The Path to Glory is Paved with Hierarchy: When Hierarchical Differentiation Increases Group Effectiveness

Hormonal underpinnings of status conflict: Testosterone and cortisol are related to decisions and satisfaction in the hawk-dove game

“…The structure of the hawk-dove game also indicates that the hawk-dove combination leads to better collective outcomes (higher pay-offs if you add both players' earnings together) than the hawk-hawk combination or the dove-dove combination. Recent evidence of status processes in human dyads and groups is also consistent with these principles of the hawk-dove game (e.g., Greer et al, 2011;Bendersky and Hays, 2012;Ronay et al, 2012;Swaab et al, 2014;Kilduff et al, 2016). For example, groups randomly assigned to have one dominant and one subordinate individual (hawk-dove combination) performed better on an interdependent task than groups randomly assigned to have all-dominant individuals (hawk-hawk); groups randomly assigned to have all-subordinate individuals (dove-dove) showed intermediate performance (Ronay et al, 2012).…”

Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance

“…Indeed, Foels et al (2000) point out that by providing direction and clarity, autocratic leaders may offer team members ease and peace of mind. The literature on functional models of social hierarchy (e.g., Halevy et al, 2011;Keltner et al, 2008) supports this idea, suggesting that clear hierarchical differentiation in a group, as can stem from autocratic leadership, creates a structured, well-ordered environment, which satisfies members' need for predictability and safety (e.g., Tiedens et al, 2007) and allows higher group cooperation and performance (Halevy et al, 2011(Halevy et al, , 2012Keltner et al, 2008;Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, & Galinsky, 2012).…”

“…The results suggest that autocratic leadership is only effective in establishing a clear chain of command which helps members make sense of the world, allocate resources, and interact in a safe and efficient manner (cf. Halevy et al, 2011;Ronay et al, 2012) when team members accept the existing power hierarchy in the team and do not engage in power struggles. However, as power struggles can always (even unexpectedly) erupt, over time relying solely on autocratic leader behavior, may not be sufficient to safeguard having functional social hierarchies in teams.…”

“…As explained above, autocratic leadership, when its accompanying power differentiation is accepted and not challenged, may create a structured, ordered, psychologically appealing hierarchical environment (Halevy et al, 2011;Ronay et al, 2012;Tiedens & Fragale, 2003;Tiedens et al, 2007). Such a hierarchy can improve clarity within the team (Cooper & Withey, 2009;Keltner et al, 2008;Mischel, 1977), providing members a means to know what to expect from other team members, what one's own contribution should be, and who to go to for what.…”

“…In contrast, when power struggles are low and the hierarchy created and maintained by the autocratic leaders is willingly accepted by team members, the order and clear (power) role division in the unchallenged chain of command are psychologically rewarding, and enhance team psychological safety (Halevy et al, 2011;Ronay et al, 2012). In psychologically safe teams, team members understand and value each other's roles and contributions.…”