Channels of Communication in Small Groups

Bales, Robert F.; Strodtbeck, Fred L.; Mills, Theodore M.; Roseborough, Mary E.

doi:10.2307/2088276

Cited by 377 publications

(250 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research suggests status hierarchies emerge in all social groups, in that some members attain more respect, admiration, and influence than others (Bales, Strodtbeck, Mills & Roseborough, 1951;Leavitt, 2005). Although status differences tend to emerge cooperatively, with group members implicitly agreeing on who has higher status than others, sometimes disagreements can emerge (Ridgeway & Diekema, 1989) Based on many of the effects of power described above, we believe status conflicts are particularly likely to emerge in groups of high power individuals.…”

Section: The Effects Of Power On Group Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

Hildreth

Anderson

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All too commonly, we see groups of leaders fail to accomplish their stated goals when working together -legislators who cannot agree on a bill, heads of state who cannot draft meaningful environmental policy, or boards of trustees who make disastrous decisions for their school. The current research examines whether groups of leaders fail as often as they do in part because of the power each leader is accustomed to possessing. Multiple studies found high power individuals, when working in groups, performed worse than did other groups: individuals randomly assigned power in an initial task were less creative when they then worked together in groups on a subsequent task (Study 1A). Individuals with higher power who worked together in groups were also less likely to reach agreement on a difficult negotiation task, whether these groups comprised actual executives from an extant organization (Study 2) or students randomly assigned power in the laboratory (Study 3). Mediation analyses suggest that groups of high power individuals performed worse because they fought over their relative status in the group, were less focused on the task, and shared information with each other less effectively.Keywords: power, groups, status, conflict, performance, creativity, negotiation FAILURE AT THE TOP 3 Individuals in positions of leadership are given inordinate power. They have disproportionate control when they interact with those they lead and their ideas, decisions, and opinions hold more sway than those of others. But, what happens when leaders have to interact and work with other leaders? How does the power they are accustomed to possessing shape their effectiveness when working with others who also hold power? This question is critical because it is often the case that important decisions and problems are addressed not by individual leaders but by groups of leaders -in government legislatures, boards of directors, or meetings between heads of state, for example. If groups of leaders fail, the damage can be profound. Legislators who cannot agree on a fiscal budget risk severe economic costs, boards of trustees who set bad policies for their university can reduce the quality of their education, and leaders of disputing countries who cannot resolve their differences risk escalating their conflict into war.The research literature has been surprisingly quiet on this question. Although a substantial body of research has examined how the possession of power can shape myriad cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (for reviews, see Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003;Guinote & Vescio, 2010), this work has focused heavily on how the possession of power affects people in individual tasks or making individual decisions. Relatively little research has examined the effects of power in interactive or group contexts, let alone examined contexts in which powerholders interact and work with each other.The current research aimed to fill this lacuna.On the one hand, one might hypothesize that power would help groups of leaders...

show abstract

Section: The Effects Of Power On Group Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

Hildreth

Anderson

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Status is respect, prominence, and influence accorded to individuals by their social groups (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001;Bales, Strodtbeck, Mills, & Roseborough, 1951;Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972). Higher social status comes with a host of benefits including control over group decisions and access to scarce resources (Berger et al, 1972;Blau, 1964).…”

Section: The Status-enhancement Theory Of Overconfidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on previous research on status in groups (e.g., Bales et al, 1951;Berger et al, 1972), we measured status with peer-ratings of status, influence, and leadership behavior. After each of the two phases, each participant privately ranked all members' status (i.e., respect and standing in the group) and influence in the group's discussion and rated all members in terms of how much leadership they displayed, on a scale of 1 (Follower) to 5 (Leader).…”

Section: Measures Status In the Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

Kennedy

Anderson

Moore

2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

132

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, status has been conceptualized in two different ways. In some work, status has been treated as an ordinal or rank-based variable-a zero-sum commodity that only some members of a group can possess (e.g., Bales et al, 1951;Blau, 1955;Homans, 1950). In this conception, influence and leadership behaviors are emphasized as key components of status, because if one group member has more influence and control in the group, others almost inevitably have less (Bales & Slater, 1955).…”

Section: Two Conceptions Of Social Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?

Anderson

Willer

Kilduff

et al. 2012

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the desire for high status is considered universal, prior research suggests individuals often opt for lower status positions. Why would anyone favor a position of apparent disadvantage? In 5 studies, we found that the broad construct of status striving can be broken up into two conceptions: one based on rank, the other on respect. While individuals might universally desire high levels of respect, we find that they vary widely in the extent to which they strive for high-status rank, with many individuals opting for middle- or low-status rank. The status rank that individuals preferred depended on their self-perceived value to the group: when they believed they provided less value, they preferred lower status rank. Mediation and moderation analyses suggest that beliefs about others' expectations were the primary driver of these effects. Individuals who believed they provided little value to their group inferred that others expected them to occupy a lower status position. Individuals in turn conformed to these perceived expectations, accepting lower status rank in such settings.

show abstract

Channels of Communication in Small Groups

Cited by 377 publications

References 0 publications

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance.

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About