Different Views of Hierarchy and Why They Matter: Hierarchy as Inequality or as Cascading Influence

Abstract

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.We would like to thank Lindy Greer, Andrew Knight, Frank Walter, seminar participants at Wash. U. (GOMERs), LBS, Wharton, and Florida, and our AMJ editorial team for their invaluable comments and feedback on this manuscript.

On the origins of informal hierarchy: The interactive role of formal leadership and task complexity

“…Despite the near ubiquity of informal group hierarchies, research has shown that the strength of informal hierarchical differentiation varies widely, with some groups exhibiting more pronounced and clear‐cut influence differences between their members than others (Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Cantimur, & Rink, ; Schmid Mast, ). This raises important questions about the antecedent conditions that may shape a group's informal hierarchy strength.…”

“…As such, this research has not investigated how groups develop distinct patterns of informal hierarchical strength, denoting how a group, as a whole, is characterized by its members' dyadic influence and deference relations (cf. Bunderson et al, ; Krackhardt, ; Oedzes, Rink, Walter, & van der Vegt, ). For example, even if informal leadership roles are shared between individual members, a group may exhibit either a relatively weak (if most members' dyadic influence relations are reciprocal) or a relatively strong informal hierarchy (if most members' dyadic influence relations are unidirectional; Bunderson et al, ).…”

“…Bunderson et al, ; Krackhardt, ; Oedzes, Rink, Walter, & van der Vegt, ). For example, even if informal leadership roles are shared between individual members, a group may exhibit either a relatively weak (if most members' dyadic influence relations are reciprocal) or a relatively strong informal hierarchy (if most members' dyadic influence relations are unidirectional; Bunderson et al, ). In the former case, most of the team's members would mutually influence each other, such that the group exhibits little informal hierarchical differentiation.…”

“…strong informal hierarchy (if most members' dyadic influence relations are unidirectional; Bunderson et al, 2016). In the former case, most of the team's members would mutually influence each other, such that the group exhibits little informal hierarchical differentiation.…”

“…Furthermore, at the dyadic level, group members generally accept (and even appreciate) informal hierarchical relations between peers because such relationships clarify who leads and who follows, thus facilitating smooth interactions (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997;Tiedens et al, 2007). Relatedly, on the group level, informal hierarchy is negatively related to groups' process conflict and positively related to members' coordination efforts (Bunderson et al, 2016;Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006). Together, these studies indicate that strong hierarchical structures can help individuals, dyads, and groups clarify key interaction norms and promote joint work processes (Clark, Clark, & Polborn, 2006;De Kwaadsteniet & van Dijk, 2010).…”