Behavior and Performance.
Master thesis, MScBA, specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and business
Status and Efficacy Perceptions as drivers of
Behavior and Performance.
Abstract
This study presents the results of research conducted in 43 organizational workteams. 31 organizations, coming from different organizational contexts, from the Netherlands participated. We expected to find a moderating effect of self efficacy. This effect was assumed to influence the effect of perceived intra team status on individual performance. The effect of perceived intra team status was argued to be mediated by status striving behavior. The results showed no evidence for our hypotheses. Neither the moderation effect, nor the effect of mediation showed significance. Concluding we present arguments for this findings and pose some options for further research.
Introduction
Synergy is when two or more things work together to create a better result than they would have reached summing the results from their individual efforts (Corning, 1995). In the organizational context we relate the meaning of the Greek word synergy „working together‟ to work teams. Teams are everywhere around us, and got a fair share of attention in the literature concerning organizational behavior. They are proven to produce higher performance than the sum of the individuals (Katzenbach & Smith, 1992). This effectiveness of a team comes from cooperation (Christie & Barling, 2010) climate, coherence, team learning and more (For a review see Kozlowski & Bell, 2001). Every individual of the team adds value to reach the collective goal. Everyone is expected to deliver this value to the team somewhere in the process. The more a person is of value to the team the more the team rewards this person (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009).
One of these rewards and a way through which other rewards are obtained is status. Literature on anthropology suggests that status is something that is part of the human culture since the hunter gatherer tribes (Barkow, 1989; Nicholson, 1998; Steven & Price, 1996; Wright, 1994). Status created hierarchies which structured life in its social setting. This enhanced coordination for competition (for resources and mates) and cooperation against threats from the external environment (Barkow 1975; Loch, Huberman & Stout, 2000). Along the evolution of mankind the issue of status was always present. To establish status contests were set up (e.g., tournaments, battles, games, etc..) where clear winners and losers could be appointed. When status was achieved this was shown through symbols and rituals (Nicholson, 1998). Even now, in the modern society, one can still see displays of status and the striving for status in organizational life. The literature shows us that wherever a social setting is present status hierarchies will form as well (Bernstein, 1981; Buss, 1988; Eibl- Eibesfeldt, 1989; Magee & Galinsky, 2012). Even in settings that tried to suppress hierarchies (through social organizing) it is shown that it is never absent, and will always appear in spite of these efforts (Leavitt, 2005; Nicholson, 1998; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tannenbaum, Kavi, Rosner, Vianello & Wieser, 1974) Summarizing we can say that status, and with this status hierarchies seem to be embedded in human nature (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring, 2001; Bales, Strodtbeck, Mills, & Roseborough, 1951; Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch, 1980; Eagly & Karau, 1991; Hollander, 1985; Schmid Mast, 2002).
important role status seeking behavior plays in directing behavior (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006). The research will add to the theory by testing the antecedent of status seeking behavior in real world settings (Anderson et al., 2012). Practically managers will obtain a better understanding of team dynamics. Status striving behavior leads to non value added behavior (e.g. politics and conflict) (Loch et al, 2000; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). The time spent on striving will defer from performing tasks. Answers are given to what might drive this behavior and how this relates to the individual performance. Furthermore, hierarchies are encouraging a good team climate and coherence of the group (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Berger, Cohen & Zelditch, 1972; Loch et al., 2000), which are both important determinants of team effectiveness. The insight in the behavior of the individual may help managers and team leaders/members to develop tools to influence behavior and improve the performance of individuals and through this possibly improve team effectiveness1.
What is status?
For this paper it is first off all important to understand the concept of status. In the literature one can find an extensive amount of research about this topic. Status is conceptualized as the relative standing or rank of an actor within a social system. Although this is commonly agreed upon, authors relate different attributes to status. Most of these however include three attributes namely prominence, respect and influence (Anderson et al, 2001, Anderson, Srivastava, Beer & Sparato& Chatman 2006; Berger et al., 1972; Christie & Barling; 2010; Huberman et al., 2004; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995; Thye, 2000). Status is therefore not an individual attribute, but it represents the perception of others in that specific social system (Anderson et al., 2006; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995).
Within organizations we can see such social systems when looking at work teams. This makes that organizations have to be aware and able to act upon the implications of status hierarchies within these teams. According to the functionalist perspective these hierarchies bring benefits to the functioning of the team (Anderson & Brown, 2010). First of all we see that teams disagree upon goals, solutions to problems, etc. Status hierarchies help to overcome this by enhancing collective decision making. Second, it helps individuals to act selfless which motivates team members to contribute to the group success. Finally we see that status helps coordinate the behavior of the individuals (Berger et al., 1972, Loch et al., 2000) by overcoming conflicts, improve communication and the allocation of responsibilities (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Berger et al., 1980; David & Berger, 1993).
Status, however, does not solely serve to benefit the group. It is also argued to benefit the individual in several ways. Individuals also desire to attain a certain level of status (Anderson et al., 2012; Barkow, 1975; Nicholson, 1998). The reasons why individuals want status can differ. First it is argued that status brings self esteem (Anderson et al, 2006; Barkow, 1975; Berger et al, 1972, Thye,
2000) which is one of the needs of humans as proposed by Maslow (1943). Furthermore status was linked to the attainment of resources (Lambhel & Bhalla 2007; Lin, 1990; Magee & Galinsky, 2012; Savin- Williams, 1979), the control over these resources (Berger et al, 1980; Magee &Galinsky, 2012), power (Thye, 2000), more influence (Belliveau, O‟Reilly, & Wade, 1996; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995 Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995), more respect in the eyes of others (Anderson et al, 2001; Berger et al., 1972; Magee & Galinsky, 2012; Sherif, White, & Harvey, 1955), and was even related to better mental and physical health (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Marmot, 2004).
Status is not solely a goal leading to recognition trough reward. The gaining of status, as well as its loss has direct impact on emotions. A person gaining status shows signs of happiness, and vice versa (Kemper, 1991). It is also shown that wages of workers with high status were compressed to “pay” lower status workers to give the pleasure of high status to others (Frank, 1984; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Findings support that status is a social currency given to other group members as a contribution to group success. Hence status can be seen a goal in itself and can actually be said to be valued as material gain (Huberman et al., 2004).
The above points out that status is a valued resource for all members of a social system. Many beneficial externalities can be obtained adding to the status value in itself. From this we assume that all members of a social system will strive for status. The more status one has the more of these benefits he/she can obtain and the more satisfied one will be. The question remains: How can one obtain this status?
How is status obtained?
Status cannot be obtained by an individual itself. Neither can an individual force others to give him a certain status position (Anderson et al., 2006; Blau & Scott, 1962; Ridgeway & Diekema, 1989). The position in the status hierarchy an individual possesses results from collective judgments and decisions of the team about the value of that person in respect to other members of that team (Anderson et al, 2012, Berger et al, 1972; Emerson, 1962).
The team as a whole seeks to accomplish the best chance of achieving the collective goal (Anderson et al., 2006, Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). To assess who contributes the most to this collective goal team members evaluate each other on the task specific,- and social skills that one possesses (Anderson et al, 2001; 2006; 2012, Berger et al., 1972; Kirchler & Davis, 1986; Lord, 1985; Lord, Philips & Rush, 1980). The more important of these two are the skills regarding the tasks of the group (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Lord et al., 1980). This is underlined by the status characteristics theory (Berger et al, 1972; Berger, Conner & McKeown 1974; Berger, Fisek & Zelditch, 1977). This theory emphasizes two ways through witch status can be obtained. First of all the diffuse status
activation, which means, through the task related behavior that a person will show (for a review on
Status Characteristics Theory see David & Berger, 1993). The person that is expected to have more competence regarding a specific task (e.g. through education, functional background, experience or prior contribution to the team) is awarded with more status (Anderson et al., 2006; Christie & Barling, 2010; Kirchler & Davis; 1986; Blau, 1964).
On the other hand social skills are a base for granting status to other team members. The literature names several of these skills like, the interaction and evaluation of others (Weiband, Schneider & Connoly, 1995) the guiding of group discussion (Bales et al., 1951; Bales and Slater, 1955), communication and motivational skills (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). In their article about dominant behavior Anderson and Kilduff (2009) even found a relation between the behavior of individuals high on the trait dominance, and the status that was granted to them. The behavior of these persons (i.e., use of certain and factual language, speaking more often, more fluid and assertive, more direct eye contact and a relaxed posture) signaled competence. They even found that this held after controlling for actual competence of the individual.
Percieved intra team status (PITS) and Status Striving
All the individuals in a team hold beliefs about their own status within the team (Anderson et al, 2012; 2006; Loch et al, 2000). A person has beliefs about his/her own skills (both socially and task specific). From there this person evaluates the possibilities of contribution/value to the group (Anderson et al., 2012) and ascribes a certain status with this.
In the article of Anderson et al., (2006) we see two lines of arguing about this perception of status. Some authors argue that persons tend to overestimate their value (Barkow, 1975; Krebs & Denton, 1997; Pfeffer & Cialdini, 1998). This because of the acceptance of positive versus the rejection of negative information about the self. Also failure is easier forgotten than is success and even acknowledged negative information is easily disregarded. Others argue against this reasoning first of all, that people have a strong need to belong (Anderson & Kilduff; 2009; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Teams exclude the persons who challenge or undermine the hierarchy. They are perceived to bring conflict and instability, (e.g., Ridgeway, 1982; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986). Since we have seen that status hierarchies try to bring cooperation and coordination to reach collective goals this is not excepted by the group and a person is excluded. This exclusion is such a threat (Kipling, 2007) that it forces team members to be more accurate about the status they have in the team (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Secondly they argue that, since status is a valued resource (Huberman et al., 2004), claiming too much of this „reward‟ will lead to less social acceptance. We will follow this argument claiming that persons are accurate when perceiving their own status.
When perceiving their own status position they tend to compare this to the status of others in the team (Baron & Pfeffer, 1994; Festinger, 1954). These comparisons are towards higher status ranked individuals, and thus more desirable positions in the team. This triggers to the react in such a way that they will compete for these positions (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006; Huberman et al., 2004; Loch et al., 2000). The reasons for this reaction lays with the value of status. Also the benefits mentioned in the text above make people strive for these higher status positions.
Now we take a step back and look at the PITS again. Imagine a person who perceives (accurately) the second highest status rank in the team. This person will focus on the higher rank individual and strive for this position. There is not much room for improvement. Now take in mind a person with a low PITS. He/she will strive for higher positions and has a lot of room for improvement. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: PITS is negatively related to Status Striving behavior
Self efficacy
People perceive more than just their status position in the teams. Where PITS relates to the relative standing in the group, self efficacy judges oneself on several characteristics. Self efficacy is the conviction of someone to successfully execute behavior required to produce outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Bandura has focused the attention of many authors on this concept through several articles and books (Bandura, 1977; 1982; 1986). He found that self efficacy has three dimensions. First of all the
level of self efficacy relates to the difficulty of tasks one believes to be able to handle. Second the generality refers to the transferability of self efficacy to other domains of activities (e.g. algebra to
statistics). Finally the strength of the efficacy defines the expectations of mastery of a task (Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000). Next to this it is argued that self efficacy leads to higher goal setting (Bandura, 1977). This can be translated in the aiming at higher status positions.
H2: Self Efficacy moderates the negative relation between PITS and Status Striving Behavior, such that PITS is more negatively related toward Status Striving Behavior when self efficacy is higher.
Individual Performance
Within a team individuals have the tendency to conform to expectations of the other team members. Since one perceives his/her status within the team accurately, taking in account the pressure of the group, one believes that he/she should confirm to this perception. This is done to stay in good standing with the other group members and reduce the possibility of exclusion (Anderson et al., 2006; Ridgeway, 1981). This process is referred to by Troyer and Younts (1997) when they talk about second order expectation. They also argue that these can powerfully shape behavior. Thus we would argue that if one has a perception of having a high status rank, the person would behave in such a way that conforms the expectations of the group. Through this the level of PITS is related to a certain level of performance. However, since the perception of the status one has (PITS) in a team is mostly accurate a member will not have much room for improvement. The drive to increase performance is therefore much less than when PITS is low. The person with low PITS gain a lot more by the improvement of performance.
In the light of self efficacy however we can see that this relation is moderated. According to the above a person high on PITS will have more and more difficult tasks, due to the high performance expectations. A person with low PITS however has less tasks and these tasks are also easier to accomplish. High self efficacy will push the person low on PITS to engage in more tasks with a higher level of difficulty. The persistence this person has will help to accomplish these tasks, and therefore increase the individual performance (Bandura, 1977; 1982; 1986; Bandura & Schunk; 1981; Zimmerman, 2000). The person who confirms to the high PITS is already engaging in a wide variety of difficult tasks. High efficacy is needed to perform but will not significantly increase individual performance.
Adding to this argument are the findings of Bandura (1977). He finds that self efficacy leads to perceived individual performance standard. Perceived negative discrepancies between this performance and the results will lead to motivated corrective change behavior, in order to reach higher performance standards. Even when these standards are completed individuals with high self efficacy will often be dissatisfied with the status quo and make higher standards to pursue. The low PITS person with high efficacy will keep setting higher standards given the relative easy accomplishment of tasks this member has. The high PITS member has more difficulties reaching their standards and will therefore show a lesser increase in individual performance. This leads the third hypothesis:
The mediating role of Status Striving
There are mainly two possible paths to follow when striving for status (Loch et al., 2000). The first is trying to attain status through politics and conflict (Loch et al, 2000; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). The behavior in both situation is distracting from the actual tasks. When one is putting effort in behavior like politicking (e.g. building network, looking good, creating dependability), this will distract from the actual task. This behavior might even detract from the productivity of the individual (Loch et al, 2000). Some of the status literature is discussing the negative consequences of this status conflict (Frank, 1985; Loch et al., 2000; Nicholson, 1998). Since this behavior will threaten the collective success of the group the group will not accept the individual and possibly will exclude or ostracize this person (Homans, 1951; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986). All this behavior has a negative impact on the performance of the individual. One must put effort in the conflict, the conflict and ostracizing will have an impact on the emotional state and will temper the motivation of the employee (Kipling, 2007), and through this impact performance.
The other path is focusing on cooperation and goal oriented behavior (Loch et al., 2000). Here we see the relation to the status characteristics theory from Berger et al. (1972; 1974; 1977). The way to attain status is to signal behavior that makes one look competent since teams value this type of behavior when granting status2 (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Berger et al., 1980; Lord et al, 1980; Van Vugt, 2006). For example a person giving more advise than receiving will be perceived more competent (Flynn et al., 2006). Hardy & Van Vugt (2006) refer to this helping behavior as „competitive altruism‟, and relate it to status seeking behavior. Giving advise might help another person to perform, but it takes the time from the advising party, which will have impact on performance. It is shown that extraverts and persons with a high trait of dominance gain higher status. This even held through when controlling for actual behavior (Anderson et al., 2001; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). The characteristics in these type of persons that contributed to the gaining of status were similar and drawing attention to their skills abilities and expertise thus to their competence. (Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996). The signaling of the behavior could be enough to make others believe in an individual`s actual competence, since actual competence is hidden from others (Berger et al., 1972; Driskell & Mullen, 1990; Lord, 1985). But it will take some effort of the persons to make sure the right behavior is signaled and towards the right persons. This defers from the actual tasks. We conclude from this that when individuals are showing status striving behavior, this distracts their efforts from the actual tasks, and will hence decrease performance. Therefore we can hypothesize:
H4: The moderated relation between PITS and Individual Performance is mediated by Status Striving Behavior
2 I do not judge whether one signals this behavior because one is competent, or because someone is pretending to
Methods
Sample and procedures
To test our hypothesis we contacted 43 organizational work teams in the Netherlands, from 31 organizations, which amounted to a total of 284 individuals in total. The criteria for selection were the meeting face to face interaction on a daily basis, sharing resources and information in the pursuing of common goals (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001; van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). These teams have a different contextual background. They came from the profit sector (insurance, logistics, energy), mostly the nonprofit sector (health care, education) and from other sectors. The work teams contained different roles. Specific jobs in the teams included, for instance, account manager, operational, marketing executive. The teams were recruited by master students in return for credits in their graduation project.
We used questionnaires to test the hypotheses. The supervisors of the team were asked to participate in the study. When they were interested the questionnaires were introduced to them and upon their agreement they asked the individual team members for their cooperation. We used multiple reports to overcome common method variance. We also took measurements in two different periods when collecting our data. By measuring variables at two points in time, we minimized artifactual covariation between our study variables by temporally separating the measurement of the predictor and criterion variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Upon agreement of participation an appointment was made with the whole team. The first questionnaires were filled out at this meeting. At the end of this meeting the second questionnaires were given to the team members. These were collected a week after the distribution. The team leader filled in a different questionnaire, and this was done at the time of the meeting in a different part of the office. This, as well as the presence of the researcher, helped to overcome desirable answering bias, because they could be scared that others could see how they rated the individual team members.
Each team member answered items about his or her PITS, self efficacy and status striving behavior by rating him/herself on different items concerning these variables. Individual performance was measured by team leaders assessment who asses every individual on different items. Participation was voluntary and anonymous and integrity was ensured by filling out the questionnaires individually. This means that the team members did not know from each other how they responded to the items.
average age among supervisors was 46,23 (SD = 11,41) and an average tenure of 4,49 years (SD = 50,08). For this group 67,4% was male and 76.0% had a vocational qualification or higher.
Measures
PITS
We wanted to test the hypothesis in a real work team environment which will add to the generalization of the outcomes. We first measured PITS, using the scale of Anderson et al. (2006) with seven items. Examples are: “I am respected by the other team members; I show my competence in the team”; “I have influence on important decisions in the team”. We averaged the items to get a single score per participant. The seven items were rated on a seven point response scale from 1, “strongly
agree” to 7, “strongly disagree”. These seven items formed a reliable representation of PITS,
Chronbachs alpha of these items was .88. Self Efficacy
This was measured in the second questionnaire with the scale from Riggs & Knight (1994). More specific team members were asked to rate themselves on items like: “I trust in my capacities to successfully do my job within this team”; “There are some tasks which I cannot execute within this team”; “when I perform badly in the team this is because of my own lack of competence”. We averaged the items to get a single score per participant. In total ten items were used and were rated on a seven point response scale from 1, “strongly agree” to 7, “strongly disagree”. These ten items formed a reliable representation of self efficacy. Chronbachs alpha was .82.
Status Striving Behavior
These items were deduced from the scale of Schnabel and Nadler (2008). Examples are: “I would like to have more influence at my job”; “I would like to have more aspect at my job”. We averaged the items to get a single score per participant. The individuals were asked to rate these items on a seven point response scale from 1, “strongly agree” to 7, “strongly disagree”. These items formed a reliable representation of self efficacy. Chronbachs alpha was .89.
Individual Performance
Control Variable
Group tenure is a variable that has a significant role in psychological and in management research (Cohen, 1993; Griffeth Horn & Gaertner 2000). The belief is that the longer one remains in an organization, the more competent one will become within a job. The experience of the person will make this person to perform higher than les tenured employees. The knowledge obtained (Sturman, 2003), the range of activities and career stages passed (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKee, 1978) and the accumulate relevant job experience (Cohen, 1991) that come with organizational tenure, leads to a higher performance as tenure increases (NG, and Feldman, 2010). This control variable was measured as part of the first questionnaire.
Data Analysis
We tested our hypothesis at the individual level of analysis using the ordinary least square regression (OSL). As recommended by Aiken & West (1991) we standardized PITS, self efficacy and status striving behavior and computed interaction effects by multiplying PITS and self efficacy. We then regressed both Individual Performance and Status Striving Behavior on PITS, self efficacy, the multiplied effect of PITS and self efficacy and the control variable. To test for the mediating role of status striving behavior from we added this construct to the equation. The results are seen in Model 4, shown in Table 2. Mediation is supported if main effects and interaction terms are significant in model 2 and 3, but not in model 4.
Table 1:
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4
1. Team Tenure (years) 3.87 4.13
2. PITS 5.35 .79 .07
3. SELFEFF 5.09 .79 .14* .55**
4. SSB 3.95 1.22 -.06 .03 -.07
5. INDPERF 44.70 8.58 -.02 .10 .13* -.07
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all the variables used in the model. The table reveals a positive relation between self efficacy and other variables namely: Self efficacy and team tenure (r = .14, p < .05); Self efficacy and PITS (r = .55, p < 0.1); and self efficacy and individual performance (r = .13, p < 0.5).
Test of Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1 assumed a relation of PITS on status striving behavior. The results however show no evidence for this (B = 0.05, n.s.). Hypothesis 2 assumed a moderated relation of self efficacy on the relation between PITS and status striving behavior. The results did not support these assumptions (B = -0.15, n.s.). These findings are visualized in Figure 1. Here we can see that there is <
on the mediating effect of status striving behavior on the interaction between PITS and individual performance. We see no significant drop in the results (.03 .02). Also there is no effect of status striving behavior on individual performance (B = -0.10, n.s.)
Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007) moderated mediation macro also computes conditional indirect effects at various arbitrary values of the moderator that fall within the range of the data (see the lower half of Table 2). In addition to the outcomes the moderation mediation macro confirmed our findings saying that the bootstrap 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect contained zero at high, low and medium levels of self efficacy.
We also took a look at the percentage of the variation that is explained in the different models. The results we can see in the middle area of Table 2. We see that the highest as well as the lower values of the adjusted R2 values hardly derives from zero. This means that for all the models hardly any of the variation that is found in either status striving behavior (model 1 & 2 under status striving behavior) and individual performance (model 1 & 2 under Individual performance) can be explained by these effects. This supports the finding that no significant relation exists for the mediated moderation model.
Discussion
Findings
member has a low PITS the related performance expectation are also low. In this case we see a lot of room for performance improvement, since the low performance can easily be exceeded/improved. This relation will be even stronger if one is convinced about the capabilities to successfully execute the extra tasks. Through more persistence, higher goal setting, and more effort, self efficacy will lead to an even stronger negative relation between PITS and individual performance. It is suggested that this relation is mediated by the status striving behavior of an individual. When one pursuits status, the person will put effort in the process that makes him/her reach this goal. This distracts from the actual task one is doing and therefore decreases performance. Perceiving status of the self leads to comparison towards higher rank individuals. Since more status is valued in itself, and because of the benefits it brings, this leads to more striving behavior, especially when there is a lot of status to be won. This is more so when an employee has low PITS, than when one has high PITS and almost no higher ranks to compare with. High self efficacy would make that one sets higher goals and this will moderate this relation between PITS and status striving behavior.
The results failed to show the above relationships. A reason for this can be the overconfidence that comes with self efficacy. Where many authors argue for a positive relation between self efficacy and performance, there are also studies that say the opposite (Bandura & Jourden ,1991; Powers, 1991; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner & Putka, 2002). Self efficacy would lead to less effort through self-assurance (Bandura & Jourdan, 1991), overconfidence (Stone, 1994), the belief of reaching goals earlier (Powers, 1991) and with more ease based on earlier performance (Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001). This negative effect of self efficacy on individual performance could intervene with the expected positive influence described in this article. Adding to the argument of overconfidence we suggest that high self effacing persons have less need for confirmation of their capabilities. Since status is granted on the base of skills (social and task specific) this is sign of capabilities. We see that status symbols are used as determinant of performance (Loch et al., 2000). When one is more confident about oneself, the need to have this proven by a certain status diminishes, lowering the behavior of status striving.
for lower status positions (Anderson et al., 2012). This might explain why we found no evidence for relation of PITS on status striving behavior, not even with a moderation of self efficacy.
Theoretical Implications
When reading the literature there seems to be a great preference towards the positive effects of self efficacy. However the negative consequences described above of this same self efficacy ask for a review on both sides. How do these opposite findings relate to each other? In which situation can we speak of the positive effects and when should we account for the other? These clarifications would help to define actual effects of self efficacy more clearly. A thorough research on both sides of the effect and there relation would be an interesting topic of research in the future.
The topic of PITS, second order expectations and self effacement raises the question whether people would strive for lower status. Anderson et al., (2012) have already shed a light on the possibility of opting for lower status positions. Combining this with the possible positive effects of self effacement we would like to challenge the one-sided view of literature that everyone strives for status. Is it not possible for persons to strive for low status? Further research could clarify this questions.
Previous research has found PITS as an antecedent for status striving behavior. This research has tested this hypothesis in a real world setting and found no evidence for this relation. More research is needed to confirm or disprove thisfindings. Also it would be of importance to search for more possible antecedents for status striving behavior.
Strong and Weak Points
A strong point of the research was the diversity of the work teams in the dataset. This gives the possibilities for generalization since the findings represent different organizational settings (e.g. profit, non-profit). Another strength is the real world test setting. This means that there is no manipulation and therefore the results can be generalized toward other real world settings. Furthermore, the use of various statistical measurements techniques improved the validity of the outcomes. Finally we can see the use of multi source data (team lead & team member) strengthens the findings of this research.
It is also important to note some limitations of this research. First off all we see that the moderator and the IV are highly correlated (r = .55, p = < ,01). The relatedness of these constructs is also mentioned by Bandura (1977, 1982). They argue that self efficacy beliefs shape the perception of the status one has. This makes it hard to distinguish the effects of these two. It could be for example that the aspects of PITS that cause the effect on individual performance are also present in the variable self efficacy. This makes it hard to say which construct causes the effect and so troubles the findings of the research.
of self efficacy it can be expected that the direct effect of self efficacy on performance would intervene with the moderation effect. To overcome this we have tried to clearly define the both variables and be as distinct as possible.
Finally we see that status is a concept that is tightly connected with the team and the perception of the team. This study focuses on individual performance. It would be interesting to see what the influence of each construct would be on the performance of the team.
Practical Implications
We have seen that implicit status hierarchies are so strong that they can overrule self perceptions. The nature of hierarchies is to smoothly reach a common goal. The power of the implicit status hierarchy could therefore serve as a blueprint for the explicit hierarchy. We have also seen that the team and individuals are very accurate in perceiving this implicit hierarchy. Using this for the explicit hierarchy will help to have the right person at the right spot, controlling resources and guiding the team.
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physical health: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. New York, NY: Elsevier. 55–89
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality traits and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491– 503.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094–1110.
Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, J. K., & Brown, C. E., (2012). The Origins of Deference: When Do People Prefer Lower Status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1077–1088.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decisionmakinggroups. in T. Parsons, R. F.
Bales, J. Olds, M. Zelditch, & P. E. Slater (Eds.), Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 517–552
Bales, R.F., Strodtbeck, F.L., Mills, T.M., & Roseborough, M.E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 941–951
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814 Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, selfefficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Barkow, J. H. (1975). Strategies for self esteem and prestige in Maradi, Niger Republic. in: Psychological
Anthropology, Williams, T. R. (ed), The Hague ad Paris: Mouton Publishers, 373- 388.
Barkow, J. H. (1989). The transistion from primate dominance to human self esteem. in: Darwin, Sex, and
Status. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 185-195.
Baron, J.N., & Pfeffer, J. (1994). The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 190–209.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Belliveau, M., O‟Reilly, C. I., & Wade, J. (1996). Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1568–1593.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American
Sociological Review, 37, 241–255
Berger, J., Fisek, H., Norman, R.Z., & McKeown., 1974. (1974). Evaluation and the Formation and Maintenance of Performance Expectations. in: Berger, Conner and Fisek, 27-51.
Berger, J., Fisek, H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
Bernstein, I. S. (1981). Dominance: The baby and the bathwater. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 419-457. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
Brown, S.P., & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368
Buss, A. H. (1988). Dominance. In A. H. Buss (Ed.), Personality: Evolutionary heritage and human
distinctiveness. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 196-222
Cohen, A. 1991. Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational commitment and its outcomes: a meta analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 253-268
Corning, P. A. (1995). Synergy and self-organization in the evolution of complex systems. Systems Research ,
12, 89-121
Christie, A., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond status: Relating status inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 920-934.
David, W. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status Characteristics Theory: The Growth of a Program. in Berger J. & Zelditch, M, Jr. (Eds)., Theoretical Research Programs, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 23–63
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541–553.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine De Gruyter
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power–dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–40.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one‟s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 1123–1137.
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frank, Robert H. (1984). Interdependent Preferences and the Competitive Wage Structure.RAND Journal of
Economics. 15:510–20.
Griffeth R.W., Horn P.W., & Gaertner S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Millennium. J. Manage., 26, 463-88.
Hardy, C.L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.
Hollander, E.P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, New York: Random House. 3rd edn., 2, 485–538.
Homans, G. C., (1951). The human group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Önҫüler, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly,
67, 103–114.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C.M., Tischner, E.C., & Putka, D.J. (2002). Two Studies Examining the Negative Effect of Self-Efficacy on Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506–516
Jones, S. C., & Shrauger, J. S. (1970). Reputation and self-evaluation as determinants of attractiveness,
Sociometry, 33, 276–286.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Why team matter. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 3-27
Kemper T.D. (1991). Predicting Emotions From Social Relations. Social Psychology Quarterly 54:330–42.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.12, 333-375
Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (1997). Social illusions and self-deception: The evolution of biases in person perception. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 21–48.
Kyl-Heku, L. M., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality psychology: An illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 497-517.
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, article 5
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558–564.
Leavitt, H.J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lent, R. W., & Hacket, G. (1987). Carees self-efficacy: empirical status and future directions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.
Levinson D.J., Darrow D.N., Klein E.B., Levinson M.H., & McKee B. (1978). The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Knopf.
Lin, N. (1990). Social Resources and Social Mobility: A Structural Theory of Status Attainment. in Social
Mobility and Social Structure, Ronald L.(ed.) Breiger. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 247–71.
Loch, Christoph H., Bernardo A. Huberman, Suzanne K. & Stout.(2000). Status Competition and Performance in Work Groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 43, 35–55.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 7, 87-128.
Lord, R. G., Phillips, J. S., & Rush, M. C. (1980). Effects of sex and personality on perceptions of emergent leadership, influence, and social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 176–182.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self reinforcing nature of power and status.
Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.
Marmot, M. (2004). The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. New York, NY: Time.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Nicholson, N. (1998) How hardwired is Human Nature? Harvard business review, 76, 135-147
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,66, 543–578.
Pfeffer, J., & Cialdini, R. B. (1998). Illusions of influence. in R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and
influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1–20.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1981). Nonconformity, competence, and influence in groups: A test of two theories. American
Sociological Review, 46, 333–347.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47, 76– 88.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups.
American Sociological Review, 51,603–617.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekema, D. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American SociologicalReview, 54, 79–93.
Ridgeway, C.L., & Walker, H.A. (1995). Status structures. In K.S. Cook, G.A. Fine, & J.S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 281–310.
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755-766.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50, 923–935.
Schmid Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 420–450.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review,1, 173–208.
Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of
Sociology, 60, 370–379.
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008), A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation: Satisfying the Differential Emotional Needs of Victim and Perpetrator as a Key to Promoting Reconciliation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94, 116-132.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Stevens, A., & Price, J., Evolutionary Psychiatry. London: Routledge, 1996.
Stone, D. N. (1994). Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgements: Effects on decision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 452–474.
Sturman MC (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/ performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. J. Manage., 29, 609–640.
Tannenbaum, A.S., Kay J., B., Rosner, M., Vianello, M., & Wieser, G. (1974). Hierarchy in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959).The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Thye, Shane R. (2000). A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations. American Sociological Review
65, 407–32.
Vegt, G.S. van der, & Bunderson, J.S. (2005). Learning and performance in multi-functional teams: the importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 354–371.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support and Leader -Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.
Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computermediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124–1151.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York: Pantheon Books.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press. 13-39
