Organizational Preferences and Their Consequences

Gruenfeld, Deborah H.; Tiedens, Larissa Z.

doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002033

Cited by 92 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 375 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hierarchy has been theorized to be one of the most important and ubiquitous properties of groups (Gruenfeld & Tiedens, 2010). Hierarchies are frequently functional (Anderson & Brown, 2010;Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky, 2011), helping teams and groups coordinate behavior and align interests, motivation, and goals.…”

Section: Impressions Of Group Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

People perception: Social vision of groups and consequences for organizing and interacting

Phillips

Weisbuch

Ambady

2014

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Impressions Of Group Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

People perception: Social vision of groups and consequences for organizing and interacting

Phillips

Weisbuch

Ambady

2014

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Power (i.e., asymmetric outcome control) and status (i.e., respect and admiration) represent fundamental dimensions of social hierarchy ; see also Fiske, 2010;Gruenfeld and Tiedens, 2010). Although hierarchy has received vast attention in the social sciences, research has primarily examined the isolated effects of having either power or status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The destructive nature of power without status

Fast

Halevy

Galinsky

2012

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

197

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…homogeneous groups are highly common in institutions and society as people tend to seek out similar others on salient dimensions when possible (e.g., Gruenfeld & Tiedens, 2010;McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). We suggest, however, that prototypicality may be the only dimension on which homogeneity represents a baseline, even though we often treat homogeneous groups as a baseline in two other important respects: (1) as a control group that has no effects of its own, but can be used to gauge the corresponding effects of diversity and (2) as an objective indicator revealing how people would ideally respond or behave in a given group setting.…”

Section: Rethinking the Baselinementioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research

Apfelbaum

Phillips

Richeson³

2014

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often surprisingly difficult to make definitive scientific statements about the functional value of group diversity. We suggest that one clear pattern in the group diversity literature is the prevailing convention of interpreting outcomes as the effect of diversity alone. Although work in this arena typically compares diverse groups with homogeneous ones, we most often conceive of homogeneous groups as a baseline—a reference point from which we can understand how diversity has changed behavior or what type of response is “normal.” In this article, we offer a new perspective through a focus on two propositions. The first proposition is that homogeneity has independent effects of its own—effects that, in some cases, are robust in comparison with the effects of diversity. The second proposition is that even though subjective responses in homogeneous groups are often treated as a neutral indicator of how people would ideally respond in a group setting, evidence suggests that these responses are often less objective or accurate than responses in diverse groups. Overall, we believe that diversity research may unwittingly reveal important insights regarding the effects of homogeneity.

show abstract

Organizational Preferences and Their Consequences

Cited by 92 publications

References 375 publications

People perception: Social vision of groups and consequences for organizing and interacting

People perception: Social vision of groups and consequences for organizing and interacting

The destructive nature of power without status

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About