Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:30:29.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roles and ranks: The importance of hierarchy for group functioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Julian J. Zlatev ,
Nir Halevy  and
Larissa Z. Tiedens
Julian J. Zlatev
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. jjzlatev@stanford.edunhalevy@stanford.edultiedens@stanford.edu
Nir Halevy
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. jjzlatev@stanford.edunhalevy@stanford.edultiedens@stanford.edu
Larissa Z. Tiedens
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. jjzlatev@stanford.edunhalevy@stanford.edultiedens@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Baumeister et al. propose that role differentiation is critical for group functioning. We propose that effective groups require rank differentiation in addition to role differentiation. We suggest that rank differentiation supports division of labor by incentivizing group members, satisfying fundamental human needs, and organizing and integrating the contributions of differentiated group members.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. & Brown, C. E. (2010) The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior 30:55–89. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D. & Howland, L. (2015) Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin 141(3):574–601. doi: 10.1037/a0038781.Google Scholar
Anicich, E. M., Swaab, R. I. & Galinsky, A. D. (2015) Hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in high-stakes teams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5):1338–43. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408800112.Google Scholar
Barkow, J. H. (1975) Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology 16(4):553–72. doi: 10.1086/201619.Google Scholar
De Kwaadsteniet, E. W. & van Dijk, E. (2010) Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46(3):515–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.005.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H. & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993) Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(5):766–78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27(1):31–41. doi: 10.2307/2089716.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2010) Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In: Handbook of social psychology, ed. Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T. & Lindzey, G., pp. 941–82. Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026.Google Scholar
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T. & Ames, D. R. (2006) Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(6):1123–37. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123.Google Scholar
Friesen, J. P., Kay, A. C., Eibach, R. P. & Galinsky, A. D. (2014) Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(4):590–609. doi: 10.1037/a0035620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruenfeld, D. H. & Tiedens, L. Z. (2010) Organizational preferences and their consequences. In: Handbook of social psychology, ed. Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T. & Lindzey, G., pp. 1252–87. Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002033.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R. & Livingston, R. W. (2012a) Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(2):351–66. doi: 10.1037/a0025515.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y. & Galinsky, A. D. (2011) A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review 1(1):32–52. doi: 10.1177/2041386610380991.Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Galinsky, A. D. & Murnighan, J. K. (2012b) When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(4):398–406. doi: 10.1177/1948550611424225.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. L. & Van Vugt, M. (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(10):1402–13. doi: 10.1177/0146167206291006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, C. & Staudenmayer, N. (2000) Coordination neglect: How lay theories of organizing complicate coordination in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 22:153–93. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22005-4.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Magee, J. C. & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals 2(1):351–98. doi: 10.1080/19416520802211628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958) Organizations. Wiley.Google Scholar
McCoy, S. K. & Major, B. (2007) Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(3):341–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.009.Google Scholar
Ronay, R., Greenaway, K., Anicich, E. M. & Galinsky, A. D. (2012) The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science 23(6):669–77. doi: 10.1177/0956797611433876.Google Scholar
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N. & Delery, J. E. (2002) Pay dispersion and workforce performance: Moderating effects of incentives and interdependence. Strategic Management Journal 23(6):491–512. doi: 10.1002/smj.235.Google Scholar
Simpson, B., Willer, R. & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012) Status hierarchies and the organization of collective action. Sociological Theory 30(3):149–66. doi: 10.1177/0735275112457912.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z. & Fragale, A. R. (2003) Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(3):558–68. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558.Google Scholar
Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M. & Young, M. J. (2007) An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(3):402–14. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.402.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57(1):375–400. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2008) Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist 63(3):182–96. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182.Google Scholar
Willer, R. (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review 74(1):23–43. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400102.Google Scholar
Zitek, E. M. & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012) The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(1):98–115. doi: 10.1037/a0025345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed