New York University
A private university in the public service
Status Dynamics & Managerial
Agility
Steven L. Blader
June 12, 2014
In collaboration with…





Ya-Ru Chen, Cornell University
Adam Galinsky, Columbia University
Nicholas Hayes, New York University
Alice Lee, Columbia University
Aiwa Shirako, New York University
2
Hierarchy: What and Why?
Hierarchy: “an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with
respect to a valued social dimension” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008)
Hierarchy…
 Emerges spontaneously
 Is ubiquitous
 Is consequential
 Is essential for group functioning
…i.e., hierarchy is fundamental to social relations
Blau, 1964; Cartwright, 1959; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Goffman, 1959; Homans, 1961; Magee
& Galinsky, 2008; Ridgeway, 1997; Russell, 1938; Weber, 1964
3
Hierarchy is not a unitary concept…
Formal structure
Leadership
Socioeconomic status (SES)
Influence
Power
Dominance
Status
Prestige
Competence
Respect
4
However…
Dimensions of social hierarchy often confounded
»
»
»
»
»
Power and status used synonymously
Power as influence (and vice versa)
Status as influence (and vice versa)
SES as power, status
Dominance as power, status
Clarity/consensus around hierarchical dimensions is lacking
» Definitions/conceptualizations vary
» Relatively little empirical work distinguishing them
5
Status and power
Status and power are particularly prominent bases of hierarchy (Blau,
1964; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Weber, 1964)
» “Status orderings naturally emerge whenever humans gather”
» “The most basic force behind human behavior is power”
Status and power are fundamental to the psychology of holding
higher rank (Fiske, 2010)
Status and power are distinct
6
Status and power
Status:
» Evaluation of a person (or a group) as worthy of esteem, respect,
and prestige (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Goldhammer &
Shils, 1939; Ridgeway, 2001; Zelditch, 1968)
» Social regard
Power:
» Capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding
resources or administering punishments
» Resource control
Frequently confounded (Fiske, 2010; Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Magee & Galinsky, 2008)
» Though not always (Cheng et al., 2013; Fast et al., 2012; Fragale, Overbeck, &
Neale, 2011; Hays, 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985)
7
Prior research
Research Focus
Power
Status
Antecedents


Psychological
consequences for rankholder

Consequences of rank on
interaction partners


8
Psychology of power
Power is associated with:
»
»
»
»
»
»
Egocentric focus
Increased social distance
Increased focus on power-holder’s goals
Decreased attention to context and constraints
Decreased attention to others
Action orientation
Power “reveals the self”, as it draws power-holders inward…
9
Prior research
Research Focus
Power
Status
Antecedents


Psychological
consequences for rankholder

Consequences of rank on
interaction partners

Research on the psychology of status is relatively lacking
» Especially as compared to research on the psychology of power
10
Research goal
To develop an understanding of the psychology of
social status
» With an eye towards highlighting similarities and differences
with the psychology of power
Why?
» Critical for understanding the effect of status hierarchies on
groups
 Particularly important for understanding those holding
higher rank, e.g., for understanding leadership
» Understanding the psychology of status may present
opportunities for cultivating leaders who are more responsive
to constituents’ needs…and in that way, more AGILE.
11
Key elements to the psychology of
status
1. Like power, status is positively associated with selfperceived efficacy
»
i.e., agency
2. Unlike power, status is positively associated with otherorientation
»
i.e., communality
12
Status and efficacy
Status, like power, will lead to enhanced efficacy (and thus
action orientation)
» High status individuals…
 Given more opportunities to contribute, more influence
 Given more positive feedback for their contributions
 Interpret feedback more positively
 Hold more positive expectations of others’ reactions to them
 Have stronger control beliefs
» And as a result…
 Have greater motivation and performance (Felson, 1984; Lovaglia et
al., 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998)
 Have higher self-efficacy (Gecas & Seff, 1989)
13
Status and other-orientation
Status, unlike power, will lead to increased other-orientation
High status greatly valued
» Status maintenance—prominent concern for high status individuals (Blader &
Chen, 2011; Flynn et al., 2006)
» Status loss—highly aversive
Status originates externally
» Status gains meaning from lower status parties—status conferral
 Low status exchange deference for proximity; high status must attend to
low status (Gould, 2002)
» This prompts a focus on perspectives, opinions & needs of other parties
 To verify one’s (high) status position (Blader & Chen, 2011)
 To perpetuate one’s (high) status position
14
Predictions
These elements of the psychology of status may lead to
effects on:
»
»
»
»
»
Physiology (e.g., cortisol)
Judgment and decision-making (e.g., social vs non-social risk taking)
Emotions (e.g., positive affect)
Behavior (e.g., inhibition, constraints/norms)
Interpersonal relationships
Today:
» Perspective taking
» Justice
15
Perspective Taking
16
Perspective taking
Perspective taking: The tendency to take others' vantage
points and to understand their feelings, concerns, and
perceptions
Power decreases perspective taking (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, &
Gruenfeld, 2006)
» At least under many conditions (cf. Overbeck & Park, 2006; Schmid Mast et
al., 2009)
Prediction: Status will increase perspective taking
» Perspective taking key index of other-orientation
17
Study 1
Texoil negotiation simulation
» Negotiation over the sale of a service station
» Two roles: Station owner and Texoil representative
» Integrative negotiation
 Context where perspective taking is important
n=68 U.S. MBA students taking a negotiations course
» 34 Texoil reps
» Average age = 29 years old; 45% female
Pilot study, 2 conditions: High status, High power
18
Study 1: Conditions
Power
» Your position in the company is the Vice President for Operations. You have a great
deal of power within the company, since you manage one of the largest budgets and
you control a relatively major portion of the organization’s resources. Further, after
many years at the firm you have developed a strong reputation as someone who is
quite powerful.
Status
» Your position in the company is the Vice President for Operations. You have a great
deal of status within the company, since you have earned much esteem and prestige
among everyone that works there. Further, after many years at the firm you have
developed a strong reputation as someone who has high status, i.e., as someone who
people hold in high regard and respect.
19
Study 1: Dependent variable
Sellers rated buyer’s perspective taking:
» To what extent did your counterpart try to see things from your point
of view?
» To what extent did your counterpart try to ‘put themselves in your
shoes’?
» How much effort did your counterpart put into trying to understand
why you were selling the station?
» Did you feel like your counterpart understood your perspective in this
negotiation?
20
Study 1: Results
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
High Power
Higher numbers represent greater PT
High Status
21
Study 2
Performance review study
» Think of a specific subordinate, and imagine preparing for their
upcoming performance review.
 Instructed to think of an average subordinate, not their best or
worst
 Wrote a few sentences describing subordinate
n=51 upper-level executives taking an executive education
course in China
» Average age = 44; Average years work experience = 21; 80% male
3 conditions: High status, High power, Control
22
Study 2: Conditions
Power: You obviously possess a great deal of power at your firm. That is,
you have control over important resources at your company, especially
as compared to others at your firm who have not gained as much power
as you. The resources that you control are highly valued by others, and
this makes you a very powerful member of your organization.
Status: You obviously possess a great deal of status at your firm. That is,
you are highly respected and held in high esteem at your company,
especially as compared to others at your firm who have not gained as
much status as you. People look up to you and admire you, and this
positions you to be a very high status member of your organization.
Control: You obviously work very hard at your firm.
23
Study 2: Dependent variable
Please answer the following questions about how you would
approach this performance review:
» 8 items, adapted from IRI.
» Sample items (1-strongly disagree; 6-strongly agree):
 I will take the time to see things from the employee’s point of view
 I will try to consider all perspectives before I make a decision
about the employee’s performance
 I will try to understand my employee better by seeing things from
his/her perspective
24
Study 2: Results
6
5
4
3
High power
Higher numbers represent greater PT
Control
High status
25
Study 3
Spatial perception task (Todd, Hanko, Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2011; Tversky &
Hard, 2009)
n=396 participants recruited from M-Turk
» Average age=32
» 53% female
5 conditions: Low power, High power, Low status, High status,
Control
» “Recall an incident in which you felt you had (low/high)
(power/status) …”
» Control: “Recall your day yesterday…”
26
Study 3: Recall prompt
Power condition:
“Please recall a particular incident in which you had power over
another individual or individuals. By power, we mean a situation in
which you controlled the ability of another person or persons to get
something they wanted, or were in a position to evaluate those
individuals. Please describe this situation in which you had power —
what happened, how you felt, etc.”
Status condition:
“Please recall a particular incident in which you had status over
another individual or individuals. By status, we mean a situation in
which you felt respected and admired by others, a situation in which
you felt that others held you in high regard. Please describe this
situation in which you had status— what happened, how you felt, etc.”
27
What side of the table is the book on?
28
Study 3: Results
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
High Power
Control
High Status
Higher numbers represent greater PT
Low Status
Low Power
29
Study 4
Affective perspective taking
Emotion recognition (Galinsky et al., 2006; Moeller, Lee, & Robinson, 2011)
Participants view 24 photos and indicate emotion expressed in
photo
Select between anger, sadness, fear, or happiness
DV: Number of errors
n=249 participants recruited from M-Turk
» Average age=31
» 50% female
Same 5 conditions
30
Guess the emotion being expressed
For each picture, your
options are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Happiness
Anger
Sadness
Fear
31
Results—Perspective taking
6
5
4
3
2
High Power
Control
High Status
Low Power
Low Status
DV: # errors (i.e., higher numbers = weaker emotion recognition, less
perspective taking)
32
Perspective taking: Summary
Status increases perspective taking, in contrast to power
» Diverse paradigms, manipulations, dependent variables
Consistent with prediction that status increases otherorientation
What about a more “tangible” outcome?
» Justice
33
Justice
34
Status & justice
Justice perceptions shape engagement in groups &
organizations
» Yet little is known about the antecedents of justice
Status will be positively related to justice towards others
Justice follows from other orientation
 More likely to care about others, intrinsically want to treat them fairly,
understand what they will regard as fair
Justice important for status maintenance
 Shapes judgments of leader legitimacy & satisfaction
 Normative for “respected” leaders
 Part of social exchange between higher and lower ranked parties
35
Power & justice
Hypothesis: Power will be negatively related to justice towards
others
»
»
Egocentric orientation diminishes likelihood of justice
Approach-system/goal-directed behavior diminishes likelihood of
justice


May reduce focus on process, treatment, etc.
Less behavioral inhibition = reduced accordance with role norms
…caveat: EXCEPT if dispositionally other-oriented…
36
Study 1
Synertech-Dosagen negotiation simulation
» Negotiation over the sale of a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant
» Straightforward distributive negotiation
» Two roles: Synertech (buyer) & Dosagen (seller).
 Synertech more dominant (annual sales of $700M vs $150M)
» Manipulations embedded in the Synertech role
n=188 U.S. MBA students taking a negotiations course.
» 188 students total; 94 Synertech reps
3 condition design: Power, Status, Control
37
Study 1: Dependent variables
Procedural justice as rated by the negotiation partner ( = .71)
1.
2.
3.
Would you characterize the negotiation process as fair?
Do you feel your counterpart listened to your concerns?
Did your counterpart consider your wishes, opinions, or needs?
Feelings about the relationship—rated by partner ( =.85)
1.
2.
3.
4.
What kind of overall impression did your counterpart make on you?”
Did the negotiation make you trust your counterpart(s)?
How satisfied are you with your relationship with your counterpart as a result of this
negotiation?
Did the negotiation build a good foundation for a future relationship with your
counterpart?
First offers (Magee et al., 2007)
**Negotiation partners (raters) blind to condition
38
Study 1: Conditions
Power
» “You are quite well known in the industry as a powerful individual. Your
company is one of the most profitable in the industry—with one of the largest
revenue streams—and through your connections have access to a great
deal of additional resources.”
Status
» “You are quite well known in the industry as a high status individual. You
are one of the most respected people in the industry. People really hold you
in high regard, and you have a great deal of esteem from others.”
Control
39
“How important was it that your negotiation opponent
show respect for you during the negotiation?”
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
Control
Power
Status
40
Study 1: Procedural justice
7
6.5
PJ Ratings
by
negotiation
partner
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
Control
Power
Status
41
Study 1: Relationship
7
6.5
6
Relationship
ratings by
negotiation
partner
5.5
5
4.5
4
Control
Power
Status
42
Study 1: First offers
43
Study 2
Communicating bad news
» Role-play manager who has to layoff an employee
» Circumstances require written notification of layoff
» Primary task: Writing the layoff notice
n=77 working adults from national panel (Qualtrics)
» Average age = 42 years old; 57% female; avg work experience=22
years
3 condition design: Power, Status, Control
Measured dispositional other-orientation
44
Study 2 conditions
Power
» “…hold a great deal of power within your organization. Indeed, you are one of the
most powerful individuals in the company, since the Sales area is so critical to the
organization’s revenue stream. You are personally given control over a great deal of
the organization’s resources, compared to your peers who head other departments.”
Status
» “…hold a great deal of status within your organization. Indeed, you are one of the
most respected individuals in the company, since the Sales area is so highly regarded
within the organization. You are personally held in very high esteem among everyone
in the organization, even compared to your peers who head other departments.”
45
Study 2: Dependent variables
Procedural justice of the memo (4 items)
» Coded by 2 independent raters
Perceived importance of procedural justice (5 items,  = .75)
» As rated by the participant
Attentiveness toward recipient (4 items,  = .85)
» Rated by participant
 To what extent attentive about recipient’s a) reaction to layoff, b)
feelings, c) respect for them, d) liking of them
46
Study 2: Procedural justice
4
3.5
Coded
procedural
justice rating
3
2.5
2
Control
Power
Status
47
Study 2: Importance of procedural
justice
7
6.5
6
Imp of
procedrual 5.5
justice
5
4.5
4
Control
Power
Status
48
Study 2: Attentiveness to recipient
6
5.5
5
Attentiveness
4.5
4
3.5
3
Control
Power
Status
Also moderated by RISC, EC
49
The Psychology of Status
Distinct from the psychology of power
Opposite effects for some dependent variables
Similar effects on others
Implications for Agility:
» Status may play a social-regulatory function
 Fostering leaders who are more understanding and responsive to
their constituents
Caveats
» In some contexts, status may be associated with dominance
 Status will prompt normative reactions
» In some cases, status gained solely by power
 Status maintenance will be associated with power tactics
50
Future research
Field research
» …where status, power distinction is messier
» Opportunity to test moderating influence of context
Status attainment vs. maintenance
» Difference in nature of other-orientation?
51
Study 3
Texoil negotiation simulation
» Negotiation over the sale of a service station
» Two roles: Station owner and Texoil representative
» Integrative negotiation—negative bargaining zone
 Requires interest-based discussion & trust
n=208 U.S. MBA students taking a negotiations course.
» 208 students total; 104 Texoil reps
» Average age = 29 years old; 45% female
2 x 2 design
» Power (low, high)
» Status (low, high)
52
Study 3 conditions
Power
» Your position in the company is the Vice President for Operations. You have a great
deal of power within the company, since you manage one of the largest budgets and
you control a relatively major portion of the organization’s resources.
» Your position in the company is the Vice President for Operations. You have relatively
little power within the company, since you manage one of the smallest budgets and
you control a relatively minor portion of the organization’s resources.
Status
» …Furthermore, after many years of working at Texoil, you have attained a great deal
of status and prestige within the company. People at the organization genuinely
respect you and hold you in high regard. The admiration people have for you is
something that you value and which means a lot to you.
» …Furthermore, despite many years of working at Texoil, you have very little status or
prestige within the company. People at the organization seem to have little respect for
you and seem to hold you in low regard. This lack of admiration for you is something
that you have given up trying to change.
53
Study 3: Dependent variables
Procedural justice (rated by partner)
Feelings about the relationship (rated by partner)
First offers
Likelihood of reaching an integrative agreement
54
“How important was it that your negotiation opponent
show respect for you during the negotiation?”
6
5
4
Low status
No effect of power condition; no interaction
High status
55
Study 3
Procedural justice
6
5
PJ Ratings by
negotiation
partner
4
3
Low Power
Status: F (1, 100) = 3.99, p<.05
Power: F (1, 100) = 4.45, p<.05
Status x power: F (1, 100) = 13.29, p<.001
Low Status
High Power
High Status
56
Study 3
Relationship ratings
6
5
Relationship
ratings by
negotiation
partner
4
3
Low Power
Status: F (1, 100) = 8.79, p<.01
Power: F (1, 100) = 3.22 p<.10
Status x power: F (1, 100) = 23.65, p<.001
Low Status
High Power
High Status
57
Study 3
Integrative agreements
60
50
%
integrative
agreements
40
30
20
10
0
Low Power
Low Status
High Power
High Status
58