Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom.

Flynn, Francis J.; Reagans, Ray; Amanatullah, Emily T.; Ames, Daniel R.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123

Cited by 443 publications

(446 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

428

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Status-related motivations have a profound effect on individuals' social behavior, personal goals, relationships with others, and major life decisions (e.g., Flynn et al, 2006;Fodor & Farrow, 1979;Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Yet very little attention has been given to the origins of such motivations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted previously, individuals' beliefs about whether they provide value to a group are centered on whether they think they possess skills and capacities important to a group's success. Therefore, self-efficacy beliefs concerning the specific abilities that enable the group to succeed shape overall self-perceptions of value to the group (Berger et al, 1972). considering the important role status striving plays in directing behavior (Flynn et al, 2006;Frank, 1985;Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Finally, these studies are the first to examine whether individuals' pursuit of status rank is context dependent.…”

Section: Overview Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this conception, status is characterized as respect and esteem in the eyes of others (Barkow, 1975;Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames et al, 2006;Tyler & Blader, 2000). Status is not a limited resource, but something that all members (or none) can possess.…”

Section: Two Conceptions Of Social Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…So, for example, Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof (2006) found that group members were more likely to help other group members who were above them in the status hierarchy but not below. Research by Flynn, et al (2006) and Flynn (2003) provides one possible explanation for this finding by suggesting that interpersonal helping may be as much about status enhancement as knowledge transfer; helping a higher status member is more status-enhancing than helping a lower-status member. Moreover, research by Lee (1997) suggests that status can also affect help-seeking behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Bunderson

Reagans

2011

Organization Science

Self Cite

287

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…However in the laboratory context, we expected verbal skills to be a critical social skill-more important than, for instance, the ability to learn a social network (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006). Participants thus ranked the group members on how verbally skilled they were.…”

Section: Peer-ranked Social Skillmentioning

confidence: 99%