Power, status, and learning in organizations

This paper reviews the scholarly literature on the effects of social hierarchy—differences in power and status among organizational actors—on collective learning in organizations and groups. We begin with the observation that theories of organization and group learning have tended to adopt a rational system model, a model that emphasizes goal-directed and cooperative interactions between and among actors who may differ in knowledge and expertise but are undifferentiated with respect to power and status. Our review of the theoretical and empirical literatures on power, status, and learning suggests that social hierarchy can complicate a rational system model of collective learning by disrupting three critical learning-related processes: anchoring on shared goals, risk taking and experimentation, and knowledge sharing. We also find evidence to suggest that the stifling effects of power and status differences on collective learning can be mitigated when advantaged actors are collectively oriented. Indeed, our review suggests that higher-ranking actors who use their power and status in more “socialized” ways can play critical roles in stimulating collective learning behavior. We conclude by articulating several promising directions for future research that were suggested by our review

Small worlds and board interlocking in Brazil: a longitudinal study of corporate networks, 1997-2007

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is an emerging research field in finance, above all in Brazil. This work is pioneering in that it is supported by reference to different areas of knowledge: social network analysis and corporate governance, for dealing with a similarly emerging topic in finance; interlocking boards, the purpose being to check the validity of the small-world model in the Brazilian capital market, and the existence of associations between the positioning of the firm in the network of corporate relationships and its worth. To do so official data relating to more than 400 companies listed in Brazil between 1997 and 2007 were used. The main results obtained suggest that the configuration of the networks of relationships between board members and companies reflects the small-world model. Furthermore, there seems to be a significant relationship between the firm’s centrality and its worth, described according to an “inverted U” curve, which suggests the existence of optimum values of social prominence in the corporate network

Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams : process and performance effects

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35444/2/b2034748.0001.001.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35444/1/b2034748.0001.001.tx

Diversity and inequality in management teams:A review and integration of research on vertical and horizontal member differences

The promise and perils of heterogeneity in team member characteristics has been and continues to be one of the central questions in research on management teams. We review the literature on member heterogeneity within management teams, with a focus on summarizing and integrating research on both horizontal member differences (i.e., diversity) and vertical member differences (i.e., inequality)-two streams of research that have been largely separate in past research. We find that the overwhelming majority of research on management team heterogeneity has focused on horizontal differences, though there are few clear and consistent themes in empirical findings within either stream. We also find that horizontal and vertical differences are interrelated, such that the effects of diversity can depend critically on the degree of inequality within a team, and vice versa. Moreover, we find that our ability to clearly account for the effects of vertical and horizontal differences in management teams has been limited by a confusion of definitions and conceptualizations that hamper our ability to compare theoretical arguments and empirical findings across studies. We organize various conceptualizations of heterogeneity into six types based on whether a given conceptualization is concerned with horizontal or vertical differences (diversity or inequality) and whether it is focused on the differentiation, dispersion, or concentration of member differences. The result is a framework with three types of diversity (separation, variety, and skew) and three types of inequality (stratification, steepness, and centralization). Finally, we summarize different approaches to operationalizing each of these types. The conclusions and recommendations of this review can help to bring clarity and focus to research on member heterogeneity within management teams, or groups and teams of any sort

Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:The importance of collective team identification

In multidisciplinary teams in the oil and gas industry, we examined expertise diversity's relationship with team learning and team performance under varying levels of collective team identification. In teams with low collective identification, expertise diversity was negatively related to team learning and performance; where team identification was high, those relationships were positive. Results also supported nonlinear relationships between expertise diversity and both team learning and performance. Finally, team learning partially mediated the linear and nonlinear relationships between diversity and performance. Findings broaden understanding of the process by which and the conditions under which expertise diversity may promote team performance