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:
THE IMPACT OF
STATUS HIERARCHY
ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR
AND TEAM PROCESSES
BRIAN M. DOORNENBAL
AMSTERDAM IN SCIENCE, BUSINESS AND SOCIETY ABRI
AMSTERDAM BUSINESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE WWW.ABRI.VU.NL
THE IMPACT OF
STATUS HIERARCHY
ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR
AND TEAM PROCESSES
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. This dissertation examines the impact of status hierarchy on individual behavior and team processes. Across six chapters, this dissertation demonstrates the
conse-quences of the choice of the conceptualization and measurement of hierarchy, shows how the influence of status hierarchy varies across functional group processes, and explains when upward status-based
deference occurs. About the author
Brian M. Doornenbal (1987) has conducted his Ph.D. studies at the School of Business and Econo-mics at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Prior to his Ph.D. project, Brian obtained his Master of
Science degree in Business Administration from RSM Erasmus University. His research inte-rests include social hierarchies, teamwork, personality, machine learning, and leadership.
Brian presented his work at several international conferences, including Academy of Ma-nagement, EAWOP, and INGroup. His research has been published in The Leadership
Quarterly. ISBN 978-90-361-0634-4 THE IMP AC T OF ST ATUS HIERARCHY ON INDIVIDUAL BEHA VIOR AND TEAM PROCES SES 56 BRIAN M . DOORNENBAL
THE IMPACT OF STATUS HIERARCHY
ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR AND TEAM PROCESSES
Reading Committee Prof. dr. W. Stam Prof. dr. B. Beersma Dr. L.L. Greer Dr. G.J. Kilduff Dr. H. Van Dijk Dr. M. Shemla Cover painting Edvard Munch (1863 - 1944)
The Human Mountain: Towards the Light, 1927-1929 Oil on unprimed canvas, 300 x 420 cm
Munch Museum, Oslo, Norway CC BY 4.0 Munchmuseet
This book is number 56 in the ABRI Dissertation Series. Printed by HAVEKA
ISBN: 978-90-361-0634-4
© Brian M. Doornenbal, 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, included a complete or partial transcription, without the prior written permission of the author.
VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT
THE IMPACT OF STATUS HIERARCHY
ON INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR AND TEAM PROCESSES
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. V. Subramaniam, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de School of Business and Economics op donderdag 7 januari 2021 om 13.45 uur
in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105
door
Brian Michael Doornenbal geboren te Gendt
promotor: prof.dr. P.G.W. Jansen
copromotoren: dr. A. Nederveen Pieterse
dr. B.A. De Jong dr. C.J. Vinkenburg
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ... 10
Research Question 1 - Status hierarchy ... 13
Research Question 2 - Functional group processes ... 14
Research Question 3 – Upward status-based deference ... 15
Chapter overview ... 16
Validity matters ... 21
Measurement validity matters ... 22
Construct validity matters ... 27
CHAPTER 2 – STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS ... 33
Abstract ... 34
Introduction ... 35
Theory ... 37
Status hierarchies ... 37
Status hierarchy as the combination of steepness and skewness... 38
Towards a conceptual model of the impact of status hierarchy ... 41
The joint impact of hierarchy steepness and skewness on information elaboration ... 42
Information elaboration and team performance ... 44
Methods ... 45
Results ... 51
Discussion ... 55
Implications for the hierarchy literature ... 56
Practical Implications ... 59
Limitations and Future Research Directions ... 60
Conclusion ... 62
CHAPTER 3 – WHEN AND WHY DOES HIEARARCHY AFFECT TEAM COORDINATION ... 65
Abstract ... 66
Introduction ... 67
Status hierarchy in teams ... 71
Integrating two hierarchy properties in predicting coordination ... 74
Methods Study 1 ... 77 Results Study 1 ... 81 Discussion Study 1 ... 86 Study 2 ... 87 Methods Study 2 ... 90 Results Study 2 ... 97 Discussion Study 2 ... 101 General discussion ... 103 Theoretical implications ... 105 Practical implications ... 107
Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 108
Conclusion ... 110
CHAPTER 4 – DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS ... 111
Abstract ... 112
Introduction ... 113
Theory ... 116
Deference ... 116
Upward status-based deference and goal orientation... 118
The moderating influence of self-efficacy ... 122
Method ... 124
Results ... 129
Discussion ... 134
Theoretical implications ... 134
Practical implications ... 138
Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 139
Conclusion ... 141
CHAPTER 5 – OPERATIONALIZING HIERARCHIES ... 143
Abstract ... 144
Introduction ... 145
Conceptualizing and operationalizing hierarchy ... 150
Conceptualizing hierarchy as disparity or acyclicity ... 151
From conceptualization to operationalization ... 154
Empirical examination ... 158 Results ... 161 Simulation studies ... 164 Results ... 171 Research Question 1 ... 171 Research Question 2 ... 177 Conclusion ... 184
CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION ... 188
Summary of the main findings ... 191
Research Question 1 ... 194
Research Question 2 ... 197
Research Question 3 ... 199
Theoretical implications, validity issues, and future research ... 201
Research Question 1 ... 202 Research Question 2 ... 206 Research Question 3 ... 209 Managerial implications ... 212 SUMMARY ... 218 DUTCH SUMMARY ... 226 REFERENCES ... 234 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 256
CHAPTER 1
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
INTRODUCTION
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.
CHAPTER 1
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
INTRODUCTION 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
CHAPTER 1
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.
INTRODUCTION
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.
CHAPTER 1
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
INTRODUCTION
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.
CHAPTER 1
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
INTRODUCTION
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.
CHAPTER 1 Tabl 30 e 2 : Overvie w of val idity m att ers in s tud ying the im p act of s ta tus h iera rc hy. C onstruc t va lid ity matter s M eas u rem ent v al id it y m at ters St at us hiera rch y - Di ff ere nt outcomes b as ed on the conce p tu aliz at ion of hiera rch y b as is s tatu s. Wh en s ta tu s rel at es m ore to p res tige , indiv id ua ls focus m ore on te am g oa ls , w hen st at us overl ap s m ore w ith res p ect (B la d er & Yu, 2 017) , indiv id ua ls focus m or e o n indiv id ua lis tic go als (S le ebos et a l., 2006) . - Di ff ere nt outcomes b as ed on the conce p tu aliz at ion of hiera rch y. H iera rc hy a s d is p arit y is m ore rel at ed t o d ysf unctiona l g roup p roce ss es th an h iera rch y as acyclicit y (B unders on e t a l., 2016) . - Di ff ere nt outcomes b as ed on the s ha p e o f a h iera rc hy (Yu et a l., 2019) . A t oo la rge d is ta nc e betw ee n top a nd b ott om res ults in dy sf unctiona l g roup p roce ss es . - Di ff ere nt outcome s b as ed on the p res en ce of p ow er hiera rch y, ne xt to a s ta tus h iera rch y. W hen lo w -st at us indiv id ua ls h ave m ore p ow er, h iera rch y res ults in m ore d ysf unctiona l g roup p roce ss es (Hays & B en d ers ky, 2015) . - Di ff ere nt outcomes b as ed on the ch os en h iera rch y m ea sur e (B unders on et a l., 2016; W ei e t a l., 20 16) . M os t com m on m ea sure s a re bett er s uitable to p rovid e sup p ort f or th e critica l a ccounts . - S om e s ta tu s m ea sur em en ts a ls o re la te to othe r t yp es of hiera rch ic al dif fere ntiation a s w el l (B la d er e t a l., 2016; B la d er & Ch en , 2012; Hays & B en d ers ky, 20 15) , w hich m ay al so a ff ect t he tea m functioning . IN TROD UCTION 31 Fun ct iona l gro up p roce ss es - Di ff ere nt outco m es b as ed on the conce p tu aliz at ion of functiona l g roup p roce ss es a nd stud y se tt in g. Hiera rch y is like ly t o h am p er l ea rning -rel at ed p roce ss es (B unders on & B oum g arden, 2010) , b ut b en ef it in ef ficien cy -rel at ed p roc es se s (Hal evy et al ., 20 11) . - Uncl ea r h ow th e s tud y sett ing a ff ects th e re la tions hip b etw ee n s ta tus h iera rch y an d functiona l g ro up p roce ss es . Po ss ib ly, th e in flue nce of s ta tus h iera rch y on ef ficien cy -rel at ed p roc es se s a nd le arning -rel at ed p roce ss es is s trong er acros s sett ing s f ocus ed on res p ectively ef ficie ncy a nd lea rning . Up w ard st at us -b ase d d ef ere nce - Di ff ere nt outcomes b as ed on the conce p tu aliz at ion of d ef ere nce . D ef ere nce is functiona l whe n it is intended t o incre as e p erf orm anc e, but d ysf unctiona l whe n it is ca us ed b y p ol itica l p res sure s (Jo sh i & Knigh t, 2015) . - Di ff ere nt imp act o f s ta tus h ier arch y on up w ard st at us -b as ed d ef ere nce . Indiv id ua ls d o not a lways d ef er to high -s ta tu s te am m em be rs (Jo sh i & Knigh t, 2 015) . - Uncl ea r h ow com p ar ab le d iff ere nt d ef ere nce m ea sure s are. Def ere nce focus ed on utiliz ing inf orm at ion, f or ex am p le , h as b ee n m ea sure d a s t he e xt en t t o w hich m em b ers ch ang e the ir f irs t a ns w ers to the a ns w ers of a high er -ra nk ed me m b er (Driske ll & S al as , 19 91) a nd as th e e xt en t t o w hich m em b ers go a lo ng w ith a nothe r’s reco m m en d at ion (Jo sh i & Knigh t, 2015) . - Up w ard s ta tus -b as ed d ef ere nce m igh t d ep en d on h ow of ten m em b ers intera ct a nd b y p ol itica l p re ss ure s.
CHAPTER 2
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS:
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN STEEPNESS AND SKEWNESS
The following chapter demonstrates that pyramid-shaped hierarchy, shaped such as in the painting below by Edvard Munch, inhibits team performance by reducing information elaboration – the exchange, discussion, and integration of information. Pyramid-shaped hierarchies have more people at the bottom of the pyramid than at the top. We propose to combine two hierarchy measurements to compute pyramid-shaped hierarchy.
Munch, E. (1927-1929). The Human Mountain: Towards the Light [Oil on unprimed canvas]. Munch Museum, Oslo, Norway. Munchmuseet (8-30-2005). Retrieved
from:
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS:
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN STEEPNESS AND SKEWNESS
ABSTRACT
Understanding the impact of status hierarchy can help to improve the performance of teams. Scholars proposed to increase the understanding of the status hierarchy – team performance relationship by reconsidering the
conceptualization and measurement of hierarchy, and by unraveling mediators that explain how status hierarchy affects teams. In this chapter, we advance the conceptualization and measurement of status hierarchy and show that this advancement helps to understand team processes and – in turn – team
performance. Our findings suggest that the impact of hierarchy depends on the shape of the hierarchy. We find that pyramid-shaped hierarchy (▲) inhibit team performance by reducing information elaboration. In reconsidering the
conceptualization and measurement of hierarchy, we introduce status hierarchy
skewness as a measure for hierarchy concentration. Hierarchy skewness overcomes
a shortcoming of existing hierarchy concentration measures. Ultimately, this chapter advances the understanding of when and how status hierarchy affects team performance.
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS INTRODUCTION
A key feature in organizations is status – that is, the esteem, prestige, and respect held by individuals (Anderson et al., 2006). Status affects the behavior of individuals (Anderson et al., 2015). Moreover, the distribution of status in teams affects team processes and outcomes (Halevy et al., 2011; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The hierarchy literature, which conceives the distribution of status as status hierarchy, demonstrated that status hierarchy emerges naturally and is ubiquitous to teams (Berger et al., 1972, 1977; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Almost every team thus has a status hierarchy that affects the functioning of the team.
Although a large part of the hierarchy literature argues that status hierarchy has a positive impact on team processes (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Halevy et al., 2011), most empirical evidence suggests that status hierarchy has a negative
impact (Greer et al., 2018). Scholars argue that the impact of status hierarchy might depend on contingencies and hurt some team processes more than others
(Bunderson et al., 2016; Greer et al., 2018). However, it is still unclear when and
how status hierarchy affects team performance (cf. Anderson & Brown, 2010;
Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Cantimur, & Rink, 2015). This lack of clarity is problematic because it restricts our understanding of how to deal with status hierarchy in teams.
To advance the understanding of the relationship between status hierarchy and team performance, scholars proposed to reconsider the way in which
hierarchy is conceptualized and measured (Bunderson et al., 2016). Status
hierarchy is often conceived as disparity, a conceptualization in which the largest hierarchy has one team member with a maximum level of status while the rest of
the team has a minimum level of status (Harrison & Klein, 2007). However, studies often measure a single hierarchy property (Bunderson et al., 2016; Greer et al., 2018), mostly either how widely status levels are distributed (i.e. hierarchy steepness) or how asymmetrically status levels are distributed (i.e. hierarchy
concentration). Often applied measurements of status hierarchy might thus yield in an incomplete understanding of the impact of status hierarchy. In reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of hierarchy, scholars recommend to examine mediators that transmit the impact of hierarchy to team performance (Bunderson et al., 2015). Examining these mediators provides insight into the mechanisms through which status hierarchy affects teams (cf. Anderson & Brown, 2010; Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Cantimur, & Rink, 2015).
Building on these research recommendations, the aim of this chapter is to clarify when and how status hierarchy relates to team performance. First, we intend to clarify when status hierarchy affects team performance by reconsidering the conceptualizations and measurements of hierarchy. More specifically, we show that the conventional focus on either hierarchy steepness or hierarchy concentration should be moved towards focusing on the combination of these properties. Focusing on this combination is needed because it can help to measure the
concept of disparity. While combining steepness and concentration, we introduce hierarchy skewness as a hierarchy concentration measure that overcomes some shortcomings of conventional concentration measures (e.g. Gini-coefficient). Second, we advance the understanding of how status hierarchy relates to team performance by examining the mediator information elaboration – that is, the exchange, discussion, and integration of individuals’ input (Van Knippenberg et al.,
2004). Although the domains of information elaboration (i.e. exchange, discussion, and integration) are theorized to transmit the impact of hierarchy to team
performance, little empirical evidence exists for this indirect relationship
(Bunderson et al., 2015). A better understanding of the impact of status hierarchy on information elaboration is important because a free flow of information is vital to the success of teams in modern organizations – mostly knowledge intensive teams performing non-routine tasks (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009; Resick et al., 2014; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The conceptual model (see Figure 1) is tested on the basis of multi-source data obtained from 127 student teams.
Figure 1: Conceptual model.
THEORY Status hierarchies
Individuals ascribe status to each other (Anderson et al., 2015). More status is ascribed to those who are perceived to have more instrumental social value (Anderson et al., 2015), regardless of whether they actually possess it (Correll & Ridgeway, 2006). Because individuals naturally ascribe each other status, status hierarchies emerge naturally and are ubiquitous to teams (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). A well-established stream of literature has shown that status hierarchy affect
CHAPTER 2
individuals (cf. Anderson et al., 2015). Beyond the effects on individuals, status hierarchy is important for the functioning of teams (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
Status hierarchy is important for team functioning as it affects the use of team resources (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Halevy et al., 2011). More specifically, status hierarchy results in more attention for higher-status individuals (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Bunderson et al., 2016) – those who are perceived to have more instrumental social value (Anderson et al., 2015). Scholars argue that that a maximum hierarchy has one team member with a maximum level of status while the rest of the team has a minimum level of status (Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Individuals have – on average – the greatest status disadvantage in such teams with maximum disparity (Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Status hierarchy as the combination of steepness and skewness
Although scholars elaborately proposed a concept of hierarchy (as
disparity), often applied hierarchy measures are deficient in measuring the concept of disparity. Disparity is conceived as “differences in concentration of valued social assets or resources such as pay and status among unit members – vertical
differences that, at their extreme, privilege a few over many.” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1200) Disparity is greater when the distribution of valued social assets or resources is positively skewed, with one member at highest endpoint of the continuum of the valued social assets or resources and others at lowest (see configuration at the top right of Figure 2). Hierarchy measurements typically focus on either hierarchy steepness – that is, how widely status levels are distributed
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS
among team members (Anderson & Brown, 2010) – or hierarchy concentration – that is, how asymmetrically status levels are distributed among team members (Bunderson et al., 2016). Steepness and concentration measurements are incomplete measurements of the concept of disparity, at least on their own. Hierarchy steepness, which focuses on the average difference in status held by individuals, is greater when the gap between low-status positions and high-status positions is larger (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Steepness thus neglects the portion of low-status team member. Hierarchy concentration, which focuses on the extent to which status is asymmetrically distributed within the team, is greater when the concentration is located at the bottom of the hierarchy – when there are more low-status team members (Bunderson et al., 2016). Concentration thus neglects the degree to which low-status individuals are disadvantaged in status.
In addition to the shortcoming overlap between the concept and
measurement of hierarchy, conventional hierarchy concentration measurements have an important shortcoming. As shown in Table 1, conventional concentration measures (i.e. the Gini-coefficient and the Freeman-coefficient) do not accurately account for the location of concentration. The concentration can be at the top of a hierarchy (i.e. hierarchies shaped like inverted pyramids ▼), when there are more high-status team members, or at the bottom, when there are more low-status team members (i.e. pyramid-shaped hierarchies ▲). Unless concentration is at its
maximum value (Dawson, 2011), a higher value according to conventional
concentration indices does not suggest that the hierarchy is more concentrated at the bottom. In view of this deficiency, we introduce hierarchy skewness as
bottom of the hierarchy, whereas a more negative skewness suggests a concentration at the top. In contrast to conventional concentration measures (Bunderson et al., 2016), skewness is statistically distinct from steepness. More specifically, teams can have a different skewness while being similar in steepness, and can have a different steepness while being identical in skewness (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Status hierarchy configurations.
Note. Hierarchy concentration measured as hierarchy skewness. A larger
concentration is depicted by a more positive skewness. The numbers in the circles denote individual’s status level.
To measure the concept of disparity, we propose a combination of
steepness and skewness measurements. As illustrated in Figure 2, hierarchies with an identical level of steepness can vary considerably in their skewness, ranging from high status positions held by a small team subset (i.e. positive skewness), by half of the team (i.e. no skewness), or by the majority of the team members (i.e. negative skewness). Likewise, hierarchies with an identical skewness can vary
considerably in their steepness, ranging from a small status gap (i.e. low
steepness) between low-status team members and high-status team members to a wide status gap (i.e. high steepness) between them. However, the combination of steepness and skewness suggests the degree of the status differences among individuals and the extent to which a smaller part of the team holds most of the status. Therefore, the combination of steepness and concentration measurements can help to measure the concept of disparity. Specifically, greater disparity has a larger steepness and a more positive skewness.
Towards a conceptual model of the impact of status hierarchy
Examining the combination of different hierarchy properties is in line with previous efforts. Scholars have studied contextual moderators of the impact of hierarchy, such as team size (Greer et al., 2018), task interdependence (Ronay et al., 2012), and task complexity (Bunderson et al., 2016). More recently, scholars have studied the extent to which characteristics of hierarchy themselves can interact to predict team performance (Anicich et al., 2016). Instead of focusing on combining different hierarchical bases (i.e. power hierarchy and status hierarchy), we focus on combining different hierarchy measurements.
In studying the impact of the combination of steepness and skewness, we focus on the effect on team performance through information elaboration.
Previously, studies demonstrated that the impact of hierarchy is mediated through processes such as conflict and coordination (Anderson & Willer, 2014; Bunderson et al., 2016). In different studies, scholars argued that the separate domains of information elaboration – i.e. the exchange (Bunderson et al., 2016), the
CHAPTER 2
discussion, and the integration of information (Greer et al., 2018) – mediate the influence of status hierarchy on team performance. Consistent with these
suggestions, we will subsequently introduce information elaboration as a mediator that transmits the impact of the combination between steepness and skewness on performance.
In previous efforts to increase the understanding of the relationship between status hierarchy and team performance, studies have identified
moderators and mediators separately. These studies suggest that moderators and mediators explain when and how status hierarchy affects team performance. In this chapter, we examine when and how status hierarchy affects team performance using a moderated mediated model. Within this model, we expand on the moderators and mediators that have been studied thus far.
The joint impact of hierarchy steepness and skewness on information elaboration
We propose that the interaction between steepness and skewness affects teams through information elaboration. Previous research demonstrates that lower-status team members are getting less speaking time during the exchange of information (Bales et al., 1951) and that their input both receives less attention during team discussions (Buzaglo & Wheelan, 1999) and is less often utilized in the
integration of information (Anderson & Kennedy, 2012; Wittenbaum & Bowman,
2005). When the steepness is greater and the hierarchy is more positively skewed (i.e. pyramid-shaped ▲), teams have more low-status members who are more disadvantaged in status. If lower-status members are more ignored during team
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS
processes, less information elaboration can be expected when the hierarchy is greater.
Less information elaboration can be expected in hierarchies with both a higher steepness and a more positive skewness for several reasons. First, larger steepness motivates individuals to neglect the input of the low-status members because these members are perceived to be less competent (Barton & Bunderson, 2014; Correll & Ridgeway, 2006). When the hierarchy is more positively skewed, more team members have a lower status level and are thus perceived as less competent. Second, larger steepness withholds low-status individuals from critically discussing the input of high-status individuals to prevent a status competition (Anderson et al., 2006; Edmondson, 2002). When the hierarchy is more positively skewed, more team members will refrain from criticizing the input of high-status members because more members will try to prevent a status
competition. Third, larger steepness leads to less input from the low-status team members because their lower status is associated with a lower level of commitment and responsibility (Kennedy & Anderson, 2017; Willer, 2009). When the hierarchy is more positively skewed, fewer individuals will actively provide input because more members will feel less committed and less accountable.
In contrast to this negative impact, hierarchies with a lower steepness and/or a more negative skewness (i.e. shaped like inverted pyramids ▼) are less likely to hinder information elaboration. First, lower steepness is less likely to hinder information elaboration because the lower steepness implies that the input of more team members is perceived as equally valuable (Barton & Bunderson, 2014; Correll & Ridgeway, 2006). When the hierarchy is more negatively skewed, the
input of more team members is considered valuable. Second, lower steepness leads to fewer team conflicts (Bunderson et al., 2016; Cantimur et al., 2016), which are argued to hinder information elaboration (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). When the hierarchy is more negatively skewed, we expect fewer conflicts that hinder information elaboration because fewer members are disadvantaged in status (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Third, we argue that lower steepness is better for information elaboration because lower steepness is associated with solidarity and closeness among team members (Bottero & Prandy, 2003; Locke, 2003). When the hierarchy is more negatively skewed, the status differences that are present are compressed in such a way that most are about equally high (and not
disadvantaged) in their status-level. Hence, we hypothesize the following relationship.
Hypothesis 1: The negative association between hierarchy steepness and information elaboration is moderated by hierarchy skewness, such that the negative association is stronger when the hierarchy is more positively skewed.
Information elaboration and team performance
We expect that the impact of status hierarchy on information elaboration to be transmitted to team performance. Team performance suffers from impaired information elaboration when teams have a wider information distribution (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009), conduct more complex tasks (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004), and operate in more turbulent environments (Resick et al., 2014). These teams suffer from impaired information elaboration because they
rely on their ability to combine the input from the team members (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009; Resick et al., 2014; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). By
elaborating on the input of the team members, the most valuable resources can be used for the tasks at hand. When information elaboration is impaired, teams are less likely to find the most valuable resources. Therefore, we expect that the interaction between steepness and skewness has a negative influence on team performance through lower levels of information elaboration. Hence, we hypothesize the following relationship.
Hypothesis 2. The negative relationship between hierarchy steepness and team performance is mediated by information elaboration and moderated by hierarchy skewness, such that steepness impairs information elaboration and – in turn – team performance more when the hierarchy is more positively skewed.
METHODS Data and sample
Data for this survey study were gathered among 181 student teams
consisting of 716 first-year bachelor students enrolled in a 10-week Organizational Behavior course at a Dutch university. We received 681 (95.1%) surveys of which we deleted both the incomplete teams and the teams in which team members did not grant permission to use their response for scientific research. Furthermore, we deleted one team that consisting of two individuals because these teams cannot vary in hierarchy concentration. As a result, the conceptual model was tested among 508 students (M age = 18.6, SD age = 1.2, women = 65.6%) working in 127
CHAPTER 2
teams (M = 4.0, SD = 0.2). To allow the teams to negotiate their hierarchy
positions, surveys were distributed three weeks before the deadline of their team assignment.
In examining the conceptual model, the present study context was chosen for three reasons. First, information elaboration was a central aspect of the team assignment. The assignment existed of both an individual and a team part. In the individual part, each team member was asked to analyze a social situation of a television show. In the subsequent team part, each team was asked to discuss the differences and similarities in their individual analyses, integrate these differences and similarities into an overall analysis, and conduct an additional team analysis. The teams received a collective grade for the team part. Second, power hierarchy – that is, vertical differences between team members’ control of valued resources (French & Raven, 1959) – is unlikely to be present in student teams because they commonly have no clear power markers (e.g., job titles and office sizes) or
differences in formal power (e.g., reward power, legitimate power). The negligible power hierarchy is beneficial in studying the impact of status hierarchy because this impact can be moderated by power hierarchy (Anicich et al., 2016). Third, the teams are likely to have a salient status hierarchy. Given that students were
randomly assigned to teams and data were gathered during the first course of a Bachelor program, it is likely that students did not know each other before participating in this study. This situation is beneficial in studying status hierarchy because teams are likely to develop prominent status hierarchies in the early team phases (Greer et al., 2018).
STATUS HIERARCHIES IN TEAMS Measures
Status. To measure individual-level status, we used a round-robin measure
that consisted of 3-items developed by Bendersky and Shah (2013). Each team member was asked to rate the amount of prestige, respect, and esteem they
assigned to their fellow team members (α = .90) on a 7-point scale (1 = “very little”, 7 = “very much”). Individuals’ status levels were obtained by mean-aggregation. We assessed whether this aggregation was justified by computing rwg (James et al.,
1984) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores (Bliese, 2000). These assessments indicated a median rwg of .99 (M = .98, SD = .04) and ICC(1) scores .45 and .77 ICC(2) (F = 4.32, p < .01), which justifies the aggregation.
Hierarchy steepness. In line with a convention in measuring the steepness
of a hierarchy (Bunderson et al., 2015), we measured hierarchy steepness as the within-team standard deviation of individuals’ status. To compute steepness, the following formula was used:
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑦𝑦 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = √∑(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑠𝑠− 𝑥𝑥̅)2
where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 is the status scores of the individual members in the team, 𝑥𝑥̅ is the mean
status scores within the team, and n is the number of team members in the team.
Hierarchy skewness. Although conventional concentration measures are
the Gini coefficient (e.g., Christie & Barling, 2010; He & Huang, 2011) and the Freeman index (Bunderson et al., 2016), these measures suffer from two main problems. First, these measures are statistically highly related to conventional steepness measures (Bunderson et al., 2016), resulting in a low discriminant validity between concentration and steepness (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
Bunderson et al. (2016) reported a minimal correlation of .63 between
concentration and steepness measures, and in our sample the correlation between these measures is even .98. Second, conventional concentration measures fail to accurately capture both how asymmetrical status is distributed among team members and whether the concentration is located at the bottom or at the top of the hierarchy. As illustrated in Table 1, teams that have a similar concentration according to the Gini coefficient and Freeman coefficient can have a very different asymmetry in their status distribution, ranging from very positively skewed (i.e. concentration at the bottom) to very negatively skewed (i.e. concentration at the top).
To overcome these shortcomings, we measure concentration using the skewness coefficient. To compute skewness, the following formula was used:
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑦𝑦 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = (𝑠𝑠 − 1)(𝑠𝑠 − 2) ∑ (𝑠𝑠 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅𝑠𝑠 )3
where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 is the status scores of the individual members in the team, 𝑥𝑥̅ is the mean
status scores within the team, s is the standard deviation of the status scores within the team, and n is the number of team members in the team. This measure has two main advantages over conventional measures. First, as both previously described based on Figure 2 and as indicated by a correlation of -.39 in our sample,
skewness is empirically distinct from steepness. Second, as a (more) positive skewness indicates that there is a large(r) amount of low-status team members whereas a (more) negative skewness indicates that whereas there is a large(r) amount of low-status team members, skewness captures more accurately where
the concentration is located. In our sample, the hierarchy skewness ranged from -2.0 to +-2.0.
Table 1: Status skewness across teams with similar concentration. Coefficient Team Individuals’
status level
SD Gini Freeman Skewness
1 3 – 3 – 3 – 5 1.0 .07 2 + 2.00
2 3 – 6 – 6 – 6 1.5 .07 1 – 2.00
3 1 – 7 – 7 – 7 3.0 .14 2 – 2.00
4 1 – 1 – 1 – 7 3.0 .30 6 + 2.00
Note. Indices calculated based on 4-person teams. The standard deviation (SD)
refers to the hierarchy steepness, whereas the Gini coefficient, the Freeman
coefficient and the Skewness Coefficient refers to hierarchy concentration. Formula 15 from Biemann and Kearney (2010) is used to calculate the Gini coefficient. The Freeman coefficient indicates the Freeman’s degree centralization index (Freeman, 1979). The formula reported by Sinha et al. (2016) was used to calculate the
Skewness coefficient.
Information elaboration. We assessed information elaboration using a
seven-item scale adapted from Van Knippenberg, Van Ginkel, and Giessner (2014). This scale integrates items previously used (e.g., van Dick et al., 2008), and ensures content validity by tapping into underlying domains of the exchange (e.g., “we often exchange our ideas and perspectives on the team assignment”), discussion
