompassvirtuallyallscholarshipontheemergenceof

statushierarchies(Ng,1980),andtheybothaddressthemostfundamentalquestions

regardingstatushierarchiesinteams,suchas:Whydostatushierarchiesexist?Howdo

theyemerge?Whydosomeindividualsbutnotothersattainhighstatusinteams?What

impactdohierarchieshaveonteamperformance?Therefore,wewillusethesetwo

theoriestogroundandtoorientourdiscussion.

Inreviewingpriorresearch,wewilldescribehowtheempiricalrecord

overwhelminglysupportsthefunctionalistperspectiveandrefutesthedominance

perspective.However,wewillalsohighlightanumberoffindingsthatcannotbeexplained

bythefunctionalistperspective,andthatevenseemtocontradictit.Therefore,wewill

proposeanewmodelofstatusthatintegratesthefunctionalistanddominanceaccountsto

helpusbetterunderstandstatusdynamicsinteamsandgeneratenumeroushypothesesfor

futureresearch.Borrowingatermfrompriorwork(Clark,1990;Kemper,1990),wecall

thistheMicropoliticstheoryofteamstatushierarchies.

DefiningStatusHierarchy

Statushierarchiesinteamsarethedifferencesinrespect,prominence,andinfluence

thatemergeamongteammembers(Anderson,John,Keltner,&Kring,2001).Along

traditionofresearchhasfocusedonstatushierarchiesinteams,includingworkbyBales

(Balesetal.,1951),Blau(1964;Blau&Scott,1962),Homans(1950),ThibaultandKelley

(1959),andscholarsworkingintheStatusCharacteristicstradition(Berger,Cohen,&

Zelditch,1972;Ridgeway,1978).Thebodyofresearchonstatusinteamshasshownthat

wheneverindividualsworkcollectivelyontasks,differencesinrespect,prominence,and

influencetendtoemergeamongthem.Someindividualsareheldinhigherregardand

5

admiration,aregivenmoreattentionandchancestoparticipate,andhavemorecontrol

overthegroup’sprocessesanddecisionsthanothers.

Thisconceptionofstatusfocusesonthe“informal”hierarchiesthatemergeinteams

–thatis,thedifferencesinrespectandinfluencethatdeveloporganicallythroughthe

processofinteraction,andthatarebasedongroupmembers’evaluationsofeachmember

(Bergeretal.,1972).Atthecoreofinformalstatushierarchiesarethegroup’sperceptions

ofeachmember’sprominence,respect,andinfluence.

Suchinformalhierarchiescanthusbecontrastedwithformalhierarchies,which

involvedifferencesinformalauthority,orwhenmembersoccupydifferentpositionsinthe

formalorganizationalhierarchy(e.g.,Manager,Director).Thisisnottosaythatformal

statushierarchiesareunimportant,orthattheyareunrelatedtoinformalstatus

hierarchies.Inmosttheoreticalmodels,formaldifferencesinauthorityareonesourceof

informalstatus.Forexample,inateamofengineers,seniorengineerswhooccupyahigher

leveloftheorganization’shierarchywilllikelyhavehigherstatusthanothers(butnot

necessarily).Formalauthorityisthusconstruedasonesourceofinformalstatusamong

manypossibleothers,suchaspersonalcharacteristics,traits,orabilities(Anderson,Ames,

&Gosling,2008;Cohen&Zhou,1991).

Thisconceptionofstatusalsocombinesrespectandinfluenceaspartofthe

overarchingconstruct.Somescholarshaverightlypointedoutthatrespectandinfluence

aredistinguishableconstructs(Magee&Galinsky,2008).Indeed,therearesometimes

substantivedifferencesinthewaythesetwoconstructsaffectsocial,psychological,and

organizationalprocesses(e.g.,French&Raven,1959;Henrich&Gil‐White,2001;Magee&

Galinsky,2008).However,inthecontextofsmallgroupsandteams,respectandinfluence

6

tendtocorrelatesohighlythattheyareempiricallyindistinguishable–whichiswhythey

aretreatedaspartofthebroaderconceptofstatus(Bergeretal.,1972).

TheFunctionalistPerspectiveofStatusHierarchies

Scholarswhostudystatushavelongsoughttounderstandbasicquestionsabout

hierarchies.Whydotheyexist?Howdotheydevelop?Howdotheychangeovertime?

Whateffectdotheyhaveongroupperformanceandfunctioning?Inaddressingthese

questions,twoverydifferenttheoreticalcampshaveemerged:thefunctionalistand

dominancecamps.Thesetwotheoreticalperspectivesprovidestarklycontrastingaccounts

ofthemostfundamentalquestionsregardingstatushierarchiesinteams.

Byfar,mostscholarsinthefieldhaveespousedafunctionalistperspectiveofstatus

hierarchies(Anderson,Srivastava,Beer,Spataro,&Chatman,2006;Blau,1964;Bergeret

al.,1980;Gruenfeld&Tiedens,2010;Homans,1950;Magee&Galinsky,2008;Thibault&

Kelley,1959;Willer,2009).Thesescholarsmayvaryinsomeoftheirspecifichypothesesor

traditions,buttheyconvergeontheideathatstatushierarchiesfacilitategroupsuccessby

servingnumerousfunctions.Morespecifically,hierarchieshelpgroupssolvesomeoftheir

mostfundamentalproblems.

First,becausegroupmembersoftendisagreeoverthegroup’sgoals,thestrategies

topursuethosegoals,andpossiblesolutionstoproblems,groupsmustmakecollective

decisionsinapeacefulandefficientmanner(e.g.,Cartwright&Zander,1953;Levine&

Moreland,1990;VanVugtetal.,2008).Second,groupsmustmotivatememberstobehave

selflesslyandcontributetothegroup’ssuccess,evenwhensuchbehaviorrequires

personalinvestmentandsacrifice(e.g.,Hardin,1982;Kerr&Tindale,2004;Latane,

Williams,&Harkins,1979;Willer,2009).Third,groupsmustcoordinateindividual

7

behaviorsothatmembersworkinconcerttowardcollectivesuccess;forexamplethey

mustallocatetasksandresponsibilities,maintaincommunicationamongmembers,and

minimizeintra‐groupconflict(e.g.,Blau&Scott,1962;Cartwright&Zander,1953;Hinsz,

Tindale,&Vollrath,1997;Levine&Moreland,1990).Accordingtothefunctionalist

perspective,hierarchieshelpgroupsovercomeeachofthesechallenges.

Hierarchiesarethoughttohelpgroupssolvetheproblemofcollectivedecision‐

makingbygivingdisproportionatecontroltooneorfewmembers(VanVugtetal.,2008).

Groupleadersaregivencontroloverdecisionsandallowedtodirectothers’actions,

whereaslowerrankedindividualsareexpectedtodefertoothersandkeeptheiropinions

tothemselves(Balesetal.,1951;Bergeretal.,1980;Goffman,1967;Keltner,Gruenfeld,&

Anderson,2003).Thisconcentrationofcontrolatthetophelpsgroupsmakedecisions

moreefficientlyandavoidconflict(Cartwright&Zander,1953;VanVugtetal.,2008).

Hierarchiesarealsothoughttoincreasethequalityofgroupdecisionsbygiving

disproportionatecontroltotheindividualsperceivedtobethemostcompetent.Decisions

aboutagroup’sgoalsorstrategiesareoftenfraughtwithambiguityandintimidating

complexity.Competentindividualspresumablywillmakebetterdecisionsforthegroup

thanwouldthosewithlesseroraverageacuity(Bergeretal.,1980;Davis&Moore,1945;

Eibl‐Eibesfeldt,1989;Ridgeway&Diekema,1989).Therefore,groupsstrivetoputtheir

mostcompetentmembersinchargebyallocatinginfluencetothosewhoseemmostexpert.

Tohelpovercomethesecondmajorchallenge,thatofmotivatingindividual

memberstocontributetothegroup,hierarchiesarebelievedtoprovidesocial,material,

andpsychologicalincentives(Barnard,1964;Bergeretal.,1972;Blau,1964;Davis&

Moore,1945;Frank,1985;Hardy&VanVugt,2006;Homans,1950;Kanter,1977;Keltner,

8

VanKleef,Chen,&Kraus,2008;Lambert,Larcker,&Weigelt,1993;Lazear&Rosen,1981;

Pfeffer&Cohen,1984;Tannenbaum,Kavcic,Rosner,Vianello,&Wieser,1974;Thibault&

Kelley,1959;VanEmmerik,Lambooy,&Sanders,2002;Willer,2009).Forexample,high

rankcomeswithgreaterrespectandadmiration,autonomy,power,socialsupport,self‐

esteem,well‐being,lowerphysiologicalstress,andmaterialresources.Andgroupsallocate

higherranktomembersperceivingascontributingtothegroup’sgoals.Individuals

perceivedasmakingimportantcontributionsaregrantedhigherrank,whereasthose

believedtobemakingfewercontributions,oreventobeunderminingagroup’ssuccess,

areassignedlowerrank.Valuedcontributionscantakeseveralforms,suchasexpending

effortforthegrouporprovidingexpertisetofellowmembers.Therefore,byrewarding

group‐orientedbehavior,hierarchiescompelindividualmemberstoworktowardthe

group’sgoals,whichfacilitatescollectivesuccess.Individualgroupmembersaredrivento

self‐sacrificeandcontributetothegroup’swell‐beinginordertoobtainthemyriad

rewardsthatcomewithbeingontopoftheladder.Evenonceatthetop,thepromiseof

continuingtoreceivethoserewardsdriveshigh‐statusindividualstocontinuemaking

contributions.

Hierarchiesarethoughttohelpgroupsaddressthethirdmajorchallenge,thatof

intra‐groupcoordination,byreducingconflictandfacilitatingcommunication.As

previouslymentioned,hierarchiesputativelyfacilitateanorderlydivisionofresourcesand

influenceamonggroupmembers,usingsuchmeansasallowingordenyingdifferent

individualsaccesstoresourcesandtherightstoperformcertainbehaviors(Barnard,1964;

Bergeretal.,1980;Chance,1967;Durkheim,1893/1997;Katz&Kahn,1966;Keltneretal.,

2008;Leavitt,2005;Magee&Galinsky,2008;Marx,1844/1964;Mintzberg,1983;Parsons,

9

1961;Tiedens,Unzueta,&Young,2007).Differentialallocationofresponsibilitiesand

controlhelpsmitigatethecommonproblemofhaving‘‘toomanycooksinthekitchen,’’

whereintoomanyindividualsdesireaccesstothescarceresourceofleadership.

Finally,hierarchiesarealsobelievedtoallowinformationtoflowbetweenmembers

moreefficientlyandfortheintegrationofthisinformationtooccurmoreeasily(Arrow,

1974;Bavelas,1950;Leavitt,2005;Scott,1998;Vroom,1969;Williamson,1975).For

example,intheprototypicalpyramidhierarchy,informationtravelsupthrough

hierarchicallevelsuntilitreachesgroupleaders.Theleadersintegratethisdiverse

informationandmaketherelevantdecisions.Theirdecisionsthenflowdowntoeach

respectivehierarchicallevelandgetimplementedaccordingtoleaders’plans.

Inshort,accordingtothefunctionalistperspective,themostaptmetaphorforstatus

hierarchiesinteamsisameritocracy.Teammemberswhoareperceivedtohavethe

strongestskillsandabilitiesandwhocontributethemosttotheteamareaffordedhigh

status.However,itisimportanttonotethatthekeydriverofstatusdifferencesiseach

member’sperceivedcontributionsandvaluetothegroup–notnecessarilytheiractual

contributionsandvaluetothegroup.Becauseeachindividualmember’sabilitiesorvalueis

typicallyhiddenfromothers,groupscanonlyallocatestatusonthebasisofwhatthey

believeeachmember’scompetenceandvaluetobe(Bergeretal.,1972;Driskell&Mullen,

1990;Lord,1985).Thesebeliefsareoftenbasedonsuperficialcuessuchasdemographic

variables(e.g.,sex,ethnicity,age),ornonverbaldemeanor(Driskell,Olmstead,&Salas,

1993).Therefore,teamscanmakemistakesinallocatingstatusamongmembers,bygiving

highstatustoindividualswhoonlyappeartoprovidemorevalue,evenwhentheydonot.

Whatisimportanttofunctionalism,however,isthatgroupsstrivetobasestatusonmerit.

10

TheDominancePerspectiveofStatusHierarchies

Asmallernumberofscholarshaveespousedwhatissometimescalledthe

dominancetheoryofstatushierarchies(Henrich&Gil‐White,2001;Lee&Ofshe,1981;

Mazur,1985;Ng,1980).Accordingtothisperspective,groupmembersjockeyforposition

throughassertivenessandmanipulation,andsometimescompeteforstatusthrough

dominancecontests.Statusallocationisseenasahighlycompetitive,andsometimeseven

conflict‐ladenprocess;itiscutthroatandharsh,ratherthanrationalandcooperative.

OneprominentlyciteddominancetheorystemsfromtheworkofMazurand

colleagues(1973;1985;Mazur&Booth,1998).Accordingtohismodel,statushierarchies

sharecommonalitiesacrossallkindsofanimalspecies–humanhierarchiesmightdiffer

fromthatinotherspecies,buttheyalsoshowmanysimilarities.Importanttohismodelis

thatinthesespecies,individualscanexhibitbehaviorsthatcommunicatetoothersthe

statustheyclaimtoalreadyhaveorthestatustheyaimtotakefromothers(Mazur,1985).

Thesearecalleddominanceacts,andinhumansincludebehaviorslikeerectposture,

strutting,andassertivefacialgestures.TestosteroneplaysacentralroleinMazur’smodel,

inthathigherlevelsoftestosteroneleadindividualstodisplaymoredominanceacts,andto

moreassertivelypursuehigherstatusintheirgroup.

Statuscaneitherbeallocatedpeacefullyorthroughdominancecontests.For

example,onememberofajurywhowishestoleadthedeliberationswouldexhibit

dominantnonverbalbehavior(e.g.,expandedposture,aloudvocaltone)becausehehas

hightestosteronelevels.Inturn,otherjurorshaveachoice:Theycandefertohimbecause

theyfeelintimidatedandhavelowertestosteronelevels.Inthiscase,statushasbeen

allocatedpeacefully,thoughthroughforceandintimidation.

11

Orothergroupmemberscandisputehisstatusclaim.Inthiscase,theotherperson

wouldengageinadominancecontestwithhim.Dominancecontestsaredefinedas“short,

well‐definedencountersinwhicheachparticipanttriestooutstresstheotherthroughthe

useofvariousdominantactions”(Mazur,1985,p.394).Theseactionsmightbeviolentor

nonviolent,determinedthroughstaredownsorconversation.Inotherwords,asthetwo

individualsengageinadominancecontest,theirstresslevelsriseandtheybecome

increasinglyuncomfortable.Theeasiestwaytoendthisdiscomfortistodefertotheother

person,thusterminatingthecontestandacceptingalowerstatus.Whenoneindividual

cannothandlethestressanylonger,hedeferstotheother–andthestatusordering

betweenthosetwoindividualshasbeenset.

Therefore,dominancetheoriesofstatusproposeaverydifferentviewofhierarchies

ingroupsthandofunctionalisttheories.Accordingtodominancetheorists,hierarchiesare

nottheproductofcooperationamonggroupmembersbutarebornofcompetitionand

conflict.Ratherthanbeingsomethingthatisgiventotheindividualbythegroup,statusis

somethingthatistakenbytheindividual.Andintermsoftheindividualcharacteristicsthat

leadtostatusattainment,whilefunctionalisttheoriesfocusonskillsandabilitiesthat

contributetothegroup’ssuccess,dominancetheoriesfocusonthemotivationtoattain

statusandtheabilitytointimidateothers.Themostaptmetaphorforstatushierarchiesin

teamsisnotameritocracy,butratherapeckingorder.Testosterone,aggressiveness,and

thewillingnesstoengageinconflictwithothersareallcrucialfactorsthatdeterminethe

statusorder.

Oneinterestingdifferencebetweenthefunctionalistanddominancemodelsof

hierarchyisthattheysuggestopposingpredictionsaboutthestabilityofindividuals’status

12

fromonecontexttoanother.Thefunctionalistmodelsuggeststhatindividuals’statuscan

varyfromonegrouptoanother,evenmarkedly,becausethetasksandabilitiesthat

contributetoagroup’ssuccessvaryacrossgroups(e.g.,Andersonetal.,2008).While

quantitativeskillswillhelpateamofengineerssolveimportantproblems,suchskillswill

notbeofmuchuseonasoccerteam.Incontrast,thedominancemodelsuggeststhat

individuals’statusmightbesomewhatstableacrossthegroupstowhichtheybelong.The

motivationtoattainstatus,testosterone,andcombativenessareconsidereddispositional

traitsthatdonotwavermuchbetweencontexts(e.g.,Winter&Stewart,1983).Therefore,

anindividualwouldlikelyattainconsistentlyhighorlowstatusacrosstheirgroups,

dependingontheirlevelsofthesestableindividualdifferences(seeTable1forareviewof

thedifferencesbetweenthetwoperspectives).

EvidenceSupportingtheFunctionalistModel

Giventhatthesetwotheoriesofstatusgiveverydifferentaccountsofteam

hierarchies,whichoneissupportedbytheempiricalevidence?Areviewofthescientific

literatureprovidesaveryclearanswer:Onbalance,thevastmajorityofresearchhas

supportedthefunctionalistmodelofstatushierarchiesandrefutedthedominancemodel.

First,amountainofresearchhasshownthatgroupstendtogivehigherrankto

memberswhoexhibitsuperiorskillsandabilitiesthatcontributetothegroup’ssuccess

(forreviews,seeBass,1981;Driskell&Mullen,1990;Hollander&Julian,1969;Mann,

1959).Thespecificabilitiesthatcontributetoateam’ssuccess,andthatarethusrequired

toattainhighrank,candependonthegroup’sspecifictasksandgoals(e.g.,Anderson,

Spataro,&Flynn,2008;Hogan&Hogan,1991).However,ingeneral,individualsaregiven

higherrankiftheyexhibitexpertiserelatedtothegroup’stasksaswellasshowsocialand

13

leadershipskills(Lord,1985;VanVugt,2006).Moreover,studieshavefoundthatwhena

group’shierarchyisbasedontaskexpertiseitfunctionsbetter(e.g.,Maier,1967;Pfeffer&

Langton,1993;Roby,Nicol,&Farrell,1963),supportingthenotionthatmeritocratic

hierarchiespromotegroupsuccess.

Studieshavealsoconsistentlyfoundthatgroupsgivehigherranktomemberswho

aremoreselfless,generouswithfellowgroupmembers,andwhomakemoresacrificesfor

thegroup’ssuccess(Blau,1964;Flynn,Reagans,Amanatullah,&Ames,2006;Hardy&Van

Vugt,2006;Ridgeway&Diekema,1989;Willer,2009).Incontrast,individualswhoare

perceivedasactinginwaysthatareselfishandharmfultothegrouparegivenlowerrank

(Andersonetal.,2008;Andersonetal.,2006;Blau,1964;Homans,1950;Ridgeway&

Diekema,1989;Roethlisberger&Dickson,1939).Additionally,recentworkhasshownthat

providingindividualshigherstatusmotivatesthemtoactmoreselflessly(Willer,2009),

whichfurthersupportstheideathatstatusincentivizescontributionstothecollective.

Moreover,evidencerefutingthedominancemodelhasfoundthatselfishindividuals

whobehaveinwaysthatunderminethegroup’ssuccessareaffordedlowerstatus(Blau,

1964;Homans,1950;Ridgeway&Diekema,1989;Roethlisberger&Dickson,1939).This

suggeststhatindividualswhoputtheirownneedsabovethoseofthegroup,andwhostrive

forhigherstatussimplybecauseofthepersonalrewardsitengenders,aredisallowedfrom

attaininghighrankandrelegatedtothebottomofthehierarchy.

Similarly,aggressive,threateningindividualswhotrytotakestatusthroughforce

donotattainstatus,andinsteadaresociallypunishedandcensured(e.g.,Ridgeway&

Diekema,1989).Aggressionfailstowinhigherstatusinagroup,andittendstodecrease

theperson’soverallstanding.Inourownwork,wehavefoundthatdisagreeable

14

individuals,whobehaveinaggressive,quarrelsome,anddeceptiveways,failtoattain

higherstatus(Andersonetal.,2001;Andersonetal.,2008).Acrossallofourassessments

wehavenotfoundasinglesignificantcorrelationbetweendisagreeablenessandstatus.

Niceguys(andgals)donotfinishlast,asthedominancemodelsuggests.

Finally,wehavealsofoundevidencesuggestingthatstatuscannotbetakenbythe

individualteammember,butinsteadmustbegiventoteammembersbythegroup.Ina

seriesofstudieswefoundthatpeoplewhooverestimatetheirplaceandunilaterallyclaim

statusdon’tattainhigherstatus;infact,theyarepunishedwithostracismandlower

compensationbythegroup(Andersonetal.,2006;Andersonetal.,2008).Groupsseemto

protectthestatusorderfromtheseindividual“statusgrabs”andpenalizeindividualsfor

failingtoknowtheirplace.

EnduringMysteriesaboutStatusHierarchiesinGroups

Theprevioussectiondescribedanaccumulationofempiricalfindingssuggesting

thatthefunctionalistperspective–notthedominanceperspective–capturesthestatus

dynamicsofteams.Statushierarchiesseemtobedeterminedbythegroup,organized

accordingtowhoprovidesmorevaluetothegroup’ssuccess.Thoseindividualswhohave

uniquetalentsandskillsthatcanhelpthegroupsucceed,andwhoarewillingtousethose

talentstocontributetothecollectiveendeavor,aregiventhehigheststatusranks.

However,theabovementionedevidencemightprovidetoomuchconfidenceinthe

functionalistmodel.Acloserlookatheliteratureonstatushierarchiesshowsthereare

numerousfindings–findingsthatconsistentlyemergeacrossdifferentstudies–that

cannotbeexplainedbythefunctionalistaccount.Infact,manyfindingsevenseemto

contradictfunctionalistpremises,callingintoquestionsomeofthemodel’sbasic

15

implications.Inthissection,weoutlineafewofthosefindingsanddescribetheirrelation

tofunctionalism,outliningwhytheyfailtofitwithinitstheoreticalassumptions.

Hierarchiesdevelopandstabilizeveryquickly.Thefirstsetoffindingsthatseem

toruncountertofunctionalismconcernthedevelopmentofhierarchiesovertime.If

hierarchiesarepurelyfunctionalanddevelopbecausetheyhelpthegroupsolveits

importantproblems,onewouldexpecttheemergenceofhierarchiestobeagradualand

deliberateprocess.Thatis,hierarchieswouldemergeslowlyatthebeginningofthegroup’s

formation.Groupswouldstartwitharelativelyflatstructure,inwhichtherearesmaller

differencesinstatusamongmembers,andgraduallydevelopasteeperhierarchyovertime,

withstatusdifferencesbecomingmorepronounced,asgroupmemberscometoknoweach

other’srelativecapabilitiesandcommitmenttothegroup’ssuccess.Inthebeginningofthe

group’sformation,membersusuallyhaverelativelylittleinformationabouteachother’s

competenceandindividualattributes.Eveninorganizationalsettingswhereteamsare

comprisedofmemberswhoknoweachotherbyreputation,thosemembersstilldonot

knowagreatdealabouteachother,suchashowmucheachindividualcancontributeto

theteam’ssuccess,andhowcommittedeachmemberistothegroup.Therefore,itwould

behooveteamstoholdoffonformingstarkdifferencesinstatusuntiltheycometolearn

eachmember’srelativecontributions.

Yettheempiricalrecordpaintsaverydifferentpictureofhowstatushierarchies

develop,suggestingtheydevelopquicklyandbecomerigidovertime.Thatis,theyemerge

inarushedfashion,basedonlittleinformationabouteachgroupmember.Onceformed,

teamhierarchiesarethenverystableandsomewhatslowtoadjustovertime,eveninthe

16

faceofevidencethatlesscompetentpeopleareinchargeandthatchangesinthestatus

orderarewarranted.

Forexample,theamountthatgroupmembersspeakisoftenusedasameasureof

status(Bergeretal.,1972).Individualswhoarerespectedandadmiredaregivenmore

chancestospeak.Kalma(1991)foundthatrankordersinspeakingtimeemergedwithin

thefirstminuteofinteractionofdyadsandtriads.SchmidMast(2001)similarlyfoundthat

rankorderinspeakingtimedevelopedwithinthefirst8minofinteraction.FisekandOfshe

(1970)foundthatrankorderinspeakingtimeinthefirstminuteoftriadicinteractions

correlatedinthe.50’swithfinalrankorderatendof45minsession.AndRosaandMazur

(1979)foundthatwhentwoindividualsmakeinitialvisualcontact,thepersonwhoholds

theglancelongerendsuphavinghigherstatusinthegroup.Theyargue,“Aspartofa

processofstatusformation,itseemsthategoalmostimmediatelyascribeshighorlow

statusattributestoalter.Ifimmediatecuesindicatethatalterishighinstatus,thenegois

likelytodefertoalter.Ifcuesindicatethatalterisoflowerstatusthanego,egoislikelyto

withholddeference”(pp.30‐31).Theyalsofoundthatthefirsttospeak(whenvisual

contactpre‐grouptaskwasnotallowed)wasthebestpredictorofeachindividual’s

eventualstatuswitharegressioncoefficientof.55.Therefore,hierarchiesseemtoemerge

beforegroupmembershaveanaccuratesenseofwhohassuperiorskillsandabilities,and

whoiswillingtocontributemoretothegroup’ssuccess.

Therapidemergenceofhierarchiesmightbejustifiedifthehierarchyremained

fluidandflexible,withthegroupmakingadjustmentsovertimeasthememberslearn

whichofthemareactuallymorecompetentandcommittedtothegroup’ssuccess.Thatis,

evenifgroupsmakerushjudgmentsinthebeginningoftheirinteraction,theycouldstill

17

constructamerit‐basedhierarchyiftheyadjustedthehierarchyovertime,reorderingthe

statusranksaccordingtowhoactuallyprovidesmoreandlessvaluetothecollective.

Yettheempiricalevidencesuggeststhatstatushierarchiesarestableandevenrigid

ratherthanfluidandflexible.Itseemsthatoncetheplastersets,itsetshard.Thestability

ofhierarchieswasobservedinclassicgroupsresearch(Bell&French,1950;Fiske&Cox,

1960;Nelson&Berry,1965)andnotonlyinlaboratorygroupsbut“realworld”groupsas

well,suchasteamsofresidentdoctors(Caudill,1958,p.249).Ithasbeenobservedinshort

timeperiodsaswellaslong.Forexample,theKalma(1991)studyabovefoundthat

speakingtimerankordersmeasuredwithinfirstminuteofinteractionofdyadsandtriads

didnotchangeovera10minsession.IntheSchmidMast(2001)study,rankorderin

speakingtimemeasuredinthefirst8minofinteractioninthefirstsessioncorrelated

stronglywithspeakingtimerankordersinthelast8minofinteraction(r’sof.63for

womenand.68formen).TheFisekandOfshe(1970)studyfoundthatrankorderin

speakingtimemeasuredinthefirstminuteofinteractionscorrelatedinthe.50’swithfinal

rankorderatendof45minsession.

Thisstabilityextendstolongerperiodsaswell.SchmidMast(2001)foundthatthe

correlationsofspeakingtimerankordersfromtheendoffirstgroupsessiontothe

beginningofthesecondsessionaweeklaterwere.54forwomenand.49formen.Inour

ownresearchinwhichwefollowedteamsoverthecourseoffourweeks,wefoundthat

individuals’statusshowedanaveragestabilitycorrelationofr=.61acrossthefourweeks;

thatis,individuals’statusinanytwoweekstendedtocorrelatewitheachotheraroundr=

.61.Finally,inastudyinwhichwefollowedgroupsoverthecourseofninemonths,we

foundthatindividuals’statusinfirsttwoweekscorrelatedr=.61withtheirstatusfive

18

monthslater,andthatstatusatfivemonthsinthegroupcorrelatedawhoppingr=.86with

statusatendofyear(Andersonetal.,2001).

MageeandGalinsky(2008)reviewedtheliteratureonthestabilityofhierarchies,

highlightingthenumerouswaysinwhichhierarchiesreinforcethemselves.Partofthe

reasonthatstatusissoseeminglyresistanttochangeisthatstatusperceptionscoalesce

quicklyinthegroupandmemberscometoconsensusastowhohashighandwhohaslow

status(Kenny,Horner,Kashy,&Chu,1992;Thibault&Kelley,1959).AsSherifand

colleaguesargued,withinagroupsetting:

Interactionbecomesstabilizedinapatternofreciprocitiesmanifestedinagroup

structuresconsistingofhierarchicalstatusesandrolesforindividualmembers.The

establishedpatternofreciprocitiesbecomescodifiedintermsofcertainnorms

regulatingtheexpectations,responsibilities,andloyaltiesofmembersoccupyingthe

respectiverolesandstatuses.(Sherifetal.,1955,p.372)

Individualdifferencesthatpredicttheattainmentofstatus.Anabundanceof

researchhasshownthatindividualcharacteristicsrelatedtostatusstrivingarestrong

predictorsofstatusingroups–eventhoughthosecharacteristicsdonotnecessarily

provideanyvaluetothegroup.Forexample,anaggregatedanalysisof85yearsofgroups

researchfoundthatthepersonalitytraitdominance,whichinvolvesapreferencefor

possessingauthorityandthetendencytobehaveassertively,predictswhoemergesasthe

leaderingroupsmoreconsistentlythananyotherindividual‐differencedimension

examined,includingintelligence(Lord,deVader,&Alliger,1986).Further,individual

differencessuchastheneedforpower,self‐monitoring,andtestosterone,whicharealso

19

associatedwithadesireforhighsocialstanding,similarlypredicttheattainmentofhigher

statusacrossgroupsettings(Cashdan,1995;Flynnetal.,2006;Winter,1988).

Fromafunctionalistperspective,itisnotclearwhythesecharacteristicspredict

differencesinstatus.Individualdifferencessuchasdominanceandtheneedforpowerare

notsociallyvalued;infact,manygroupslookdownonindividualswhoblatantlydesire

statusandevenpreventthemfromattainingleadershippositions(Freedman,1980).

Further,theseindividualdifferencesarelargelyuncorrelatedwithcompetenceor

communalorientation(e.g.,seeAnderson&Kilduff,2009).Therefore,itisunclearwhy

theseattributeswouldsostronglyandconsistentlypredicttheattainmentofstatusin

teams.

Statusdynamicsdifferformenandwomen.Ifstatushierarchiesingroupsexist

becausetheyfacilitategroupsuccess,therewouldbenoreasontoexpecthierarchiestobe

differentformenandwomen.Hierarchiesputativelyservethesamefunctionsforgroupsof

menandwomen,theyshouldbebasedonthesameindividualdifferencesinabilityand

merit,andtheyshouldhavethesameaffectongroupperformance,whetherornotthe

groupwascomprisedofmenandwomen.

Yetmen’sandwomen’shierarchiesdivergeinmanyways–waysforwhich

functionalismcannotaccount.Forexample,inastudyoflonger‐termgroupsmentioned

earlier(Andersonetal.,2001),wemeasuredstatuswithpeer‐ratingsof“theamountof

prominence,respect,andinfluence”theindividualheldinthegroup,from1(low)to7

(high).Wefoundthatmen’shierarchiesseemedtoemergemuchmorequicklythan

women’s:Formen,statuswashighlystablefromTime1(twoweeksafterthegroup

formed)toTime2(fivemonthslater),withanr=.80.Forthewomeninthesamegroup,

20

thestabilitycorrelationbetweenstatusatTime1and2wasonly.41,whichwas

significantlylower.Thus,earlyinthegroup’sformation,femalestatuswaslessstable,

consistentwithearlierfindings(Aries,1996;Savin‐Williams,1979).

Itisinterestingthatmen’sandwomen’sstatuswasequallystablelaterinthegroup

however.MalestatuswasalsohighlystablefromTime2toTime3,atimeintervalof

anotherfivemonths,r=.89.Forwomen,thecorrelationbetweenTime2and3was.88,

almostexactlythesameasthecorrelationobservedamongmen.Therefore,thesefindings

suggestthatmennegotiateandsettlehierarchiesmorerapidlythanwomendo,butthat

eventuallybothsexesdevelopstatusordersthatarequitestable.Indeed,somestatus

theoristshavesuggestedthatmen’sstatusorderisestablishedveryquicklywhereas

women’sstatusnegotiationhasbeendescribedasamorecomplicatedandsubtleprocess

(Mazur,1985;Savin‐Williams,1979).Thus,thestatusorderamongwomenmightjusttake

longertoemerge.Inthesemixed‐sexgroups,itseemsthatwhilemen’sstatusremains

stable,womentendtochangestatuspositionswitheachother.

Oncethehierarchyisformed,menalsotendtodevelopsteeperhierarchiesthan

women.Inalongitudinalstudyofteams(Berdahl&Anderson,2005),wefoundthat

womenmorethanmenpreferequalityingroups,andthatall‐malegroupsweremore

hierarchicalthanall‐femalegroups.Similarly,SchmidMast(2001)foundthatall‐male

groupshadsteeperhierarchicalstructuresthanall‐femalegroupsintheirinitialsessions.

Finally,differentindividualdifferencessometimespredictstatusformenand

women.Wefoundconsistentevidencethatneuroticismnegativelypredictsstatusinmen

butnotinwomen(Andersonetal.,2001).Neuroticismreflectsindividualdifferencesin

negativeemotionality,includingvulnerabilitytostress,anxiety,depression,andnegative

21

self‐consciousemotions,suchasguilt,shame,andembarrassment(Costa&McCrae,1992).

Inotherwords,menwhoshowsignsofstress,anxiety,depression,orself‐consciousness

(i.e.,highlyneuroticmen)areviewedmorenegativelythanarehighlyneuroticwomen,and

arelikelytobesociallypenalizedwithlowerstatus.Moreover,physicalattractiveness

predictedstatusinmenbutnotinwomen(Andersonetal.,2001).Thiseffectissurprising

becauseitisoftenthoughtthatphysicalattractivenessisvaluedmoreinwomenthanin

men(Buss&Schmitt,1993).

Hierarchiesoftenleadtoworsegroupoutcomes.Adirecttestoftheutilityof

hierarchiesiswhethergroupsfunctionbetterwhentheyhaveahierarchicalstructurethan

whentheyhaveaflatstructure.Groupswithasteeperhierarchy–thatis,thosewithlarger

asymmetriesinmembers’power,status,andinfluence–shouldexhibithigherlevelsof

performance,cohesion,intra‐groupcoordination,andlowerlevelsofintra‐groupconflict,

forexample,thangroupswithaflatterstructure.

Yettheempiricalevidencefindsthattheeffectsofhierarchysteepnessarehighly

mixedacrossstudies.Somestudiesshowsteeperhierarchiesfacilitatebettergroup

performanceandintra‐groupcoordination,yetmanyotherstudies(infact,alargernumber

ofstudies)showthatsteeperhierarchiesleadtoworsegroupperformance,lower

motivationandsatisfactionamongmembers,andbreakdownsininter‐member

coordination.

Forexample,theclassiclaboratorystudiesofcommunicationstructurebyBavelas

andcolleagues(e.g.,Bavelas,1950;Leavitt,1951;Christie,Luce,&Macy,1952)

experimentallymanipulatedthecommunicationchannelsbetweendifferentgroup

memberswhiletheyworkedonajointtask,allowingsomememberstodirectly

22

communicatewitheachotherwhileprecludingothersfromcommunicating.These

differentcommunicationstructuresdeterminedthesteepnessofthegroup’shierarchy

(e.g.,Bavelas,1950;Leavitt,1951;Shaw,1954).Inareviewofthesestudies,Shaw(1964)

foundthatsometimesmorecentralizedcommunicationstructuresledtohigher

performancethanlesscentralizedcommunicationstructures,andsometimestolower

performance.Forexample,ofthe36relationshipshetalliedbetweencentralizationandthe

speedwithwhichthegroupsolveditsproblem(fastertimesindicatingbetter

performance),morecentralizedstructuresledtofasterproblemsolvingin14instances,

andslowerproblemsolvingin22instances.Ofthe20relationshipshereviewedbetween

centralizationandthenumberoferrorsmadebythegroup,morecentralizedstructuresled

tomoreerrorsin6instances,fewererrorsin10instances,andcentralizationhadnoeffect

infourinstances.

Arelatedlineoflaboratorystudiesmanipulatedormeasuredhierarchysteepness

moredirectlybyfocusingonleadershipstructures.Thesestudiesalsofoundmixedresults.

Afewstudiesfoundpositiverelationsbetweenhierarchysteepnessandgroup

performance.Forexample,CarzoandYanouzas(1969)examined15‐persongroupswho

estimatedhowmuchdemandtherewouldbeofaproductinvariousmarketsandthushow

muchofthatproducttheyshouldorderfromsuppliers.Theyfoundthatgroupsperformed

betterinataller(3‐level)thaninaflatter(2‐level)hierarchy.MaierandSolem(1952)

foundthatgroupsworkingonamathtaskperformedbetterwhentheyhadaleaderthan

whentheydidnot.However,thiseffectmustbequalifiedbecauseleaderswerespecifically

instructedtoencourageparticipation,toavoidexpressingtheirownviews,andtoaccept

23

theviewsexpressed.Therefore,itisunclearwhetherthefindingsareduetohierarchy

steepnessorduetotheeffectsofhighlydemocraticleaders.

Otherstudiesfoundnegativeassociationbetweenhierarchysteepnessandgroup

performance.Torrance(1955)examinedthree‐personAirForceflightcrewsandfound

“real”crews(thathadbeenactuallyworkingtogetherforalongtime)performedworseon

amathtaskthancrewsofstrangersthatwereconstructedtemporarilyforthesakeofthe

experiment–andthatthiseffectemergedbecausetherealcrewsweremorehierarchical

thanthetemporarycrews.Forexample,whenlowerrankedmembersofrealcrewsknew

thecorrectanswertotheproblemtheywerelessabletoconvincetheotherstoacceptit.

Robyetal.(1963)manipulatedwhethergroupshadanappointedleaderwhilethey

workedonasimpletaskinvolvingflippingswitchesinresponsetodisplaylights.They

foundoverallthattheeffectofhierarchysteepnessongroupperformance(i.e.,thespeed

withwhichtheysolvedproblems)dependedonwhethergroupmembershadtocoordinate

witheachotherornot,andwhetheracompetentorincompetentpersonwasappointed

leader.However,theirmeanssuggestthategalitariangroupsoutperformedhierarchical

groupsinallconditionsexceptone:whenthegroupworkedonataskthatrequiredmore

coordinationandwhentherewasahighlycompetentpersonincharge.

BeckerandBaloff(1969)alsomanipulatedwhetherthree‐persongroupshadan

appointedleaderornotandhadthemperformataskinvolvingestimatingthedemandfor

productsbasedonaseriesofdimensions.Theyfoundthatmorehierarchicalgroups

performedworsethanflattergroups.AndBerdahlandAnderson(2005)measuredthe

degreetowhichundergraduatestudentteamswhoworkedinagroupprojecttogether

naturallyformedmorecentralizedleadershipstructures(i.e.,leaderswithmorecontrol

24

overgroupactivities),andfoundthatmorecentralizedgroupsperformedworseonthe

teamprojectandreceivedlowerprojectgrades.

Finally,somestudiesfoundnulleffectsofhierarchysteepness.McCurdyand

Lambert(1952),aswellasMcCurdyandEber(1953)manipulatedwhethergroupshadan

appointedleaderornotwhentheyworkedonalight‐switchingtaskinwhichsubjectswere

askedtoturnaswitchasfastaspossiblewhengiventhesignal.Theyfoundnodifferences

inperformancebetweengroupsinwhichonememberwasappointedtheleader,and

groupsinwhichallthreememberspresumablyhadequalinfluence.Haslametal.(1998)

assignedleadersingroupsbasedontheirscoresonaleadershipsurveyandhadthem

workonaDesertSurvivalproblem.Theyfoundthatgroupswithleadersdidnotperform

betterthanleaderlessgroups.Curiously,groupsinwhichaleaderwasrandomlyassigned

outperformedbothofthosekindsofgroups.Similarly,BlinderandMorgan(2008)found

thatgroupswithleadersappointedbasedontheirpre‐testscoresoftaskabilitydidnot

outperformgroupswithoutleadersinamonetarypolicytask.

AnIntegrativeModel:MicropoliticsTheory

Insum,therearenumerousfindingsthatemergeconsistentlyintheliteraturethat

cannotbeexplainedbyfunctionalistaccountsofstatus.Yetatthesametime,vastevidence

contradictsthedominancetheoryofstatus,makingdominancetheoryperseanon‐viable

alternative.Itseemsthereforethatanewmodelofstatusisneeded,onethathelpsus

understandthefindingsoutlinedsofar–boththefindingsthatareconsistentwiththe

functionalistview,andthosethatareinconsistentwithitandevenseemtocontradictit.

Onepossibilityisthatthereareelementsofboththeoriesthatareaccurate,andthat

anintegrativemodelthatincorporatesthoseelementsfromeachperspectivemightbest

25

capturestatusdynamicsinteams.Inotherwords,lookingbackattheempiricalfindings,it

seemslikelythatfunctionalismaccuratelycapturesmanyaspectsofstatushierarchies,but

notallofthem.Similarly,dominancetheorymighthavebeenontherighttrackinmany

respects,butperhapsmisguidedinitsspecificassumptionsandhypotheses.

Basedonareviewandsynthesisoftheempiricalliterature,weproposea

Micropoliticsmodelofstatushierarchiesinteams.Assuggestedabove,thismodeldraws

fromfunctionalistanddominancetheoriesofstatus,incorporatingelementsthatfitwith

priorevidenceanddiscardingelementsthatareclearlynotsupported.Butratherthan

beingbasedonmetaphorsofmeritocracy(asthefunctionalistmodelis)orpeckingorder

(asthedominancemodelis),webaseourmodelonelectoralpolitics.Weproposethatin

the“micro”contextofgroupsandteams,individualsattainstatusbyconvincingtheirgroup

thattheypossesstheskillsandabilitiesneededtotakecharge–justaspoliticalcandidates

mustconvincevoterstheyaretherightpeopleforthejob.ThefinalcolumnofTable1

summarizesofitsmajorpoints.

Thefunctionalistperspectivelocatestheoriginofstatusinthegroup.Statusis

viewedasafunctionofthegroup’scollectivejudgmentsanddecisionsaboutwhich

individualsdeservesocialstatus(Balesetal.,1951;Bergeretal.,1972;Eibl‐Eibesfeldt,

1989;Emerson,1962;Goldhamer&Shils,1939).Accordingtothisperspective,groups

developanimplicitconsensusastowhichindividualcharacteristicsarevaluabletothe

collective,andallocatehighandlowstatuspositionsaccordingtowhethertheindividual

possessesrelativelymoreofthosecharacteristics.Individualswhopossessmorevaluable

characteristicsareaffordedhighstatuspositionsinthegroup,whereasindividualswho

possessfewerpositivecharacteristicsareallocatedlowstatuspositions.

26

Thedominanceperspectivelocatestheoriginofstatusintheindividual,viewing

statusasresultingfromtheindividual’sdriveandabilitytoattainstatus(e.g.,Mazur,1985;

Savin‐Williams,1979).Accordingtothisperspective,differencesinstatusdevelopbecause

personalitydifferencesdisposesomeindividualstostriveforstatusandusesuccessful

strategiestonavigatethehierarchy.

Becausethesetwoperspectivesplacethedeterminantsofstatuswithinthe

individualandwithinthegroup,respectively,theymightatfirstglanceseemtocontradict

eachother.However,theymightdescribeprocessesthatoccurintandem.Status

attainmentisafunctionofboththegroup’svaluesandperceptionsandtheindividual’s

driveandabilitytoattainstatus.

Yetindividuals’abilitytoattainstatusmightdependlessontheirabilityto

intimidateandmanipulateothersintodeference.Byemphasizingconflictandfear‐based

strategiesforattainingstatus,dominancetheoryseemstohavebeenmisguided.Instead,

status‐seekingindividualsmightascendthehierarchybybehavinginwaysthatmakethem

appearmorevaluabletothegroup–morecompetent,generous,andcommittedtothe

group’ssuccess.Statusdifferencesmightthusbeaproductofthegroup’sjudgmentsabout

whopossessesvaluedcharacteristicsaswellastheindividual’sdesireforandpursuitof

higherstanding.

Groupmembersthusultimatelydecidewhoisaffordedhighorlowstatus,but

individualsjockeyforsuchstatusaffordances.Statusisaffordedtoindividualswhoare

perceivedtoprovidevalue–andthereforeindividualsjockeyforstatusbytryingtosignal

theirhighvaluetothegroup.Thestatusorganizingprocessisbothcooperativeand

27

competitive;thegroupcollectivelydecideswhoshouldbeincharge,butindividual

memberscompetewitheachother.

Inthissense,perhapsthebestmetaphorforstatushierarchiesintheMicropolitics

modelisapoliticalelection.Justasinpoliticalelections,individualmembersarechosenby

thecollectivetooccupyhighstatus,influentialpositions.Individualmembers,justlike

politicalcandidates,areselectedaccordingtowhethertheyconveytherightcharacteristics

–decision‐makingskills,leadershipabilities,etc.–andwhethertheyconveyacommitment

totheirconstituencies’orgroup’swelfare.Individualmembers,justlikepolitical

candidates,whoarethemostskilledatconveyingthattheypossesssuchvalued

characteristics(evenwhentheydonot),andthosewhoaremoresuccessfulinconvincing

othersthattheyarethemostqualifiedfortheposition,winstatus.Therefore,inthe“micro”

contextofgroupsandteams,groupsengageinaformofelectoralpolitics,wherein

memberswhoseekhighoffice(i.e.,high‐statuspositions)trytoconveytheirpositive

qualitiestoothers;andonlybyconvincingfellowgroupmemberscanindividualstake

charge.

ThisMicropoliticstheoryofstatuscanbeusedtoaddressthemysteriesoutlined

abovethatfunctionalismcouldnotexplain.Forexample,whywouldgroupsdevelop

hierarchiessoquicklyandadjustthemsoslowly?TheMicropoliticsmodelwouldsuggest

thatearlyinthegroup’sformation,membersdojockeyforposition,tryingtoattainthe

higheststatuspossible.Thusthemodelallowsforindividualmotivationinstatustohelp

shapethestatusorder;whenmultipleindividualsinagroupwouldliketooccupythetop

statusranks,theymightseektosortoutthestatusorderquickly–withsomeindividuals

whowantitmoreandwhoaremoreequippedatattainingitsuccessfullyachievingthose

28

ranks.Similarly,evenasthegroupisconfrontedwithinformationthatsometop‐ranking

membersarelesscompetentthantheyfirstseemed,thestabilityofhierarchiescanbe

partlyexplainedbytheself‐interestedprotectionofstatus.Individualswhooccupythose

positionsmightnotgivethemupeasily.

Whywouldindividualswhodesirestatusattainitmorereadily?Asmentioned

earlier,implicitwithinthefunctionalistperspectiveofstatusisthatindividualsaregiven

higherstatusinagroupwhentheyareperceivedtobevaluabletothegroup–not

necessarilywhentheyareactuallymorevaluable(Bergeretal.,1972).Becausean

individual’sestimatedvaluetoagroupisbasedonthegroup’ssubjectiveperceptions,we

believethisprovidesindividualswiththeopportunitytoshapesuchperceptions.Indeed,

severalrecentstudieshavebeguntoshowhowindividualscanenhancetheirapparent

value,andinturntheirstatus,bybehavinginwaysthatsignalhighercompetenceand

commitmenttothegroup.

Ourrecentworksuggeststhatindividualscanachievehigherstatusbybehavingin

waysthatincreasetheircompetenceintheeyesofothers(Anderson&Kilduff,2009).

Specifically,wefoundthatindividualshighinthepersonalitytraitdominance,whotendto

behaveinassertive,firm,andself‐assuredways,wereratedashavinghigherstatusand

influencebytheirteammates.Further,dominantindividualsweregrantedhigherstatus

becausetheywereperceivedtopossesshighertaskcompetencebytheirteammates,even

thoughtheywereactuallynomorecompetent.Forinstance,inonestudyexamininggroups

whoworkedonmathproblems,individualshigherintraitdominancedidnotscorehigher

onstandardizedtestsofquantitativeabilities,nordidtheyprovidemoreaccurateanswers

29

duringthegrouptask.Rather,theseindividualsmerelygavetheimpressionofsuperior

competence.

Tounderstandhowdominantindividualsaccomplishedthis,weturnedto

videotapesofthegroupsessions.Independentjudgeswhowereblindtoourhypotheses

codedeachmember’sbehaviorandfoundthatdominantindividualsexhibitedmore

competencecues,suchasvolunteeringanswersandproblem‐relevantinformation.

Therefore,althoughdominantindividualswerenotanymorecompetent,theyachieved

higherstatusbytakingtheinitiativeandactinginwaysthatconveyedhighcompetence

(Anderson&Kilduff,2009).

Individualscanalsoattainstatusbydisplayingselflessness,thussignalingtheir

commitmenttothegroup.Individualspursuingstatuscanengageinwhathasbeen

referredtoas“competitivealtruism,”inwhichtheyattempttooutdoothersintheir

generosity(Hardy&VanVugt,2006).Forinstance,studiesofworkorganizationsandMBA

classmatecohortsusedself‐andpeer‐ratingstomeasurehowmuchgroupmembers

helpedeachotherintheirwork(Flynnetal.,2006).Thesestudiesfoundthatindividuals

whoreportedbeingmoremotivatedtoachievehighstatusgavehelptomoreoftheirfellow

groupmembersandsoughtouthelpforthemselvesfromfewerothers.Further,this

seeminglyselflessbehaviorledtobeingperceivedasmoregenerousinthegroup,whichin

turnledtohigherstatus.Therefore,status‐seekersachievedhighersocialstandingby

actingstrategicallywithregardstogivingandreceivinghelp.

Whywouldmenandwomen’sstatusdynamicsdiffer?Onepossibilityisthatmen

mightjockeyforstatusmorestrongly–andearlierinthegroupformation–thanwomen.

Thereisevidencethatmenarehigheronindividualdifferencevariablesrelatedtothe

30

desireforstatusthanwomen,suchastraitdominance(Feingold,1994),theneedfor

dominance(Feingold,1994),testosterone(Mazur&Booth,1998)andMachiavellianism

(Wilson,Near,&Miller,1996).Moreover,evidencesuggeststhattheneedforpoweris

manifestedinovertbehaviordifferentlyformenandwomen;specifically,theneedfor

powerpredictsmoreimpulsivebehaviorinmenbutnotinwomen(Winter,1988).This

suggeststhatmenhigherintheneedforpowermightjockeyforstatusmorethanwomen

inthegroup’sformationbecausetheyareallstrivingforhigherstatusandeagertosortout

thehierarchicalorder.

Finally,whywouldhierarchiesharmgroupsuccesssooften?Onepossibilityisthat

althoughgroupsstrivetoputtherightpeopleincharge,theyfailtodoso.Because

individualsjockeyforpositionandthussometimespeopleattainstatuswholack

competenceoragroup‐orientation,thiscouldleadsomegroupstofail.Muchresearch

suggeststhatgroupsoftenfailinselectingtherightpeople,placingincompetentindividuals

inpositionsofleadership.Thisfailureinselectionmightgivethewrongindividuals

disproportionatecontroloverthegroupanditsdecisions,therebyincreasingthechances

forgroupfailure(Barnard,1964).Indeed,studieshavefoundthatwhenagroup’s

hierarchyisbasedonexpertiseitperformsbetter(e.g.,Maier,1967;Robyetal.,1963),

whichsupportsthenotionthatmeritocratichierarchiespromotegroupsuccess,and

suggestingthatwhenthehierarchyisbasedonnon‐meritocraticcharacteristics(e.g.,the

abilitytoonlyconveycompetence),groupperformancewouldsuffer.

SummaryandFutureDirections

Statushierarchiesarefundamentaltoagroup’sprocessesandperformance.Where

agroupmemberfallsinateam’sstatusordershapeshermotivation,self‐concept,feelings

31

abouttheteam,andparticipationinthegroup.Statushierarchiesimpactsomeofthemost

importantprocesseswithingroupssuchashowlaborandresourcesgetdistributedaswell

ashowwellgroupsperform.

Thequestionsaddressedinthecurrentchapterarefundamentalbecausethey

concerntheverynatureofhierarchies.Whydotheyexist?Howdotheyform?Whatimpact

dotheyhaveonthegroup?Aswediscussed,therearetwoverydifferentandconflicting

accountsofstatushierarchiesthatgiveverydifferentanswerstothosefundamental

questions.Functionalistaccountstendtoportrayhierarchiesasafunctionaladaptation

thatevolvedinresponsetospecificgroupproblemssuchascoordination,motivation,and

self‐interest.Hierarchiesformbecausethegroupimplicitlydetermineswhichindividual

membersaremostimportanttothegroup’ssuccessandaffordsstatustothoseindividuals.

Incontrast,dominancetheoriesportrayhierarchiesasthesimpleresultofdominance

contestsbetweengroupmembers.Hierarchiesarebornofcompetitionandconflict;

individualswhoaremoreforcefulandintimidatinggrabhighstatusbybeatingothersin

statuscontests.

Formanyyears,thefunctionalismaccounthasheldsway.Thevastmajorityof

findingsthatmostdirectlypitfunctionalistanddominancetheoriesagainsteachother

supportthefunctionalistmodel.Mostscholarswhoworkonstatushierarchiestendto

adoptfunctionalistassumptionsintheirhypotheses.

Yetaswealsodiscussedinthecurrentchapter,therearemanyfindingsinthe

literaturethatcannotbeexplainedbyfunctionalism.Forinstance,whydohierarchies

developsoquickly,beforeindividualmemberscanpossiblyknoweachother’svaluetothe

group?Whydohierarchiessooftenpredictworse,ratherthanbetter,groupperformance?

32

Thetimeseemsrightforanewmodelofstatus,onethatcanbetteraccountforthewide

rangeofresultsintheliterature.

Withthatgoalinmind,weproposedanintegrativemodelofstatus,Micropolitics

theory,whichincorporateselementsofboththefunctionalistanddominancemodels.More

specifically,inlinewithfunctionalism,Micropoliticstheoryviewsstatusasafunctionofthe

group’scollectivejudgmentsanddecisionsaboutwhichindividualsdeservesocialstatus.

Groupsdevelopanimplicitconsensusastowhichindividualcharacteristicsarevaluableto

thecollective,andallocatehighandlowstatuspositionsaccordingtowhetherthe

individualpossessesrelativelymoreofthosecharacteristics.However,statusdifferences

alsodependontheindividual’smotivationandabilitytoattainstatus.Status‐seeking

individualsascendthehierarchybybehavinginwaysthatmakethemappearmore

valuabletothegroup–morecompetent,generous,andcommittedtothegroup’ssuccess.

Statusdifferencesarethusaproductofthegroup’sjudgmentsaboutwhopossessesvalued

characteristicsaswellastheindividual’sdesireforandpursuitofhigherstanding.

Intermsoffuturedirections,thisMicropoliticstheoryposesanumberofdirections

forfutureresearch.First,ofcoursewhatwehavepresentedisaroughmodelandmuchof

itneedstobefleshedoutfurther.Startingwiththequestionsaddressedearlierinthe

chapter,futureresearchneedstotestwhetherinfactstatushierarchiesemergeasquickly

astheydobecauseindividualmembersjockeyforposition;onespecificwaytotestthis

hypothesiswouldbetotestwhethergroupswithmembershigherinthedesireforstatus

formtheirstatushierarchyquickerthanothergroups.Researchalsoneedstotestwhether

statushierarchiesinteamsareasstableastheyarebecausestatus‐drivenindividualsseek

tokeeptheirloftyposition,evenwhenevidencesuggeststheyshoulddefermoretoothers.

33

Inaddition,futureresearchneedstotestwhethersteeperstatushierarchiesharmgroup

performancebecausethe“wrong”members(wholackcompetenceandagroup‐

orientation)attainthehigh‐rankingpositions.

Further,oneinterestingavenueforfutureresearchistoexaminewhether,insome

groupscontexts,thedominancetheoryofstatusdoesmoreaccuratelyportraythe

hierarchy’sdynamics.Thatis,aretheresomegroupcontextsinwhichstatusdifferences

aredeterminedbyfearandintimidation,coercionandmanipulation?Webelievethatinthe

vastmajorityoforganizationalteamsettings,theMicropoliticsviewofstatuswillhold

sway.However,itispossiblethatinsomeuniquesettings,statushierarchiesemerge

accordingtoprocessessimilartothosefoundinstreetgangs(Whyte,1943)orprisons

(Piquette&Papachristos,2012).Perhapsinorganizationswherethecultureisparticularly

toxic,inwhichcoalitionsareunabletoformandeachindividualisfendingforhimor

herself,dominanceandintimidationcouldwintheday(Ridgeway,1984).Orinother

settings,itispossiblethatdominantandfear‐inducingindividualsareaffordedhigher

statusbecausethoseindividuals’primaryresponsibilityistointeractwithoutgroups

(Halevy,Chou,Cohen,andLivingston,2012).Groupsmightselecttough,intimidating,even

Machiavellianindividualsasleadersbecausethoseindividualswouldhelpthegroup

competeagainstothergroups.

Finally,theMicropoliticstheorygeneratesanumberofhypothesestobetested.For

example,researchshouldtestwhetherindividualswhosuccessfullyattainstatus–butwho

infactlackcharacteristicsthatwouldallowthemtocontributetothegroup’ssuccess–

possessuniqueabilitiesrelatedtothesignalingofvaluetoothers.Forexample,do

individualshigherintestosterone,self‐monitoring,ortheneedforpowerhavesuperior

34

skillsatconveyingpositivequalitiestoothers?Dotheypossesstheabilitytoprojectthe

imageofcompetence,leadership,orcommitmenttothegroup’ssuccess,evenwhenthey

lackthosecharacteristics?Dotheypossesswhatsomescholarshavecalled“Machiavellian

intelligence”(Byrne&Whiten,2002),whichinvolvestheabilitytoreadthestructureand

valueofagroupandbehaveinwaysthatleveragesuchknowledge?Forexample,itis

possiblethatindividualshighintheneedforpoweraremoreadeptatreading,earlyina

group’sformation,thekindsofcharacteristicsandtraitsthatwillbevaluedbythegroup–

thatis,thecharacteristicsandtraitsthatwillhelpindividualsattainstatus.Theywould

thenhavealegupincompetingforstatusbecausetheywouldknowwhichcharacteristics

toprojecttoothers.Itisalsopossiblethatindividualshighinself‐monitoringattainhigher

status(Flynnetal.,2006)inpartbecausetheyarebetterabletotailortheirbehaviorand

imagetoothers;thatis,notonlycanthey“readaroom”andunderstandwhatotherswill

value,buttheyalsohavetheabilitytoactinwaysthatareconsistentwiththosevalues.

Similarly,thereisabroadtendencyforindividualswhoaretallertoattainpositions

ofstatus(Judge&Cable,2004),eventhoughofcoursephysicalheighthasnorelationto

characteristicsthatwouldprovidevaluetothegroup(e.g.,intelligence,commitmenttothe

group,leadershipskills).OurMicropoliticstheorysuggeststhatheightmightleadtostatus

becauseitsignalstoothersthattheindividualdoesinfactpossesscompetenciesneeded

forsuccessfulleadership;inotherwords,groupmembersmightuseheightasasignthat

theindividualismoreexpert,moreskilledatleading,orthatheorshewouldmake

strongercontributionstothegroup.Futureresearchshouldtestthishypothesisand

examinewhatperceptions,precisely,mightmediatethelinkbetweenheightandstatus.

35

Giventheincreaseininterestinhierarchythathasemergedinthepastseveral

years,itistimefornewmodelsandfreshperspectivesonstatushierarchiesinteams.We

hopethatthisMicropoliticstheoryofstatusprovidesausefulframeworkonwhichtobuild

andgeneratenewideasandhypotheses.

36

References

Anderson,C.,Ames,D.R.,&Gosling,S.D.(2008).Punishinghubris:Theperilsof

overestimatingone’sstatusinagroup.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,34,

90–101.

Anderson,C.,&Brown,C.E.(2010).Thefunctionsanddysfunctionsofhierarchy.InA.P.

Brief,&B.M.Staw,(Eds.),ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior(Vol.30,pp.55‐89).

NewYork,NY:Elsevier.

Anderson,C.,John,O.P.,Keltner,D.,&Kring,A.M.(2001).Whoattainssocialstatus?Effects

ofpersonalitytraitsandphysicalattractivenessinsocialgroups.Journalof

PersonalityandSocialPsychology,81,116–132.

Anderson,C.,&Kilduff,G.J.(2009).Whydodominantpersonalitiesattaininfluenceinface‐

to‐facegroups?Thecompetence‐signalingeffectsoftraitdominance.Journalof

PersonalityandSocialPsychology,96,491–503.

Anderson,C.,Kraus,M.W.,Galinksy,A.D.,&Keltner,D.(2011).Thelocalladdereffect:

Sociometricstatusandsubjectivewell‐being.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.

Anderson,C.,Spataro,S.E.,&Flynn,F.J.(2008).Personalityandorganizationalcultureas

determinantsofinfluence.JournalofAppliedPsychology,93,702–710.

Anderson,C.,Srivastava,S.,Beer,J.S.,Spataro,S.E.,&Chatman,J.A.(2006).Knowingyour

place:Self‐perceptionsofstatusinface‐to‐facegroups.JournalofPersonalityand

SocialPsychology,91,1094–1110.

Aries,E.(1996).Menandwomenininteraction:Reconsideringthedifferences.NewYork,NY:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Arrow,K.J.(1974).Thelimitsoforganization.NewYork,NY:Norton.

37

Bales,R.F.,Strodtbeck,F.L.,Mills,T.M.,&Roseborough,M.E.(1951).Channelsof

communicationinsmallgroups.AmericanSociologicalReview,16,461–468.

Barnard,C.(1964).Functionsandpathologyofstatussystemsinformalorganizations.

InW.F.Whyte(Ed.),Industryandsociety(pp.46–83).NewYork,NY:McGraw‐Hill.

Bass,B.M.(1981).Stogdill’shandbookofleadership:Asurveyoftheoryandresearch.New

York,NY:FreePress.

Bavelas,A.(1950).Communicationpatternsintaskorientedgroups.Journalofthe

AcousticalSocietyofAmerica,57,271–282.

Becker,S.W.,&Baloff,N.(1969).Organizationstructureandcomplexproblemsolving.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,14,260–271.

Bell,G.B.,&French,R.L.(1950).Consistencyofindividualleadershippositioninsmall

groupsofvaryingmembership.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,45,764‐

767.

Berdahl,J.L.,&Anderson,C.(2005).Men,women,andleadershipcentralizationingroups

overtime.GroupDynamics:Theory,Research,andPractice,9,45–57.

Berger,J.,Cohen,B.,&Zelditch,M.,Jr.(1972).Statuscharacteristicsandsocialinteraction.

AmericanSociologicalReview,37,241–255.

Berger,J.,Rosenholtz,S.J.,&Zelditch,M.,Jr.(1980).Statusorganizingprocesses.Annual

ReviewofSociology,6,479–508.

Blau,P.M.(1964).Exchangeandpowerinsociallife.NewBrunswick,NJ:Transaction

Books.

Blau,P.M.,&Scott,W.R.(1962).Formalorganizations:Acomparativeapproach.San

Francisco,CA:Chandler.

38

Blinder,A.S.,&Morgan,J.(2008).Domonetarypolicycommitteesneedleaders?Areport

onanexperiment.AmericanEconomicReview,98,224‐229.

Buss,D.M.,&Schmitt,D.P.(1993).Sexualstrategiestheory:Anevolutionaryperspective

onhumanmating.PsychologicalReview,100,204‐232.

Buzaglo,G.,&Wheelan,S.A.(1999).Facilitatingworkteameffectiveness:Casestudiesfrom

CentralAmerica.SmallGroupResearch,30,108–129.

Cartwright,D.,&Zander,A.(1953).Groupdynamics:Researchandtheory.London,England:

Tavistock.

Carzo,R.,Jr.,&Yanouzas,J.N.(1969).Effectsofflatandtallorganizationstructure.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,14,178–191.

Cashdan,E.(1995).Hormones,sex,andstatusinwomen.HormonesandBehavior,29,354‐

366.

Caudill,W.(1958).Statusandroleingroupinteraction.ThePsychiatricHospitalasaSmall

Society(pp.231‐265).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Chance,M.R.A.(1967).Attentionstructureasthebasisofprimaterankorders.Man,2,

503–518.

Christie,L.S.,Luce,R.S.,&Macy,J.,Jr.(1952).Communicationandlearningintask‐oriented

groups.MITRes.Lab.Electronicstech.Rep.,No.231.

Cohen,B.P.,&Zhou,X.(1991).Statusprocessesinenduringworkgroups.American

SociologicalReview,56,179‐188.

Costa,P.T.,&McCrae,R.R.(1992).NEOPl‐Rprofessionalmanual.Odessa,FL:Psychological

AssessmentResources..

39

Davis,K.,&Moore,W.E.(1945).Someprinciplesofstratification.AmericanSociological

Review,10,242–249.

Driskell,J.E.,&Mullen,B.(1990).Status,expectations,andbehavior:Ameta‐analytic

reviewandtestofthetheory.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,16,541–

553.

Driskell,J.E.,Olmstead,B.,&Salas,E.(1993).Taskcues,dominancecues,andinfluencein

taskgroups.JournalofAppliedPsychology,78,51‐60.

Durkheim,E.(1997).Thedivisionoflabor.NewYork,NY:FreePress.(Originalwork

publishedin1893).

Eibl‐Eibesfeldt,I.(1989).Humanethology.Hawthorne,NY:AldineDeGruyter.

Emerson,R.M.(1962).Power‐dependencerelations.AmericanSociologicalReview,27,31‐

41.

Feingold,A.(1994).Genderdifferencesinpersonality:Ameta‐analysis.Psychological

Bulletin,116,429–456.

Fisek,M.H.,&Ofshe,R.(1970).Theprocessofstatusevolution.Sociometry,33,327‐346.

Fiske,D.W.,&Cox,J.A.,Jr.(1960).Theconsistencyofratingsbypeers.JournalofApplied

Psychology,44,11‐17.

Flynn,F.J.,Reagans,R.E.,Amanatullah,E.T.,&Ames,D.R.(2006).Helpingone’swaytothe

top:Self‐monitorsachievestatusbyhelpingothersandknowingwhohelpswhom.

JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,91,1123–1137.

Frank,R.H.(1985).Choosingtherightpond:Humanbehaviorandthequestforstatus.New

York,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

40

French,J.R.P.,Jr.,&Raven,B.(1959).Thebasesofpower.InD.Cartwright(Ed.),Studiesof

socialpower(pp.150–176).AnnArbor,MI:InstituteforSocialResearch.

Goffman,E.(1967).Interactionritual:Essaysonface‐to‐faceinteraction.Oxford,England:

Aldine.

Goldhamer,H.,&Shils,E.A.(1939).Typesofpowerandstatus.AmericanJournalof

Sociology,45,171–182.

Gruenfeld,D.H.,&Tiedens,L.Z.(2010).Organizationalpreferencesandtheir

consequences.InS.T.Fiske,D.Gilbert,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbookofsocial

psychology(5thed.,pp.1252–1286).Hoboken,NJ:Wiley&Sons.

Hardin,R.(1982).Collectiveaction.Baltimore,MD:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.

Hardy,C.L.,&VanVugt,M.(2006).Niceguysfinishfirst:Thecompetitivealtruism

hypothesis.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,32,1402–1413.

Haslam,S.A.,McGarty,C.,Brown,P.M.,Eggins,R.A.,Morrison,B.E.,&Reynolds,K.J.

(1998).Inspectingtheemperor’sclothes:Evidencethatrandomly‐selectedleaders

canenhancegroupperformance.GroupDynamics:Theory,ResearchandPractice,2,

168–184.

Henrich,J.,&Gil‐White,F.J.(2001).Theevolutionofprestige:Freelyconferreddeference

asamechanismforenhancingthebenefitsofculturaltransmission.Evolutionand

HumanBehavior,22,165–196.

Hinsz,V.B.,Tindale,R.S.,&Vollrath,D.A.(1997).Theemergingconceptualizationof

groupsasinformationprocessors.PsychologicalBulletin,121,43–64.

41

Hogan,R.,&Hogan,J.(1991).Personalityandstatus.InD.G.Gilbert,&J.J.Connolly(Eds.),

Personality,socialskills,andpsychopathology:Anindividualdifferencesapproach(pp.

137–154).NewYork,NY:PlenumPress.

Hollander,E.P.,&Julian,J.W.(1969).Contemporarytrendsintheanalysisofleadership

perceptions.PsychologicalBulletin,71,387–397.

Homans,G.(1950).Thehumangroup.NewBrunswick,NJ:Routledge.

House,R.(1988).Powerandpersonalityincomplexorganizations.InB.M.Staw,&L.L.

Cummings(Eds),Researchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.10,pp.305–357).

Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.

Kalma,A.(1991).Hierarchisationanddominanceassessmentatfirstglance.European

JournalofSocialPsychology,21,165‐181.

Kanter,R.M.(1977).Menandwomenofthecorporation.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Katz,D.,&Kahn,R.L.(1966).Thesocialpsychologyoforganizations.NewYork,NY:Wiley.

Keltner,D.,Gruenfeld,D.H.,&Anderson,C.(2003).Power,approach,andinhibition.

PsychologicalReview,110,265–284.

Keltner,D.,VanKleef,G.A.,Chen,S.,&Kraus,M.W.(2008).Areciprocalinfluencemodelof

socialpower:Emergingprinciplesandlinesofinquiry.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advances

inExperimentalSocialPsychology(Vol.40,pp.151–192).London,England:

AcademicPress.

Kenny,D.A.,Horner,C.,Kashy,D.A.,&Chu,L.(1992).Consensusatzeroacquaintance:

Replication,behavioralcues,andstability.JournalofPersonalityandSocial

Psychology,62,88–97.

42

Kerr,N.L.,&Tindale,R.S.(2004).Groupperformanceanddecisionmaking.AnnualReview

ofPsychology,55,623–655.

Lambert,R.A.,Larcker,D.F.,&Weigelt,K.(1993).Thestructureoforganizational

incentives.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,38,438–461.

Latane,B.,Williams,K.,&Harkins,S.(1979).Manyhandsmakelightthework:Thecauses

andconsequencesofsocialloafing.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,

822–832.

Lazear,E.P.,&Rosen,S.(1981).Rank‐ordertournamentsasoptimumlaborcontracts.

JournalofPoliticalEconomy,89,841–864.

Leavitt,H.J.(1951).Someeffectsofcertaincommunicationpatternsongroup

performance.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,46,38–50.

Leavitt,H.J.(2005).Topdown:Whyhierarchiesareheretostayandhowtomanagethem

moreeffectively.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Lee,M.T.,&Ofshe,R.(1981).Theimpactofbehavioralstyleandstatuscharacteristicson

socialinfluence:Atestoftwocompetingtheories.SocialPsychologyQuarterly,44,

73–82.

Levine,J.M.,&Moreland,R.L.(1990).Progressinsmallgroupresearch.AnnualReviewof

Psychology,41,585–634.

Lord,R.G.(1985).Aninformationprocessingapproachtosocialperceptions,leadership

andbehavioralmeasurementinorganizations.InB.M.Staw,&L.LCummings(Eds.),

Researchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.7,pp.87–128).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.

43

Lord,R.G.,deVader,C.L.,&Alliger,G.M.(1986).Ameta‐analysisoftherelationbetween

personalitytraitsandleadershipperceptions:Anapplicationofvalidity

generalizationprocedures.JournalofAppliedPsychology,71,402–410.

Magee,J.C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2008).Socialhierarchy:Theself‐reinforcingnatureofpower

andstatus.InJ.P.Walsh,&A.P.Brief(Eds.),AcademyofManagementAnnals(Vol.2,

pp.351–398).

Maier,N.R.F.(1967).Assetsandliabilitiesingroupproblemsolving:Theneedforan

integrativefunction.PsychologicalReview,67,239–249.

Maier,N.R.F.,&Solem,A.R.(1952).Thecontributionofadiscussionleadertothequality

ofgroupthinking:Theeffectiveuseofminorityopinions.HumanRelations,6,277–

288.

Mann,R.(1959).Areviewoftherelationshipsbetweenpersonalityandperformancein

smallgroups.PsychologicalBulletin,56,241–270.

Marx,K.(1964).Economicandphilosophicmanuscriptsof1844.NewYork,NY:Martin

Milligan.(Originalworkpublishedin1844).

Mazur,A.(1985).Abiosocialmodelofstatusinface‐to‐faceprimategroups.SocialForces,

64,377–402.

Mazur,A.,&Booth,A.(1998).Testosteroneanddominanceinmen.BehavioralandBrain

Sciences,21,353‐397.

McCurdy,H.G.,&Eber,H.W.(1953).Democraticversusauthoritarian:Afurther

investigationofgroupproblem‐solving.JournalofPersonality,22,258–269.

44

McCurdy,H.G.,&Lambert,W.E.(1952).Theefficiencyofsmallhumangroupsinthe

solutionofproblemsrequiringgenuinecooperation.JournalofPersonality,20,478–

494.

Mintzberg,H.(1983).Structureinfives:Designingeffectiveorganizations.EnglewoodCliffs,

NJ:Prentice‐Hall.

Nelson,P.D.,&Berry,N.H.(1965).Therelationshipbetweenanindividual'ssociometric

statusindifferentgroupsoveratwo‐yearperiod.JournalofPsychology:

InterdisciplinaryandApplied,60,31‐37.

Ng,S.H.(1980).Thesocialpsychologyofpower.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

Parsons,T.(1961).Theoriesofsociety:Foundationsofmodernsociologicaltheory.NewYork,

NY:FreePress.

Pfeffer,J.,&Cohen,Y.(1984).Determinantsofinternallabormarketsinorganizations.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,29,550–572.

Pfeffer,J.,&Langton,N.(1993).Theeffectofwagedispersiononsatisfaction,productivity,

andworkingcollaboratively:Evidencefromcollegeanduniversityfaculty.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,38,382–407.

Ridgeway,C.L.(1978).Conformity,group‐orientedmotivation,andstatusattainmentin

smallgroups.SocialPsychology,41,175‐188.

Ridgeway,C.,&Diekema,D.(1989).Dominanceandcollectivehierarchyformationinmale

andfemaletaskgroups.AmericanSociologicalReview,54,79–93.

Roby,T.B.,Nicol,E.H.,&Farrell,F.M.(1963).Groupproblemsolvingundertwotypesof

executivestructure.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,67,550–556.

45

Roethlisberger,F.J.,&Dickson,W.J.(1939).Managementandtheworker.Cambridge,MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Rosa,E.,&Mazur,A.(1979).Incipientstatusinsmallgroups.SocialForces,58,18‐37.

Sande,G.N.,Ellard,J.H.,&Ross,M.(1986).Effectofarbitrarilyassignedstatuslabelson

self‐perceptionsandsocialperceptions:Themerepositioneffect.Journalof

PersonalityandSocialPsychology,50,684–689.

Savin‐Williams,R.C.(1979).Dominancehierarchiesingroupsofearlyadolescents.Child

Development,50,923–935.

Scott,W.R.(1998).Organizations:Rational,naturalandopensystems(4thed.).Upper

SaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Shaw,M.E.(1954).Groupstructureandthebehaviorofindividualsinsmallgroups.Journal

ofPsychology,38,139–149.

Shaw,M.E.(1964).Communicationnetworks.InL.Berkowitz(Ed.),Advancesin

experimentalsocialpsychology(pp.111–147).NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

Sherif,M.,White,B.J.,&Harvey,O.J.(1955).Statusinexperimentallyproducedgroups.

AmericanJournalofSociology,60,370–379.

SchmidMast,M.(2001).Genderdifferencesandsimilaritiesindominancehierarchiesin

same‐gendergroupsbasedonspeakingtime.SexRoles,44,537‐556.

Tannenbaum,A.S.,Kavcic,B.,Rosner,M.,Vianello,M.,&Wieser,G.(1974).Hierarchyin

organizations.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐Bass.

Thibault,J.W.,&Kelley,H.H.(1959).Thesocialpsychologyofgroups.NewYork:Wiley.

46

Tiedens,L.Z.,&Fragale,A.R.(2003).Powermoves:Complementarityindominantand

submissivenonverbalbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,83,

558–568.

Tiedens,L.Z.,Unzueta,M.M.,&Young,M.J.(2007).Anunconsciousdesireforhierarchy?

Themotivatedperceptionofdominancecomplementarityintaskpartners.Journal

ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,93,402–414.

Torrance,E.P.(1955).Someconsequencesofpowerdifferencesondecisionmakingin

permanentandtemporarythree‐mangroups(pp.179‐196).InA.P.Hare,E.F.

Borgatta,&R.F.Bales(Eds.),Smallgroups:Studiesinsocialinteraction.NewYork,

NY:Knopf.

VanEmmerik,I.J.H.,Lambooy,M.,&Sanders,K.(2002).Differentialeffectsofindividual‐

linkedandteam‐levelstatusallocationonprofessionals’jobperformance.Small

GroupResearch,33,702–716.

VanVugt,M.(2006).Evolutionaryoriginsofleadershipandfollowership.Personalityand

SocialPsychologyReview,10,354–371.

VanVugt,M.,Hogan,R.,&Kaiser,R.B.(2008).Leadership,followership,andevolution:

Somelessonsfromthepast.AmericanPsychologist,63,182–196.

Vroom,V.H.(1969).Industrialsocialpsychology.InG.Lindzey,&E.Aronson(Eds.),The

handbookofsocialpsychology(Vol.5).Reading,MA:Addison‐Wesley.

Whyte,W.F.(1943).Streetcornersociety:ThesocialstructureofanItalianslum.Chicago,

IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Willer,R.(2009).Groupsrewardindividualsacrifice:Thestatussolutiontothecollective

actionproblem.AmericanSociologicalReview,74,23–43.

47

Williamson,O.E.(1975).Marketsandhierarchies:Analysisandantitrustimplications.New

York:FreePress.

Wilson,D.S.,Near,D.,&Miller,R.R.(1996).Machiavellianism:Asynthesisofthe

evolutionaryandpsychologicalliteratures.PsychologicalBulletin,119,285‐299.

Winter,D.G.(1988).Thepowermotiveinwomen–andmen.JournalofPersonalityand

SocialPsychology,54,510–519.

48

Table1ComparisonofTheoriesofStatus

49

Figure1NumberofArticlesonHierarchyPublishedbyYear

13

19

23 24

32

36

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arcles Published

*Search includes OBHDP, AMJ, JAP, JPSP, PSPB, JESP, Psych Science. Keyword includes “hierarchy,” “status,” or “power.”