Social Status and Group Structure

Ridgeway, Cecilia L.

doi:10.1002/9780470998458.ch15

Cited by 64 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These arguments are also consistent with expectation states theory and research which has demonstrated that power and status in interdependent task groups are driven by the "performance expectations" that members of a group hold for one another, expectations about the capacity of each group member to help the group achieve its objectives (see reviews in Berger & Webster, 2006;Ridgeway, 2001). Research in this tradition not only finds that performance expectations strongly drive behaviors but also that these performance expectations are driven by presumed (though perhaps not always valid) indicators of task competence and not by behavioral dominance (Ridgeway, 1987) or even explicit status claims (Webster, Whitmeyer, & Rashotte, 2004).…”

Section: Socialized Power and Anchoring On Shared Goalssupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Bunderson

Reagans

2011

Organization Science

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

Section: Socialized Power and Anchoring On Shared Goalssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…By social hierarchy, we mean "an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension" (Magee & Galinsky, 2008: 354). Social hierarchy derives from member differences in both power (i.e., control over resources needed or valued by others; Emerson, 1962) and status (i.e., prestige and esteem; Ridgeway, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Bunderson

Reagans

2011

Organization Science

287

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since there is evidence that social groups differ considerably in social status, with high-status groups such as men possessing more economic and social power than low-status groups such as women (e.g., Ridgeway, 2001), a perception that is also reflected in the think-manager-think-male stereotype (e.g., Schein, 2001;Stahlberg & Sczesny, 2001), people who closely fit the prototype of the…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social groups often vary in their perceived value or prestige, their relative group status (Ridgeway, 2001). Members of high-status groups (e.g., men and managers) are viewed as more valuable and competent persons and have more positive attitudes attributed to them.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Members of high-status groups (e.g., men and managers) are viewed as more valuable and competent persons and have more positive attitudes attributed to them. They also objectively possess more social and economic power than members of groups with lower social status (e.g., women and laborers) (Ridgeway, 2001; see also Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991. Thus, social categories often carry group status information that can affect social relations and provide a stable system of power and status inequalities (i.e., status value asymmetry) between groups (Jackman, 1994).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation