The Path to Glory Is Paved With Hierarchy

Abstract

Two experiments examined the psychological and biological antecedents of hierarchical differentiation and the resulting consequences for productivity and conflict within small groups. In Experiment 1, which used a priming manipulation, hierarchically differentiated groups (i.e., groups comprising 1 high-power-primed, 1 low-power-primed, and 1 baseline individual) performed better on a procedurally interdependent task than did groups comprising exclusively either all high-power-primed or all low-power-primed individuals. There were no effects of hierarchical differentiation on performance on a procedurally independent task. Experiment 2 used a biological marker of dominance motivation (prenatal testosterone exposure as measured by a digit-length ratio) to manipulate hierarchical differentiation. The pattern of results from Experiment 1 was replicated; mixed-testosterone groups achieved greater productivity than did groups comprising all high-testosterone or all low-testosterone individuals. Furthermore, intragroup conflict mediated the productivity decrements for the high-testosterone but not the low-testosterone groups. This research suggests possible directions for future research and the need to further delineate the conditions and types of hierarchy under which hierarchical differentiation enhances rather than undermines group effectiveness.

Leadership in an Egalitarian Society

“…Leadership can be particularly valuable where coordination is vulnerable to the “too many cooks in the kitchen” problem. Too many individuals vying for influence over group decisions can harm group performance (Groysberg et al 2011; Ronay et al 2012). …”

Classroom-level predictors of the social status of aggression: Friendship centralization, friendship density, teacher–student attunement, and gender.

“…Centralization findings suggest benefits that accrue from a more cohesive, integrated classroom peer ecology. Hierarchy has its functions (Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, & Galinsky, 2012), but it has long been thought that egalitarian or democratic peer ecologies are superior to those in which social capital is held by just a few (e.g., Schmuck, 1966;Sherif, 1956). For this reason, cooperative learn ing techniques often attempt to promote egalitarian, democratic peer relationships (Roseth et al, 2008).…”

Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable

“…Others have treated a discrete, ordinal independent variable as interval level and used standard regression-based techniques (Chandler & Pronin, 2012;Legault, Gutsell, & Inzlicht, 2011). Alternatively, investigators have modified their data to produce a dichotomous X, such as by conducting separate analyses comparing various groups of interest while discarding the remaining data (Pedersen, Denson, Goss, Vasquez, Kelly, & Miller, 2011;Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, & Galinsky, 2012;Werle, Wansink, & Payne, 2011;Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011) or collapsing multiple groups into one for comparison with another group or set of groups (Calogero & Jost, 2011;Haisley & Loewenstein, 2011;Ruva, Guenther, & Yarbrough, 2011). Another strategy used is substituting a continuous manipulation check for the multicategorical X and proceeding with a mediation analysis as if X were observed as a continuum (Forgas, 2011).…”