The impact of status hierarchy on individual behavior and team processes
Doornenbal, B.M.
2021
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
Doornenbal, B. M. (2021). The impact of status hierarchy on individual behavior and team processes.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
A vital feature in human social groups is status hierarchy – that is, vertical differences between team members in the esteem, prestige, and respect that these receive (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Status
hierarchies naturally develop as a result of the tendency of individuals to judge one another in terms of respect, esteem and prestige (Berger et al., 1972; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In status hierarchies, individuals with more status get more attention, experience their self-worth more positively, and enjoy advantages in well-being and health (Anderson et al., 2015). Given these benefits, it is no wonder that many individuals pursue status and adapt their behavior accordingly
(Anderson et al., 2015). To pursue status, individuals often try to appear more valuable and committed to their team (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Mattan et al., 2017). This behavior can benefit the team performance, for example if individuals actually become more productive (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010; Sanner & Bunderson, 2018), but it can hurt the performance as well, for example if members enforce or oversell their input or blindly rely on incompetent high-status team-members (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
The academic literature on the relationship between status hierarchy and team performance contains opposing accounts (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Greer et al., 2018). Critical accounts argue for a negative relationship through conflict-enabling states (Bunderson et al., 2016), while functionalist accounts argue for a positive relationship through coordination-enabling processes (Halevy et al., 2011). A recent meta-analysis, that synthesized 54 hierarchy studies, found that
hierarchies hurt team performance overall (Greer et al., 2018). This negative impact both supports the critical accounts and suggests that scholars need to reconsider the functionalist accounts.
Some scholars propose that the lack of support for the functionalist accounts may be partly due to the complexity of studying hierarchies (Bunderson et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2019). One of these complexities is the concept and measurement of hierarchy. Hierarchy is conceived in different ways, for instance as ladders – the distance between top and bottom of a hierarchy – and as pyramids – the centrality of a hierarchy among a few individuals (Yu et al., 2019). Researchers often conceptualize hierarchy as disparity. Disparity is greater when the
distribution of valued social assets or resources is positively skewed (i.e. pyramid-shaped ), with one member at the highest endpoint of the continuum of valued social assets or resources and all others at lowest (Harrison & Klein, 2007). When individuals perceive their workplace hierarchy to be shaped like a pyramid ( ), they are more convinced that the hierarchy is dysfunctional (Yu et al., 2019). Thus, the often-chosen concept of hierarchy – disparity – is more likely to provide support for the critical accounts. To measure hierarchy, researchers focus mainly on either the average status-difference between high and low-ranking members (Anderson & Brown, 2010) or the relative size of the top of the hierarchy (Groysberg et al., 2011). When “(a) the differences between high- and low-ranking members are large and (b) some members have identical (high or low) rankings”, hierarchy is “a recipe for jealousy, rivalry, competition, coalition building, and conflict as those members with identical ranks jockey with one another in their attempts to secure resources, enhance status, and curry favor with more powerful members”
(Bunderson et al., 2016, p. 1270). Thus, the often-applied measurements of hierarchy also appear to be more tailored to the critical accounts. Hence, in reconsidering the functionalist accounts, scholars suggest exploring the extent to which the conceptualization and measurements of hierarchy affect study outcomes (Bunderson et al., 2016).
In this dissertation, I respond to this suggestion by studying the impact of hierarchy while reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of status hierarchy and its purported outcomes. My aim is to better understand the impact of status hierarchy on individual behavior and team processes. Across this dissertation, I study three concepts in particular: status hierarchy, functionalist group processes, and upward status-based deference. I will introduce these concepts next and present research questions related to each of them. Subsequently, I will provide an overview of the chapters and describe for each chapter how they relate to the research questions. A central theme in finding answers to the research questions is validity: measurement validity, which concerns the degree to which the measurements measure what they aim to measure, and construct validity, which concerns the meaning of constructs in a nomological networks of related constructs. At the end of this introduction, I present an overview of how validity is essential in studying – and understanding – the impact of status hierarchy. I will present this overview as the broader perspective from which I conduct studies and answer research questions. This broader perspective (see Table 2) helps to reflect on the study findings – and strengthen the
development of theory – throughout this dissertation.
Research Question 1 - Status hierarchy
Scholars often describe status hierarchy as disparity, where hierarchy is greater when the distribution of valued social assets or resources is more positively skewed (i.e. pyramid-shaped ; Harrison & Klein, 2007). While studying disparity, scholars have focused on various hierarchy properties (Bunderson et al., 2016; Greer et al., 2018). Within the management literature, two status hierarchy properties have received most attention: status hierarchy steepness, the average status-difference between high-status and low-status team members (Anderson & Brown, 2010), and status hierarchy concentration, the proportion of high-status members within a team (Groysberg et al., 2011). More recently, management scholars proposed to focus on hierarchy as acyclicity (Bunderson et al., 2016), the extent to which influence cascades down the dyadic relations within the team, from individuals at the top of the hierarchy to individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy. I argue that it is important to know more about the consequences of the choice of the hierarchy conceptualization as either disparity or acyclicity (see Figure 1), and its associated measurements. Because different properties of status hierarchy have different effects on team functioning and performance (Bunderson et al., 2016), the choice of the conceptualization and measurement of hierarchy is bound to affect the study results. My first research question (RQ1) is therefore: what are the consequences of the choice of the conceptualization and measurement in studies on the impact of hierarchy? I will address this question in Chapters 2 and 5.
Figure 1: Disparity and Acyclicity.
Note. Taken from Harrison and Klein (2007) and Bunderson et al. (2016).
Research Question 2 - Functional group processes
The functionalist accounts see status hierarchy as organizational structures that direct attention to higher-ranking members and, in turn, strengthen coordination-enabling processes (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Halevy et al., 2011). The recent meta-analysis focused on the impact of hierarchy (Greer et al., 2018) directly challenges this view by finding an overall negative influence of hierarchy on coordination-enabling processes. I propose that this lack of support is partly the result of differences in impacts between types of functional group processes that have been studied as coordination-enabling processes. Based on the assumption that hierarchy produces its impact through upward status-based deference – that is, the tendency of individuals to give in more to the opinions, beliefs, and decisions of higher-status others – hierarchy is likely to have a negative impact on
learning-related processes because upward deference can lead to
disproportionate attention for the higher-status team members and neglect for insightful input from the lower-status members (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010). Conversely, status hierarchy is likely to contribute to efficiency-related processes, because the upward deference provides guidelines for smooth cooperation in which greater attention is paid to those that rank higher in the hierarchy (Halevy et al., 2011, 2012). To understand the impact of status hierarchy better, we should know more about the effect of status hierarchy on these different processes, which I denote by functional group processes. My second research question (RQ2) is therefore: how does the influence of status hierarchy vary across functional group processes? I will address this question in Chapters 2 and 3.
Research Question 3 – Upward status-based deference
Upward status-based deference is an efficiency-related process central to the functionalist accounts of status hierarchy (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Bunderson et al., 2016; Halevy et al., 2011). Even though upward status-based deference is an assumed key mechanism that transmits the impact of status hierarchy to team outcomes, very few studies have explicitly examined the impact of status hierarchy on upward status-based deference. Furthermore, scholars propose that some individuals rather defer to similar others than to higher-status others (Joshi & Knight, 2015). Given this insight and the lack of support for the functionalist accounts (Greer et al., 2018), upward status-based deference may have a different role in status hierarchy than purported. Possibly, there is little support for the functionalist accounts because status hierarchy does not encourage everyone to
defer to higher-status team members. Hence, knowing more about the
antecedents of upward status-based deference can help to understand the impact of hierarchy better. My third research question (RQ3) is therefore: when does upward status-based deference occur? Research questions 2 and 3 relate to each other in that RQ3 focuses on a functional group process (i.e. an efficiency-related processes) that is key to other functional group processes as well. I will address RQ3 in Chapters 3 and 4.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This dissertation comprises six chapters. In chapter two I reflect on the different conceptualizations of status hierarchy (RQ1). I argue that the convention of conceptualizing status hierarchy as either steepness or concentration is deficient because both conceptualizations address hierarchy features that affect team functioning (Bunderson et al., 2016; Greer et al., 2018). I demonstrate that combining status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy concentration into one measure can help to explain when and how status hierarchy affects team performance. To combine steepness and concentration, I introduce status hierarchy skewness as a measure for hierarchy concentration. By pointing out a shortcoming of the existing hierarchy concentration measures, I show that a new measure is needed.
Besides advancing status hierarchy conceptualizations and measures, I focus in this chapter on advancing the understanding of the relationship between status hierarchy and functional group processes (RQ2). Specifically, I propose that combining status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy skewness helps to
explain a learning-related process: information elaboration. Information
elaboration refers to the exchange, discussion, and integration of knowledge and perspectives (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) and is crucial for organizations because they rely on the extent to which team members combine their knowledge and perspectives (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009; Resick et al., 2014; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As outlined previously, I expect that status hierarchy can stifle information elaboration by motivating team members to defer frequently to a few high-status members, which may lead to the neglect of valuable insights from low-status members. I test the conceptual model (see Figure 2) in a survey study.
Figure 2: Conceptual model of Chapter 2 (grey boxes).
In chapter three I further uncover the relationship between status hierarchy and functional group processes (RQ2) by capturing status hierarchy as the interaction between status hierarchy steepness and status hierarchy skewness. In contrast to Chapter 2, where I focus on a learning-related process, the focus is on efficiency-related processes: coordination in a setting that requires efficiency and implicit coordination – that is, coordination in which individuals adapt to needs or demands without verbal communication (Rico et al., 2008). As outlined previously, I propose that status hierarchy contributes to efficiency-related processes by providing guidelines for smooth cooperation (Halevy et al., 2011, 2012). Beyond
testing the relationship between status hierarchy and efficiency-related processes, I examine to what extent upward status-based deference mediates the relationship between hierarchy and functional group processes (Halevy et al., 2011; Joshi & Knight, 2015). To provide both internal and external validity of our findings, I test our conceptual model (see Figure 3) in an experiment and a field study.
Figure 3: Conceptual model of Chapter 3 (grey boxes).
In chapter four, I subsequently deepen the understanding of upward status-based deference. I test to what degree personal differences moderate the relationship between partner status and deference to this person (RQ3). When personal characteristics vary between settings in such a way that, individuals are less likely to defer to higher status others in some settings, status hierarchy is less likely to benefit functional group processes through upward status-based deference in those settings. In chapter four, I focus on goal orientation and self-efficacy as moderators of the relationship between partner status and deference. My aim is to help explain the inconsistent impact of status hierarchy on functional group processes (Greer et al., 2018). The conceptual model (see Figure 4) will be tested in an experiment.
Figure 4: Conceptual model of Chapter 4 (grey boxes).
Chapter five compares the hierarchy conceptualization I focus on in this dissertation (i.e. disparity) with a different hierarchy conceptualization (i.e. acyclicity) that is receiving increasing attention in the recent hierarchy literature (RQ1). From a disparity perspective, hierarchy is greater when its shape resembles a pyramid ( ) more (Harrison & Klein, 2007), whereas from a acyclicity perspective, hierarchy is greater when influence cascades down the dyadic relations within the hierarchy, from individuals at the top of the hierarchy to individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy. While comparing these hierarchy conceptualizations, I test the statistical relationship between measures of disparity and acyclicity using both survey data and simulation data (see Figure 5). This chapter contributes to the hierarchy literature by facilitating informed decision-making about how to
conceptualize and operationalize hierarchy. Informed decision-making reduces mistaken research conclusions caused by misfits between operationalizations and conceptualizations (Harrison & Klein, 2007). The tests of the statistical relationship between measures of disparity and acyclicity provide a null hypothesis against which researchers can compare their findings (Krackhardt, 1994). This comparison helps to assess to which degree study findings may be caused by a chance process. A null-hypothesis suggesting a weaker statistical relationship would imply that the operationalizations of disparity and acyclicity are more distinct, hence that studies on disparity and acyclicity are more likely to produce different outcomes.
Figure 5: Focus of Chapter 5 (grey box).
In chapter six, I summarize the study findings and reflect on the extent to which Chapters 2 to 5 help to answer the research questions. As part of this reflection, I discuss the theoretical implications of my work, elaborate on the limitations of the studies, and suggest promising avenues for further examination of the impact of status hierarchy. An important theme in Chapter 6 is measurement validity and construct validity, which will be introduced in detail next.
VALIDITY MATTERS
Throughout this dissertation, I deal with a number of validity issues – which I call matters, because they are issues that matter in how I conduct my studies and interpret my findings. Two of these types are particularly relevant to my studies: measurement validity matters, which are issues about the degree to which the measurements measure what they intend to measure, and construct validity matters, which are issues about the meaning of the constructs in their nomological networks of related constructs (Borsboom et al., 2004). In Chapters 2 to 5, I address several validity matters to answer my research questions. For example, Chapter 2 addresses issues with the measurement of hierarchy, Chapter 3 deals with constructs of efficiency-related processes, Chapter 4 addresses the meaning of upward status-based deference, and Chapter 5 reflects on the clarity of hierarchy constructs. In this part of the introduction, I present the broader perspective on validity from which I perform the studies and ultimately answer the research questions. For both types of validity, I first describe the focal measures and concepts, and secondly summarize the measurements and concepts applied by other researchers. Finally, I will discuss the possible consequences of the choice of concepts and measurements. My goal is to point out that, even within the focal measures and concepts of my studies, there is a wide variety of concepts and measurements that are likely to have implications for the consistency of what we know about status hierarchy and its impact. My choice for concepts and measures will have consequences for the findings of my studies, as I will reflect on in the discussion chapter.
Measurement validity matters
Across my dissertation, I try to measure three main concepts: status hierarchy, functional group processes, and upward status-based deference. The measurement of these concepts is challenging because concepts like these rarely permit direct observation. When concepts do not permit direct observation (and the aim of a study is to test a theory), scholars need to estimate its presence using indicators they think are most appropriate (Flake et al., 2017; Fried & Flake, 2018). Based on the chosen measures, scholars often examine how well data fits theory. When the data does (not) fit the theory, such as for the functionalist accounts, a convention is to reject or revise the theory (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007; Fetterman, 1989). Although theories are built through iterations of rejections and revisions, a reason for misfit between data and theory could be a misfit between the
measurement and the focal concept (Fried & Flake, 2018; Harrison & Klein, 2007). Such misfits, in turn, could result from limitations of the conceptualization (Flake & Fried, 2019). Before rejecting and revising a theory, it is thus crucial to be aware of the validity of the chosen measurements.
To measure the concepts of status hierarchy, functional group processes, and upward status-based deference, scholars have used various indicators across various settings (see Table 1). To measure status hierarchy, scholars have been using different indicators for both status (cf. Cheng et al., 2014) and hierarchy (Bunderson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2016). Status has been measured using self and other-rated survey data on esteem, prestige, and respect (Bendersky & Shah, 2013), field data focused on perceived leadership behavior (Kilduff et al., 2016), and archival data combining proxies such as income, experience, awards, and
celebrity reputation (Christie & Barling, 2010). The concept of hierarchy has been measured using indicators ranging from the standard deviation in the socially valued resources of team members (Halevy et al., 2012) to the (Gini) inequality in the frequency distribution of these resources (Christie & Barling, 2010; He & Huang, 2011). For measuring the concept of functional group processes, scholars have used various measures, even within sub-concepts such as coordination – the alignment of actions, knowledge, and objectives of interdependent members (Rico et al., 2008). Coordination (enabling processes) is measured using vignette data on the degree to which individuals intent to meet at a similar location (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010), survey data on the degree to which team members attribute decisions to a CEO (Boone & Hendriks, 2009), and archival data on coordination of basketball efforts such as passing (Halevy et al., 2012). Likewise, scholars have used different indicators across and within different
conceptualizations of deference. To measure instrumental deference, scholars have focused on experimental data about the extent to which members change their first answers to problems to the answers of a higher-ranked peer (Driskell & Salas, 1991) and on self-reported survey data on the extent to which members show behavior such as going along with the recommendations of others (Joshi & Knight, 2015).
Table 1: Examples illustrating the large variety in hierarchy-related measures.
Concept Measurements
Status - self and other-rated survey data on esteem, prestige, and
respect (Bendersky & Shah, 2013);
- field data focused on perceived leadership behavior (Kilduff
et al., 2016);
- archival data combining proxies such as income, experience,
awards, and celebrity reputation (Christie & Barling, 2010).
Hierarchy - standard deviation in the socially valued resources of team
members (Halevy et al., 2012);
- (Gini) inequality in the frequency distribution of valued
resources (Christie & Barling, 2010; He & Huang, 2011). Coordination,
as example of functional group processes
- vignette data on the degree to which people intent to meet at
a similar location (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010);
- survey data on the degree to which members attribute
decisions to a CEO (Boone & Hendriks, 2009);
- archival data on the degree to which members coordinate
basketball efforts such as passing (Halevy et al., 2012). Instrumental
deference, as example of deference
- experimental data on the extent to which members change
their initial problem solutions to problem solutions of higher-ranked peers (Driskell & Salas, 1991);
- self-reported survey data on the extent to which members
comply with recommendations (Joshi & Knight, 2015).
The status hierarchy literature is not unique in the application of a large variety of measurements to concepts. In the management literature, many concepts are contextually sensitive – that is, some dimensions of a concept have more meaning in some situations than in others (Suddably, 2010). This contextual sensitivity sometimes results in scholars adapting their measurements to the dimensions of a concept that are more relevant to their study contexts (Suddably, 2010). For example, in Chapter 3 of this dissertation, I measure an efficiency-related process as the turnout time of fire station teams, for which dispatching speed is a crucial performance indicator. The insights that stem from the subsequent measurement variety should result into theory that is clear about the contextual dependence of concepts (Suddably, 2010). Analogously, the theory should inspire the choice of measurements, by describing the contextual sensitivity of concepts (Suddably, 2010). In that sense, measurement variety is an opportunity for (and a result of) theory development.
Studies on status have shown that characteristics that closely relate to status in one setting can relate weakly (or negatively) to status in a different setting (Li et al., 2016). For example, an inconsistent indicator of status is speaking time. More speaking time is associated with higher status in high-coordination groups, but associated with lower status in groups that need little coordination (Fragale, 2006). Furthermore, extraverted people sometimes lose status during a social
relationship (Bendersky & Shah, 2013). Such insights about contextual sensitivity imply that the validity of the measurement of status (through speaking time) could change across contexts. Moreover, such insights might inaccurately challenge the theory about the stability of the role of high-status persons.
The hierarchy literature describes that the congruence between status hierarchy and power hierarchy is important. For example, when powerful individuals have less status, hierarchy leads to more conflict (Blader et al., 2016; Blader & Chen, 2012; Hays & Bendersky, 2015), and thus less functional group processes. This (theoretical) insight has important implications for the measurement of status. Some measurements of status relate to other types of hierarchical differentiation as well (Blader et al., 2016; Blader & Chen, 2012; Hays & Bendersky, 2015). When such proxy measures are – in that context – not the most important predictor of status (i.e. prestige, esteem, and respect), but are a strong predictor of power (i.e. control of resources), the study might yield more negative hierarchy outputs. In this example, the theory should inspire the choice of measurement.
Regarding the measurement of functional group processes, I observe a similar connection between theory and measurement. In this dissertation, I argue for an influence of status hierarchy on learning-related processes and efficiency-related processes. In testing my hypotheses, I focus on contexts in which learning and efficiency are important. In contexts where learning and efficiency are less important, studies may yield different outcomes.
In studying upward status-based deference, similar measures might result in different outcomes across study settings. In experiments, individuals possibly miss the interaction to get to know other’s opinions, beliefs, and decisions, which is crucial for deference (that is, yielding to other’s opinions, beliefs, and decisions). In field settings where there is greater political pressure, people may experience a stronger need to defer to others in order to avoid repercussions. Hence, the
influence of status hierarchy on upward status-based deference might depend on the degree to which people know each other and by political pressures.
Construct validity matters
In my dissertation, I study three concepts specifically. First, I study functional group processes, which are processes that the functionalist accounts propose as a result of hierarchy, such as collective decision making, collective action, and coordination (Anderson & Willer, 2014). To understand the relationship between status hierarchy and functional group processes better, I study deference, “yielding to one another’s opinions, beliefs, and decisions” (Joshi & Knight, 2015, p. 59), which the functionalist accounts posit as the key mechanism through which hierarchy affects functionalist outcomes such as coordination (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006; Halevy et al., 2011). The most central concept I focus in this dissertation is status hierarchy.
Scholars have conceptualized status hierarchy, functional group processes, and deference in various ways. As I previously described, scholars have conceived status hierarchy in different ways. Similarly, status itself can be conceived in different ways. Some relate status more to prestige (i.e. instrumental worth), whereas others relate it more to respect (i.e. social worth) (Blader & Yu, 2017; Cheng et al., 2013). In conceptualizations of functional group processes, scholars have focused on different aspects and processes as well. Across status hierarchy studies, two extremes are physical efficiency (e.g., Bloom, 1999; Halevy et al., 2012) and knowledge integration (e.g., Gajendran, 2009; Woolley et al., 2008). These extremes fit well to what I conceptualize as respectively efficiency-related
processes and learning-related processes. In studies that theorize about (upwards status-based) deference, scholars have focused on the tendency of low-status individuals to agree with their ranks in the hierarchy (Anderson et al., 2012), the tendency to go along with others to improve performance (Joshi & Knight, 2015), and the tendency to go along with others to improve performance to deal with political pressures (Colburn, 2011; Joshi & Knight, 2015).
As a consequence, different study results have been found for different status hierarchy conceptualizations. The results differed depending on the extent to which the concept of status hierarchy refers to (1) prestige and (2) esteem and respect. Status is often conceptualized as prestige, esteem and respect (Bendersky & Shah, 2013). However, (1) prestige and (2) esteem and respect have two distinct lines of scholarly research that differ in the outcomes they have focused on (Blader & Yu, 2017). Scholars who conceptualize status as prestige have been less focused on the functional effects of status, but more focused on the impact on
belongingness needs and relational satisfaction (Blader & Yu, 2017). In contrast, scholars who conceptualize status as esteem and respect have been more focused on functional effects, in which adding value to the team is seen as a way for individuals to achieve esteem and respect (Blader & Yu, 2017). The differences in the outcomes studied may be one reason for the different results. However, it is important to note the concept of status when conceptualizing status hierarchy because it may affect study findings.
Different effects can also be expected for different conceptualizations of functional group processes. If functional group processes are more conceived as tasks that require efficiency, I expect a more positive impact of status hierarchy
because scholars argue that hierarchy creates predictable interactions and division of labor, which can be functional if teams need efficiency (Halevy et al., 2011). In contrast, if the conceptualization of functional group processes are more conceived as tasks for with learning is important, I expect a more negative impact of status hierarchy because scholars argue that hierarchy shifts the focus of team members to a subset of the group, the high-status individuals, which can be dysfunctional because it might cause a neglect of valuable input from low-status individuals (Bunderson, 2003; Bunderson & Reagans, 2011).
For the conceptualization of upward status-based deference, Joshi and Knight provided a valuable suggestion (2015). They suggested that deference conceptualized as yielding to others to improve performance results in functional group processes such as coordination, while deference conceptualized as yielding to others to mitigate political pressures results in negative outcomes (Joshi & Knight, 2015). I propose that deference conceptualized as yielding to others to improve performance can cause negative outcomes as well, if the
conceptualization of deference to others includes deference to others that provide low-quality input.
C H A PT ER 1 30 Ta b le 2 : O ve rv ie w o f v al id ity m at te rs in s tu d yi ng th e im p ac t o f s ta tu s hi er ar ch y. C o n st ru ct v al id it y m at te rs M ea su re m en t va lid it y m at te rs St at us hi er ar ch y - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e co nc ep tu al iz at io n o f hi er ar ch y b as is s ta tu s. W he n st at us r el at es m o re to p re st ig e, in d iv id ua ls fo cu s m or e on te am g oa ls , w he n st at us o ve rl ap s m or e w ith re sp ec t ( B la d er & Y u, 2 01 7) , in d iv id ua ls fo cu s m o re o n in d iv id ua lis tic g o al s (S le eb os et a l., 2 00 6) . - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e co nc ep tu al iz at io n o f hi er ar ch y. H ie ra rc hy a s d is p ar ity is m or e re la te d to d ys fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es th an h ie ra rc hy a s ac yc lic ity (B un d er so n et a l., 2 01 6) . - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e sh ap e o f a h ie ra rc hy (Y u et a l., 2 01 9) . A to o la rg e d is ta nc e b et w ee n to p a nd b o tt o m re su lts in d ys fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es . - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e p re se nc e o f p o w er hi er ar ch y, n ex t t o a st at us h ie ra rc hy . W he n lo w -s ta tu s in d iv id ua ls h av e m o re p o w er , h ie ra rc hy re su lts in m o re d ys fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es (H ay s & B en d er sk y, 20 15 ). - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e ch o se n hi er ar ch y m ea su re (B un d er so n et a l., 2 01 6; W ei e t a l., 2 01 6) . M os co m m on m ea su re s ar e b et te r s ui ta b le to p ro vi d e su p p or t f or th e cr iti ca l a cc ou nt s. - S o m e st at us m ea su re m en ts a ls o re la te to o th er ty p es hi er ar ch ic al d iff er en tia tio n as w el l ( B la d er e t a l., 2 01 6; B la d er & C he n, 2 01 2; H ay s & B en d er sk y, 2 01 5) , w hi ch m ay a ls o af fe ct th e te am fu nc tio ni ng . IN TR O D U C TI O 31 Fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e co nc ep tu al iz at io n o f fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es a nd s tu d y se tt in g . H ie ra rc hy is li ke ly to h am p er le ar ni ng -r el at ed p ro ce ss es (B un d er so n & B ou m g ar d en , 2 01 0) , b ut b en ef it in ef fic ie nc y-re la te d p ro ce ss es (H al ev y et a l., 2 01 1) . - U nc le ar h o w th e st ud y se tt in g a ffe ct s th e re la tio ns hi p b et w ee n st at us h ie ra rc hy a nd fu nc tio na l g ro up p ro ce ss es . P o ss ib ly , t he in flu en ce o f s ta tu s hi er ar ch y o ef fic ie nc y-re la te d p ro ce ss es a nd le ar ni ng -r el at ed p ro ce ss es is s tr on g er a cr o ss s et tin g s fo cu se d o n re sp ec tiv el y ef fic ie nc y an d le ar ni ng . U p w ar d st at us -b as ed d ef er en ce - D iff er en t o ut co m es b as ed o n th e co nc ep tu al iz at io n o f d ef er en ce . D ef er en ce is fu nc tio na l w he n it is in te nd ed to in cr ea se p er fo rm an ce , b ut d ys fu nc tio na l w he n it is ca us ed b y p ol iti ca l p re ss ur es (J o sh i & K ni g ht , 2 01 5) . - D iff er en t i m p ac t o f s ta tu s hi er ar ch y o n up w ar d s ta tu s-b as ed d ef er en ce . I nd iv id ua ls d o n o t a lw ay s d ef er to hi g h-st at us te am m em b er s (J o sh i & K ni g ht , 2 01 5) . - U nc le ar h o w c om p ar ab le d iff er en t d ef er en ce m ea su ar e. D ef er en ce fo cu se d o n ut ili zi ng in fo rm at io n, fo r ex am p le , h as b ee n m ea su re d a s th e ex te nt to w hi ch m em b er s ch an g e th ei r f irs t a ns w er s to th e an sw er s of a hi g he r-ra nk ed m em b er (D ri sk el l & S al as , 1 99 1) a nd a s th e ex te nt to w hi ch m em b er s g o al on g w ith a no th er ’s re co m m en d at io n (J o sh i & K ni g ht , 2 01 5) . - U p w ar d s ta tu s-b as ed d ef er en ce m ig ht d ep en d o n ho o fte n m em b er s in te ra ct a nd b y p ol iti ca l p re ss ur es .
