UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THERE BE AN

U

“I”

?

THE EFFECTS OF STATUS INEQUALITY, STATUS, AND PERCEIVED INCLUSION

Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management

Universit y o f Groningen, Facult y o f Economics and Business

June 20, 2012 [Thesis - Final Versio n]

Word count: 9,674 ESTHER A. J. REITSEMA Student number: 2056747 Nieuwstraat 52 9724 KN Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-53710352 Email: a.j.reit sema@student.rug.nl

U

“I”

?

THE EFFECTS OF STATUS INEQUALITY, STATUS, AND PERCEIVED INCLUSION

ABSTRACT

This paper will look at how status inequality within a team will affect the behavior of individual team members in terms of the work behavior portrayed. It is hypothesized that within high status inequality teams, low status individuals will feel less included in the team and show self-serving behavior as a result. In the scenario-based study (N=271) status inequality and status of the self were manipulated to test the effects on perceived inclusion and the portrayal of self-serving behavior. Results show that within high status inequality teams, low status individuals do feel less included. However, the interaction between status inequality and status does not predict self-serving behavior, and no mediation dynamic through perceived inclusion was found.

Key words: Status; Status inequality; Status position; Perceived inclusion; Self-serving

INTRODUCTION

The much quoted “there is no ‘I’ in team”, used by managers all around the globe, is a clever way of stressing the acronym of the word team: “Together Each Achieves More”. The importance placed on teams nowadays is due to the fact that teams can produce astounding performance results, invariably outperforming individuals operating on their own (Katzenbach, & Smith, 1992; Kozlowski, & Bell, 2003). A team is composed of members with complementary skills who are all equally committed to a common purpose, defined goals, and an agreed upon working approach for which everyone is held accountable (Katzenbach, & Smith, 1992). In essence, a team is defined as “two or more individuals who socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually), possess one or more common goals, and are brought together to perform organizationally relevant tasks” (Kozlowski, & Ilgen, 2006: 79). Moreover, members of a team often “exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes, have different roles and responsibilities, and are together embedded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the broader system context and task environment” (Kozlowski, & Ilgen, 2006: 79). However, since a team is composed of individuals, differences in individual characteristics and complex relationships may lead to team members pursuing different goals than that of the team as a whole (Loch, Huberman, & Stout, 2000), thereby compromising the claimed advantages of working in teams (Katzenbach, & Smith, 1992).

One of those factors that contribute to the complexity of relationships within teams is status. Status is defined as an individual’s enjoyment of prominence, respect, and influence as perceived by others (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006). Status differences between people are an ever-present aspect within organizational life due to the fact that within each team there will be evidence of a hierarchy, where individual team members each hold a certain status position (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Kramer, 1996 as cited in Chen, Brockner, & Greenberg, 2003; Loch et al., 2000). The status position of an individual has been found to be influenced by diffuse (i.e. general assumptions) and specific (i.e. differentially evaluated) status characteristics (Berger, & Fişek, 2006; Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980). Thus, status within a team hierarchy can be seen as a positional or relational element based upon an agreed social rank (Washington, & Zajac, 2005).

inequality (Christie, & Barling, 2010; Greer, & van Kleef, 2010). For example, when status inequality is high, one group member holds a substantially higher status position within the team than another team member (Greer, & van Kleef, 2010). This status inequality is hypothesized to have an influence on perceived inclusion, which refers to a team member’s perception of belongingness to the team (Kerr, & Levine, 2008). In addition, a team member’s status relative to that of other team members has been found to have an impact on their work attitude and behavior (Chen et al., 2003). As was expressed above, team members may be pursuing different goals than that of the team as a whole, which will be referred to as self-serving behavior in the remainder of this paper. Self-self-serving behavior is defined as “the extent to which individuals exhibit self-enhancing perceptions, take undue credit for success, avoid due responsibility for failure, or make self-flattering presentations” (Johns, 1999: 2). Amongst the many motives that may stimulate self-serving behavior, it was found that it is often portrayed in an attempt to defend against a real or imagined identity threat, or in an attempt to garner or protect resources (Johns, 1999). Thus, depending on the status position of the individual team members within the team, feelings of perceived inclusion will differ and consequently, this will result in more or less self-serving behavior. Hence, this paper will look at how status inequality within a team will affect the behavior of individual team members in terms of the work behavior portrayed; i.e. whether they will portray the hypothesized self-serving behavior or the required group-self-serving behavior.

the body of literature on status within teams, which was called for by many scholars such as Christie and Barling (2010) and Anderson and Brown (2010), and literature studying antecedents of behavioral outcomes, such as self-serving behavior, within teams (Kramer, 1993). Moreover, the broader experiment this study is involved with contributes to a doctoral thesis. In practice, the findings of this research may assist managers gain an enhanced understanding of how status inequality within a team, and the status position of an individual member, can have an impact on feelings of inclusion in the team and the resultant work behavior of individual team members. This enhanced understanding seems particularly important when considering the fact that self-serving behavior may result in ethical lapses and impair organizational effectiveness (Ashforth, & Lee, 1990).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

As described in the introduction, within each team there will be evidence of a hierarchy, whether formally delineated or emerged informally (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Kramer, 1996 as cited in Chen et al., 2003; Loch et al., 2000). This hierarchy consists of different status positions for each team member, and the extent of the positional dispersion is the eminent status inequality of the team (Christie, & Barling, 2010). In essence, the higher the status inequality within a team, the larger the asymmetries will be in team members’ status, and influence (Anderson, & Brown, 2010).

certain behaviors and access to valued resources (Anderson, & Brown, 2010), it is hypothesized that the greater the status inequality is, and thus the differences in perceptions about individual competence and associated status and influence asymmetries, the lower the members’ perceived inclusion will be. Moreover, it was found that initial status inequality inhibits individuals to share personal information with one another, which is crucial for the development of higher-quality relationships within a team (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009). These higher-quality relationships within a team are deemed important for feelings of inclusion due to an association with trust, respect, and a willingness to share information, resources, and perspectives between the respective team members (e.g. Blatt, & Camden. 2006; Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009; Ragins, & Dutton, 2006; Simons, & Peterson, 2000). Along the same line, previous research robustly showed that higher status inequality worsens group members’ attitude-related outcomes such as satisfaction, motivation, loyalty or commitment to the team (Anderson, & Brown, 2010). For example, it was found that inequality predicted lower overall satisfaction and lower levels of collaboration among team members (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Pfeffer, & Langton, 1993). Hence, high status inequality teams will have a propensity for less satisfied and less motivated members that are more inclined to leave the team when opportunity presents itself (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Thus, this lack of collaboration and commitment evident in teams with high status inequality, together with the differences in perceptions about individual competence and resulting power and influence asymmetries, leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: High status inequality within a team is negatively related to perceived inclusion.

‘Status of the self’, referred to simply as ‘status’ in the remainder of the paper, is an element of social structure and refers to a member’s status relative to that of other members within the team. In essence, a status hierarchy will rank individuals within the team in accordance with their perceived social position, prestige, or worth, and it signals how the individual should be treated in terms of respect, deference, or honor (Phillips, Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009; Willer, 2009). The obtained status position of an individual can stem from numerous factors, and can be either achieved or ascribed (Chen et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2009); however, the construction of an individual’s status position is outside the scope of this research (for this see e.g. Berger, & Fişek, 2006; Ridgeway, 1991).

status individuals (Chen et al., 2003), and as a consequence, low status individuals will pay more attention to high status individuals so as to anticipate or reduce negative outcomes (Fiske, 1993; Magee, & Galinksy, 2008). On the other hand, by nature of the hierarchy, high status individuals tend to pay less attention to low status individuals, often resorting to stereotyping due to higher attention demands (Fiske, 1993; Magee, & Galinksy, 2008). This imbalance in attention will have a negative bearing on the inclusionary feelings of low status individuals within the team. Moreover, previous research showed that individuals with higher status are often psychologically affected by their social standing and resultant influence (Anderson, & Brown, 2010). For example, high status individuals are considered less polite and treat others in hostile and aggressive ways, which has consequences on the group as a whole (Anderson, & Brown, 2010) and, no doubt, a negative effect on low status individuals. In sum, low status individuals were found to be connected to higher amounts of inhibition-related processes, activated by a lack of influence and less access to valued resources (Chen et al., 2003; Fiske, 1993; Keltner et al., 2003). This subjects them to threats, punishments, and sensitivity to the evaluations and potential constraints of others (Keltner et al., 2003), which will impact upon their feelings of inclusion within the team as a whole.

& Sicoly, 1979). This phenomenon is especially apparent in lower ranked team members who feel that they should possess more control than they actually have (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Smith, & Tannenbaum, 1963).

Clearly, lower status will have a bearing on feelings of inclusion, since inclusionary feelings depend upon the degree that individuals feel part of critical team processes such as having access to resources and information, through the ability to influence the decision making process, and general involvement in the team (Mor-Barak, & Cherin, 1998). Especially within a high status inequality team with its highlighted discrepancies between the differing status positions, low status individuals will feel less included in the team. Hence, it is hypothesized that in a team with high status inequality perceived inclusion will decline when status is lower.

H2: Status moderates the relationship between status inequality and perceived inclusion, such that status inequality is more negatively related to perceived inclusion when status is lower.

their influence (Bendersky, & Shah, 2010). Hence, this has been noted as self-focused motivation and uncooperative behavior (Christie, & Barling, 2010).

In addition, it was found that self-serving behavior can occur when an individual feels the need to counter a threat to one’s identity, due to the fact that people are motivated to improve the positivity, or at least decrease the negativity, of their identity to maintain self-esteem (Johns, 1999; Kramer, 1993). This is also called “impression management”, the attempt to influence the perceptions others have of us (Gardner, & Martinko, 1988 as cited in Ashforth, & Lee, 1990) and stems from the need to protect and enhance both the social image and the self-image which, in a team, often focus on attributes such as competence and worth (Ashforth, & Lee, 1990). Along this line, it was found that certain forms of ego defenses – i.e. denial, rationalization, attributional egotism, ego aggrandizement, and sense of entitlement – are used to narcissistically regulate esteem (Brown, 1997), and are thus a form of self-serving behavior. Evidently, some of these defense mechanisms can be linked to high status individuals as well (Brown, 1997). For example, when an individual’s role and identity bring certain prestige and influence, this person may engage in self-serving behavior to defend the task domain against the infringement of others (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Ashforth, & Lee, 1990; Keltner et al., 2003). Yet, when linked to the notion of combating anxiety and promoting self-esteem it appears especially relevant to low status individuals. Individuals that find themselves in a context where their esteem is threatened by competition anxiety and status, combined with a fear of authority and uncertainty will struggle to maintain a sense of self (Brown, 1997; Keltner et al., 2003). In this case, self-serving behavior is in fact used as a defense mechanism (Ashforth, & Lee, 1990; Johns, 1999) to maintain or promote a positive sense of self (Brown, 1997; Willer, 2009). Moreover, as noted before, low status individuals often feel that they have been placed into a lower position than deserved, and feel a sense of inequity as result (Anderson, & Brown, 2010; Ross, & Sicoly, 1979; Smith, & Tannenbaum, 1963). This felt inequity can be dealt with in a number of ways, of which self-serving behavior is a prominent one (Pfeffer, & Langton, 1993). This leads us to the third hypothesis:

H3: Status moderates the relationship between status inequality and self-serving behavior, such that status inequality is more positively related to self-serving behavior when status is lower.

team accomplishments and other member’s contributions (Gajendran, & Joshi, 2011). As stated previously, perceived inclusion facilitates team identification (Ellemers et al., 2011), which was found to be an essential ingredient for group-serving behavior – i.e. where in-group bias is strong, behavior is mobilized towards in-group goals and responses are more collective in nature –. This group-serving behavior increases with group cohesiveness (Kramer, 1993; Johns, 1999) which can only be present when team members feel included in the team. It should be noted here that team identification and group cohesiveness are separate measures different from perceived inclusion. Nevertheless, research (Ellemers et al., 2011, Kramer, 1993; Johns, 1999) shows a clear link between these variables and as such, helps explain the direction of the proposed model. In adverse, it has been demonstrated that individualistic behavior is especially evident when individuals feel socially distanced from the other members in their team (Christie, & Barling, 2010); thus, in the absence of team identification and group cohesiveness, stemming from a lack of perceived inclusion, self-serving behavior will prevail. This result has also been found in relation to commitment, where a lack of commitment to the team often results in the team member leaving the team (Allen, & Meyer, 1990; van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2006) which can be explained as a self-serving behavioral reaction.

priorities (Katzenbach, & Smith, 1992) and are expected to revert to more self-serving behavior. Having said this, when a contribution to team goals requires personal investment and sacrifice, i.e. commence in group-serving behavior, members must be motivated to act selflessly (Anderson, & Brown, 2010), which is difficult when members do not feel included in the team. Individual restraint is considered ineffective when other team members do not reciprocate, or when there is an absence of the assurance of cooperation (Kramer, 1993). As was hypothesized before, this lack of perceived inclusion can stem from high status inequality and is especially felt by team members with lower status. In view of that, it was found that a lack of belongingness to the team can induce self-focused concerns (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006). Therefore, I hypothesize the following:

H4: The overall moderating effect of status on the relationship between status inequality and self-serving behavior is mediated by perceived inclusion.

The hypotheses together form the following moderated mediation model:

METHODS

I tested the outlined hypotheses that form the above illustrated moderated mediation model through data obtained from a scenario-based study conducted in the research laboratory at the University of Groningen. The experiment was conducted within a time frame of a year where the data was obtained during four separate rounds lasting two weeks per round. Participants in the study were all students from the University of Groningen, who were blind to the actual objectives of the study. In total, 463 undergraduate students, enrolled at the Faculty of Economics and Business, participated in the scenario-based study. After results of

FIGURE 1

Moderated mediation model

the manipulation checks were taken into account, the outcomes of 271 students were deemed valid and used for statistical analysis. The gender composition of this group of participants was quite heterogeneous with 55.4% of the sample being male. The average age of the participants was 21 years (s.d. = 2.65). Furthermore, the sample consisted of 179 Dutch students (66%) and 92 students (34%) from other nationalities.

The major advantage of experimental research is that causality can be demonstrated by manipulating the variables, whereas cause and effect is harder established when conducting descriptive research. Within this experiment four variables were manipulated, thus making use of a 2x2x2x2 factorial design; status inequality (large versus small) x status (high versus low) x team performance (high versus low) x status instability (instable versus stable). This design allowed me to study the effect of each factor separately, as well as the effects of the interactions of the factors, while controlling for certain anticipated influences.

Upon entering the research lab students were placed in a separate cubicle in front of a computer. The Medialab program (Empirisoft Corporation; version 2010.2.19) was used to provide the participants with instructions, and to sketch them the scenario of being part of a strategic consulting team at a large company that advices multinationals about how to improve their production process. It was explained that the current study was based on a feedback report stemming from the team’s previous participation in an organizational survey. The outcomes of this survey sketched each individual a situation based on the manipulated variables (both descriptively and visually), after which they had to respond to a questionnaire. Throughout the study participants were reminded about their respective situation. In total, the scenario-based study took between 30 and 45 minutes. Participation in the study was rewarded with 4 research points or € 7.-.

Measures

Status inequality: the independent variable “status inequality” was manipulated in the scenario-based study. Status inequality was explained as the difference in prominence, respect, and influence between the team members (Anderson et al., 2006). Participants were outlined a scenario in which the status inequality within the team was considered very large, or very small.

team members had allegedly indicated them as a high or a low status individual within the team.

Perceived inclusion: to measure the mediating variable “perceived inclusion” the existing scale from Sleebos, Ellemers, and de Gilder (2006) was used. This measure consists of the following three items: 1) “your fellow team members perceive you as a full team member”; 2) “your fellow team members like to have you in the team”, and; 3) “you are completely accepted in the team”. Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very much). These items were combined to form one average perceived inclusion score (M = 4.60; s.d. = 1.62; N = 271) for which the internal consistency analysis revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .94, indicating high reliability.

Self-serving behavior: self-serving behavior is reflected in an individual’s attempt to counter threatened identity, or garner or protect resources such as time or money (Johns, 1999). To facilitate measurement of the dependent variable “self-serving behavior” a discretionary task was presented to the participants in which they were asked how much time they are willing to spend on a task that improves their personal image within the work team. The participant’s behavior was observed through the amount of time indicated to be devoted on enhancing their self-image (M = 49.88; s.d. = 31.48; N = 271) (e.g. Branscombe et al., 2002; Ellemers, Doosje, & Spears, 2004).

Control variables

Team Performance – as discussed earlier, failing teams will cause team members to feel

diverted from their individual goals, due to the fact that effort is perceived as not adding significant value (Katzenbach, & Smith, 1992; Johns, 1999) and will influence work behavior as a result. Therefore, team performance is considered to have an influence on the proposed model and was controlled for, so as to eliminate alternative explanations for observed effects. Within the scenario-based study, two situations regarding performance were outlined where participants were made to believe that average team performance contained a score of 63. The participant’s team was described as either performing higher than this average (depicted as a score of 86), or lower than the average (depicted as a score of 40).

Status instability – low status individuals were found to behave in a more submissive

eliminate alternative explanations for the observed effects. The scenario dictated whether participants were able to change their own status position within the team (instable) or whether this was fixed (stable).

Manipulation checks

At the end of the study participants were asked whether they believed their level of English was sufficient enough to have understood the questions and scenarios posed. Moreover, participants were asked a few questions regarding their assigned condition. In order to check whether the status inequality manipulation was successful, participants were asked to indicate whether the results of the organizational status survey suggested that the status inequality between the members of their team was high or low. For their own status position they were asked whether they scored high or low on the organizational status survey compared to the average team member. To assess the successfulness of the team performance manipulation, participants were asked how their team performed compared to the average team. Finally, participants were asked whether they could change their status position within the team in the future.

Data analysis

RESULTS

First of all, all participants who indicated that they believed their level of English was not sufficient enough to have understood the questions and scenarios posed in the study were deleted from the database immediately (5.62%); leaving 437 participants.

From these participants, the status inequality manipulation check was answered incorrectly by 4.35% of the participants. 11.90% of participants inaccurately answered the manipulation check concerning their own status. On the manipulation check for team performance 4.81% of the participants was inaccurate, and 29.98% was incorrect about their status instability manipulation. All participants that answered at least one of the manipulation checks incorrectly were deleted from the dataset, leaving a total of 271 participants (62.01%) in the database for statistical analysis.

Correlations between key variables

Both perceived inclusion and self-serving behavior are normally distributed. Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and Spearman’s rho of the key variables. From this it can be seen that five correlations are deemed significant (p < .05). Team performance is positively related to perceived inclusion (r(s) = .28), indicating that when team performance decreases, perceived inclusion decreases, and vice versa. Status inequality is negatively related to perceived inclusion (r(s) = -.24), signifying that when status inequality increases, perceived inclusion decreases; this would be in support of our first hypothesis. Status is strongly positively related to perceived inclusion (r(s) = .69); thus, when status increases, perceived inclusion increases. Moreover, status is negatively related to self-serving behavior (r(s) = -.14), indicating that when status increases, self-serving behavior decreases. Lastly, perceived inclusion and self-serving behavior are negatively related (r(s) = -.12); thus, when perceived inclusion increases, self-serving behavior decreases, and vice versa.

TABLE 1

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00

Low status inequality High status inequality

P e r c e iv e d i n c lu si o n

Low status of the self High status of the self Perceived inclusion

In order to examine the effects of the manipulations on participants’ perceived feelings of inclusion in the team, I analyzed the mean score for perceived inclusion in a 2 (status inequality: high vs. low) by 2 (status: high vs. low) ANOVA, correcting for team performance, F (1, 265) = 39.10, p < .001, and status instability, F (1, 265) = 3.09, p < .10, as covariates. The significance result for homogeneity of variance is p > .05 (F (3, 267) = 1.84, p = .14), thus the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across the groups; i.e. the assumption of the ANOVA test has been met.

The analysis revealed main effects of both status inequality, F (1, 265) = 29.16, p < .001, and status, F (1, 265) = 297.22, p < .001. A comparison between the significant means of status inequality as a main effect show that participants feel more included in a low status inequality team (M = 4.97, SD = 1.38) than in a high status inequality team (M = 4.15, SD = 1.78); these results support hypothesis 1.

Furthermore, the analysis showed a significant two-way interaction, F (1, 265) = 18.66,

p < .001. The R-squared is .61, meaning that approximately 61% of the variability of

perceived inclusion is accounted for by the variables used. As can be seen in table 2, which is visualized in figure 2 below, for the significant two-way interaction the means indicate that within a high status inequality team, low status individuals feel less included (M = 2.85, SD = 1.08) as opposed to high status individuals (M = 5.64, SD = 1.15). The effect that status has on an individual’s feelings of inclusion is also seen in low status inequality teams (M = 4.06,

SD = 1.28 versus M = 5.74, SD = 0.93 respectively); however, as was hypothesized, the

negative influence of low status on perceived inclusion is much larger in high status inequality teams than it is in low status inequality teams (M = 2.85, SD = 1.08 versus M = 4.06, SD = 1.28 respectively). This supports hypothesis 2.

FIGURE 2

Self-serving behavior

In order to examine the effects of the manipulations on participant’s self-serving behavior, I analyzed the mean score for time spent to enhance self-image in a 2 (status inequality: high vs. low) by 2 (status: high vs. low) ANOVA, again correcting for team performance, F (1, 265) = 0.67, p = .42, and status instability, F (1, 265) = 0.30, p = .59, as covariates. Once more, the significance result for homogeneity of variance is p > .05 (F (3, 267) = 1.53, p = .21), indicating that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across the groups.

The analysis revealed main effects of both status inequality, F (1, 265) = 4.34, p = .04, and status, F (1, 265) = 6.35, p = .01; however, there is no significant two-way interaction, F (1, 265) = 0.26, ns. Moreover, R-squared indicates that only about 4.1% of the variability of self-serving behavior is accounted for by the variables used.

From a comparison between the respective means as listed in table 2 above, and visualized in figure 3 below, it can be seen that low status does significantly increase self-serving behavior in high status inequality teams (M = 51.49, SD = 31.90 versus M = 39.61, SD = 32.26); however, even though the direction of the results within low status inequality teams is alike (M = 57.46, SD = 32.00 versus M = 49.46, SD = 28.60) this is not deemed significant. Moreover, self-serving behavior in general appears more evident in low status inequality teams (M = 57.46, SD = 32.00 and M = 49.46, SD = 28.60) than in high status inequality teams (M = 51.49, SD = 31.90 and M = 39.61, SD = 32.26). Thus, the results clearly fail to support hypothesis 3.

TABLE 2

Means and standard errors for the variables of interest as a function of status inequality and status

Status inequality

High Low

Status M S.E. M S.E.

Perceived inclusion High 5.64a 0.15 5.74a 0.12 Low 2.85b 0.14 4.06c 0.13 Self-serving behavior High 39.61a 4.11 49.47a 3.45 Low 51.49b 3.85 57.46b,a 3.77

FIGURE 3

Means of self-serving behavior as a function of status inequality and status

Self-serving behavior mediated by perceived inclusion

For analysis of the entire model, I used model 2 of the Preacher et al. (2007) moderated mediation analysis macro. With this, I test the hypothesis that high status inequality has the potential to induce self-serving behavior via lowered feelings of perceived inclusion. Thus, perceived inclusion is tested as a mediator for the effect of high status inequality on self-serving behavior. Moreover, this mediation dynamic is expected to be moderated by status; thus, the dynamic is tested to see whether it is indeed of a conditional nature.

Results from this test also show that the interaction between status inequality and status predicts perceived inclusion β = 0.27, SE = 0.06, t = 4.32, p < .001. However, the interaction term between status inequality and status on self-serving behavior was found to be insignificant β = - 0.51, SE = 1.97, t = - 0.26, ns. Moreover, results show that perceived inclusion does not predict self-serving behavior β = - 1.67, SE = 1.86, t = - 0.89, ns.

Based on 5,000 bootstrap samples, a 95% bias corrected confidence interval was computed for the estimated effect of the specific indirect effect at different values for the moderator. The conditional indirect effect is insignificant at both extremes of the moderator: for low status Boot β = 1.01, SE = 1.15, Boot z = 0.88, ns; Lower CI = -1.15, Upper CI = 3.27, as well as for high status Boot β = 0.10, SE = 0.25, Boot z = 0.41, ns; Lower CI = -0.18,

Upper CI =1.02. Moreover, it revealed that 0 is contained in both confidence intervals;

consequently, the conditional indirect effect of perceived inclusion is not significantly different from 0.

In sum, results show that the mediated moderation is deemed not significant. Therefore, I conclude that hypothesis 4 is not supported.

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 Low status inequality High status inequality S e lf -s e r v in g b e h av io r

DISCUSSION

In the present scenario study I manipulated status inequality and status to show its influence on feelings of perceived inclusion and self-serving behavior. The theoretical implications of the findings discussed below are mainly focused on the fact that status was researched as a within group configuration, creating results that go beyond intergroup research and status as an individual characteristic.

The results revealed that status inequality is indeed negatively related to feelings of perceived inclusion. Thus, the higher the status inequality within the team, the less team members will feel included in general. As hypothesized, this proves to be especially true for low status individuals. It is interesting to note that results show that low status individuals feel less included in both high and low inequality teams, as opposed to high status individuals. Thus low status individuals perceive themselves to be less included in the team in general, and the higher the status inequality within the team, the lower the individual’s feeling of perceived inclusion. This finding is important since it offers a new insight in the equivocal research on advantages and disadvantages of status hierarchies. Explicitly, the results of this study are in support of the more negative perspective that status inequality can hamper the team, since feelings of perceived inclusion were found to be dependent upon status inequality and status.

thus, status inequality is said to make teams more effective and efficient (Magee, & Galinksy, 2008). The status inequality satisfies the need for order and stability of team members, regardless of their own status position, and is claimed to be a justification for reinforcing and increasing the stability of status inequality within the team (Magee, & Galinksy, 2008). Hence, when status inequality is low, a lower degree of coordination, status enhancing motivation, order, and stability may result in team members behaving in more self-serving ways.

punishments, and sensitivity to the evaluations and potential constraints of others (Chen et al., 2003; Fiske, 1993; Keltner et al., 2003), which in turn may influence both the opportunity and audaciousness to act in self-serving ways.

Limitations and future research directions

In light of this research, where I tested whether status inequality causes self-serving behavior through perceived low inclusion, and how status moderates this relationship, a laboratory study is superior to other study designs in establishing the intervention’s true effects. Due to the fact that variables can be manipulated, casual relationships can be established. Hence, the design of manipulated variables made it possible to study the effects on perceived inclusion and self-serving behavior for all possible combinations of status inequality and status, while controlling for the effects of team performance and status instability. Additionally, an experiment provides a better control over the time frame in which the study needs to be conducted, as well as controls for the effects of time on team related outcomes (Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan and Moreland, 2004; Johns, 1999; Pfeffer, & Langton, 1993).

study has the advantage of being able to report actual self-serving behaviors and the forms it can take in practice. Also, factors that moderate certain effects of status inequality have been left outside the scope of this research, where, for example, it was found that the type of task the team needs to perform can influence the desirability and appropriateness of a higher status inequality within the team (Anderson, & Brown, 2010). Thus, in essence, an organizational context is missing and generalizability of the findings should therefore be evaluated.

Even though the laboratory setting provides excellent circumstances to test the specific hypotheses, in future research a more encompassing framework of factors within organizational contexts should be taken into account. Consequently, there is a need for future research that tests the found relationships in actual teams by means of descriptive research, possibly conducting a longitudinal study to observe the effects over time. Moreover, more experimental research is warranted as well. In this regard it would be interesting to study the influence of opportunity for self-serving behavior and individuals’ social moral norms, so as to further extend the understanding of the circumstances that can create this type of dysfunctional behavior within teams.

CONCLUSION

In view of the fact that each team encompasses status characteristics and that teams have become a ubiquitous fact of organizational life, this study adds to the extant literature on status by including a team based perspective and its influence on work behavior. By considering the moderating influence of an individual’s status position, I demonstrated the influence that status inequality within a team can have on feelings of perceived inclusion. More specifically, results showed that within a high inequality team, lower status individuals feel less included. Even though feelings of perceived inclusion has no significant effect on self-serving behavior, previous research shows that individuals who feel less included lack commitment to the team and can hamper collaboration in general. In practice this should indicate to managers the importance of ensuring that all team members feel included within the team, actively including low status team members, and that more attention should be given to this aspect in high status inequality teams.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1–18.

Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. 2010. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30: 55–89.

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: 1094–1110.

Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. 2004. Time, change, and development: The temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research, 35: 73–105.

Ashforth, B. E., & Lee, R. T. 1990. Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43: 621–648.

Battigalli, P., & Dufwenberg, M. 2007. Guilt in games. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 97: 170–176.

Bendersky, C. & Shah, N. P. 2010. Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, Articles in Advance: 1–15.

Berger, J., & Fişek, M. H. 2006. Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory. American Journal of Sociology, 111: 1038–1079.

Blatt, R., & Camden, C. T. 2008. Positive relationships and cultivating community. In J. E. Dutton, & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation, 243–264. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. 2002. Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 744–753.

Brown, A. D. 1997. Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 22: 643–686

Chen, Y.-R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. 2003. When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92: 1–21

Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. 2010. Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 920–934.

Conner, M., & Abraham, C. 2001. Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 1547–1561.

Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people – The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621–628.

Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Stam, D., & de Gilder, D. 2011. Feeling included and valued: How perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management, In press.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. 2004. Sources of respect: the effects of being liked by ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 155–172.

Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. 2011. Inclusion and identification in virtual workgroups: (when) does leader-member virtual communication matter? Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6.

Greer, L. L. & van Kleef, G. A. 2010. Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1032– 1044.

Johns, G. 1999. A multi-level theory of self-serving behavior in and by organizations. In R. I. Sutton, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 1–38. Connecticut: Jai Press Inc.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. 1992. Why teams matter. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 3–27.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–284.

Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. 2008. The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12: 39–52.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, 12: 333–375. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Kramer, R. M. 1993. Cooperation and organizational identification. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Loch, C. H., Huberman, B. A., & Stout, S. 2000. Status competition and performance in work groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43: 35–55.

López-Pérez, R., & Vorsatz, M. 2010. On approval and disapproval: Theory and experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31: 527–541.

Lovaglia, M. J., & Houser, J. A. 1996. Emotional reactions and status in groups. American Sociological Review, 61: 867–883.

Magee, J. C. & Galinksy, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. In J. P. Walsh, & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of Management Annals, 2: 351–398. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. 1998. A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22: 47–64.

Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. 1993. The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 382–407

Phillips, K. W., Rothbard, N. P., & Dumas, T. L. 2009. To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review, 34: 710–732.

Ragins, B. R., & Dutton, J. E. 2006. Positive relationships at work: An introduction and invitation. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation, 3–28. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ridgeway, C. 1991. The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70: 367–386.

Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. 1979. Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 322–336.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 102–111.

Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. 2006. The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 413–427.

Smith, C. G., & Tannenbaum, A. S. 1963. Organizational control structure: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 16: 299–316.

Tannenbaum, A. S. 1957. Personality change as a result of an experimental change of environmental conditions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55: 404– 406.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. 2006. Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 571–584.

Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. 1978. Status generalization: A review and some new data. American Sociological Review, 43: 220–236.

Webster, M., & Rashotte, L. S. 2010. Behavior, expectations and status. Social Forces, 88: 1021–1049.

Willer, R. 2009. Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74: 23–43.