Week 5: Hierarchy and Status

Week 5: Hierarchy and Status

Readings this week involve hierarchy and status, as the title suggests. The review piece from Magee and Galinsky (2008) establishes a framework of hierarchy where both status and power are independent, distinct elements. Meanwhile, Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, and Chatman (2006) conducted an empirical study focused purely on “status hierarchies” and how self-awareness of ones’ own status can affect group acceptance at the individual level. Status is a common element across both articles, although status is made distinct from other related concepts like influence (Magee & Galinsky 2008) and lumped into one category by others (Anderson, et al, 2006).

Social Hierarchy: Takeaways from Magee & Galinsky (2008)

A distinction is made between hierarchy and social hierarchy, the latter referring to the informal version. (Firms tend to formalize their hierarchies more as the number of people and complexity increases.) Additionally, it is possible to be in multiple hierarchies, simultaneously.

Hierarchy serves two functions: 1) “establishing order and facilitating coordination”, and 2) “motivating individuals”. This second function seems less obvious than the first.

Social hierarchy is defined as “an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension. The authors use implicit and explicit to describe the degree to which individuals are self-aware of the hierarchies for which they are a part. It is required that either a formal or informal hierarchy be established amongst members of groups. Formal hierarchies are typically what we think of when we hear hierarchy (e.g., organization charts, moving up or laterally, many at the bottom and few at the top, etc.). Informal hierarchy is born out of the inferences and judgements individuals make of one another and happens at the group level. The authors mention the factors that determine the way in which members are ranked, e.g., conscientiousness > extraversion in predicting rank within task-oriented organizations, while extraversion > conscientiousness in socially-oriented organizations like consulting firms.

On Social Status

Where does status come from? The authors suggest research that status comes from “expectations that individuals have of their own and each others’ performance”

Status is not attention or influence, although both are dimensions of status.

It is said that in “some instances when minorities within an organization or other low-status actors receive an abundance of attention” speaks to the favoritism that expects within some firms.

Questions for consideration:

  • Are some actors accorded more respect in part because they have received more attention?
  • Do actors with more status receive more attention, and does this attention, in turn, open the door for them to exert more influence?

On Social Power

I have never considered the social versions of either status or power

Defined as “asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations.” (Is this dramatically different from non-social power?) Value placed on resources can be positive (e.g., rewards or something you’d want more of) or negative (e.g., punishment or things you’d want less of). Under this definition, it is easier to objectively determine power than it is status. You determine the sources of value for each “party” and then determine its power. The authors give examples where from one perspective a party has power over another (e.g., government controls whether legitimacy is given to a financial company) but said other party also has power over the former (e.g., financial company can lobby and make campaign contributions). I find it humorous their example because I would think lobbying is a form of influence while campaign contributions are actually the valued resource.

Formal positions give legitimacy to power and status.

Resource dependence theory says:

Power resides among a set of interdependent subunits or organizations that exchange resources with each other. The value of the resources that a subunit/organization controls and the extent to which those resources can be obtained elsewhere (i.e., the subunit/organization’s substitutability in the exchange relationship) determine the terms of exchange, and thus the power in relation to other subunits/organizations. If the value that a subunit/organization provides case be replaced (i.e., substituted), then there is little dependence on that subunit/organization, which consequently has little power in that social relationships.

Basically, power is dependent on the negotiability amongst parties based on the uniqueness, or the availability, of a given parties resources.

As an undergraduate, I learned at the heart of decision-making is resource allocation, that is to say that all decisions are about resource allocation. In this way, I can see social power as decision-making ability. Decision-making though necessarily comes as a result of power, not the other way around. (This could have implications as I investigate decision rights in the context of organizational democracy and voice within workplace teams.)

Is there a difference between power and social power? Is there a distinction being made? They do make a distinction between power, influence, resistance, and conflict. The authors take issue with equating power and the “capacity to influence”. They point to the inability to measure this meaningfully.

Status vs. Power

Okay, not versus exactly, but the differences are highlighted:

  • Status and power are related, but distinct constructs
  • Power is based on resources and belong to a specific actor
  • Status is in the eye of others (i.e., co-actors, observers) (perceived?)
  • For those with power gaining status, gaining high-status requires respect
  • For those with status gaining power, a) respect requires trust of resources,
Those with high power but low status might be seen as underserving of their power and judged harshly because their position in the hierarchy appears illegitimate.

Unfortunately, I can relate to this! (Re: Wesleyan)

I have a harder time picturing the latter case though, where “when one loses access to or control over important resources, respect for the person might diminish”. I can intellectually understand that status tied to resource control would diminish if that resource were lost, but I cannot think of a concrete example.

Why hierarchy is so resilient?

  • Once established, they are “costly” to change. It is not clear if the authors intend this comment literally (i.e., financially prohibitive) or in a broader sense; albeit one overall point they stress is the “self-reinforcing” nature of hierarchies, so I am lead to believe they mean this in the broader sense (but including the financial aspect).
  • Individuals’ need for stability, control is fulfilled, as is the need for incentives (so long as incentives are congruent with group performance)
  • Organizations’ need for coordination

This could be particularly useful in understanding why non-hierarchical structures are slow to catch on:

Although hierarchy is psychotically appealing…this does not explain why hierarchy is more appealing than other forms of social relations. After all, egalitarian, balanced structures can provide order as well. The reason that people prefer hierarchical order, as opposed to other types of order, is that hierarchy is particularly effective as facilitating coordination within social groups.” (Emphasis mine)

There is mention of the “dominance-submissiveness (i.e., control/agency) dimension of social relationships” and how symbiotic these relationships are in the context of tasks.

I find it extremely interesting the dichotomy between the incentives provided by hierarchy, namely as one ascends to the top, and the zero-sum nature of it all. It would seem to me that the effort to compete for the increasingly few spots at the upper end of the pyramid would in fact be less efficient for overall firm performance. But:

Even those individuals and groups who stand the most to gain by disrupting hierarchy have some reason to forego any attempt to change the existing rank order.

Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status

Hierarchy rank —> Cognitive, Motivational, Behavioral

  • Does the way that power-holders process information, approach goals, and make decisions help them to maintain or even increase their control cover resources?
  • How does the experience of power color social perception?
  • How does this status differentiation affect both task performance itself and evaluations of the work?

(What of “perception” can we know or relate from change management?)

How do people “advance” within an organizational democracy structured firm?

Individual Status in a Group Setting: Takeaways from Anderson, et al (2006)

Additional Notes and Comparisons

  • It is noted by Magee & Galinsky (2008) that there “tends to be a high agreement between group members about the rank of each individual”, which seems to have been born out in Anderson, et al (2008).

References

Magee, J.C., Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 251-398.

Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J.S., Spataro, S.E., Chatman, J.A. (2006). Knowing your place: self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1094.

Subscribe to Need Input

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe