The bright side of hierarchies: The origins and consequences of social stratification in organizations

The pursuit of status or influence is inherent to human nature. We all strive to stand out in aspects that society, or the groups to which we belong, deem valuable; let it be wealth, educational attainment, a prestigious job, or affiliation with favored groups (e.g., based on ethnic groups or gender). Taking into account the considerable amount of time people spend at work during their life span, the quest for status or influence is expected to be even more pronounced in organizational settings. Members with high levels of status or influence control team interactions and decisions, enjoy superior access to valued resources, and receive more recognition for their contributions. Yet, although status and influence are primary motives that guide most human social behavior, our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of hierarchies in groups is limited, particularly within the management context. Furthermore, it has also remained unknown whether different hierarchical shapes may have unique effects on team processes and outcomes in organizational work teams. This dissertation therefore strives to provide deeper insights into the ways status and influence hierarchies originate, function, and affect work teams in organizational life

When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance

This study develops and tests a contingency theory on the functions of status hierarchy steepness in teams. Findings from a field study among 438 employees working in 72 work teams across diverse business settings demonstrate that task complexity moderates the relationships between status hierarchy steepness, different types of team conflict, and team performance. Steeper status hierarchies were negatively related to both process and task conflict, and hence increased team performance in teams working on tasks with lower complexity but did not yield such clear conflict and performance effects in teams working on more complex tasks. By showing that various levels of task complexity determine whether status hierarchy steepness has a conflict-regulating function that drives team performance, this research generates valuable insights about the context dependency of team responses to status hierarchy steepness

Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence

Hierarchy is a reality of group life, for humans and for most other group-living species. However, there remains considerable debate about whether and when hierarchy can promote group performance and member satisfaction. We suggest that progress in this debate has been hampered by a lack of clarity about hierarchy and how to conceptualize it. Whereas prevailing conceptualizations of hierarchy in the group and organization literature have focused on inequality in member power or status (i.e., centralization or steepness), we build on the ethological and social network traditions to advance a view of hierarchy as cascading relations of dyadic influence (i.e., acyclicity). We suggest that hierarchy thus conceptualized is more likely to capture the functional benefits of hierarchy, whereas hierarchy as inequality is more likely to be dysfunctional. In a study of 75 teams drawn from a range of industries, we show that whereas acyclicity in influence relations reduces conflict and thereby enhances both group performance and member satisfaction, centralization and steepness have negative effects on conflict, performance, and satisfaction, particularly in groups that perform complex tasks. The theory and results of this study can help to clarify and advance research on the functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy in task groups