Status Conflict in Groups

RUNNING HEAD: Status conflict in groups Status Conflict in Groups

Corinne Bendersky UCLA Anderson School 110 Westwood Plaza, A418 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1481 Ph: (310) 825-1366 Fax: (310) 825-0218 [email protected] Nicholas Hays UCLA Anderson School 110 Westwood Plaza, A407 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1481 Ph: (310) 825-3846 Fax: (310) 825-0218 [email protected]

Under review at Organization Science. Please do not cite without authors’ permission.

Status conflicts in groups

2

Status Conflict in Groups Abstract We introduce status conflicts -- defined as attempts to defend or elevate one’s own relative status (i.e., prominence or respect) -- as a key group process that affects task group performance. Using mixed research methods, we qualitatively identify the characteristics of status conflicts, validate a four-item survey scale that distinctly measures status conflict, and investigate the relationship between status conflict and group performance. We determine that status conflict exerts a significant, negative main effect and moderates the effects of task conflict on group performance. A significant volume of research has analyzed the relationship between various types of conflict and task group performance (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart 2003b). Scholars have distinguished among task conflict, which is disagreement over ideas, viewpoints and opinions pertaining to the group's task, relationship conflict, which is disagreement resulting from interpersonal incompatibilities, including affective components such as feeling tension and process conflict, which is conflict about dividing and delegating responsibilities and deciding how to get work done (Jehn 1997). As we read ethnographies of organizational conflicts, however, we found numerous examples that did not fit one of those three categories. Instead, they seemed to involve conflicts over status, which is the prominence and respect conferred upon an individual by others (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro & Chatman 2006; Ridgeway & Correll 2006). For example, consider the description of “Black Friday” in Roy’s (1959) classic Banana Time article. In this example, low status Ike publically insulted high status George. George perceived this as a challenge to his superior status, and responded by giving Ike the “silent treatment” for thirteen days. To the author, George said, “Ike acts like a five-year old, not a man! … He’s always fooling around! I’m going to stop that! I’m going to show him his place!” (p. 165, italics added). In the end, the relationship between George and Ike returned to normal only once the status order had been clearly restored. The symbolic power one derives from positions of high status depends on the acceptance and deference of low status group members (Goffman 1967). Given the benefits of status, including greater influence, credit for contributing more to the group than others, rewards such as information and resources that contribute to individuals’ performance (Friedkin 1999; Ridgeway & Correll 2006), and more positive evaluations than those with low status in groups (Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch 1980), it


3

seems logical that individuals would compete for status and try to manipulate the social construction of status relations (Zhou 2005). To date, however, little attention has been paid to conflicts over status (see Owens & Sutton 2001; Porath, Overbeck & Pearson 2008; Sutton & Hargadon 1996 for exceptions). In this paper, therefore, we define and characterize status conflicts and determine their impact on group performance. We define status conflicts as attempts to defend or elevate one’s own relative status (i.e., prominence or respect). We also identify several unique features of status conflicts that distinguish them from other, related constructs. First, the motivation for a status conflict is instrumental – related to status as a social resource – rather than relational. People engage in status conflicts to gain or maintain their status positions regardless of the quality of their interpersonal relationship with the other party (Glynn 2000; Sutton & Hargadon 1996). Second, status conflicts are zero-sum; that is, they are conflicts over one’s relative position in a status hierarchy and gaining status means lowering another’s rank in the hierarchy (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek & Norman 1998; Phillips & Zuckerman 2001; Zhou 2005). Third, because they are zero-sum, status conflicts may be enacted by denigrating others (other focus) or aggrandizing oneself (self focus) (Morrill 1991; Owens & Sutton 2001). Finally, status conflicts often involve coalitions of actors that legitimate hierarchies (Berger et al. 1998). Considering status conflicts may increase our understanding of the effects of conflict on group performance and expose the constitutive effects of conflict on group social structures. In this paper, we, therefore, explore three primary research questions: 1) What characterizes and distinguishes status conflicts from task, process and relationship conflicts as well as other related constructs? 2) Can status conflicts be measured distinctly from the other types of conflict? 3) Does considering status conflict in addition to task, relationship, and process conflict improve our predictions of group performance? Empirically, we use three samples of MBA student study groups of four to six people who worked together for one 10-week academic quarter on group assignments, in-class exercises and individual assignments for between two and five required courses. We collected qualitative process data from the first sample of five teams for the duration of the 10-week quarter. Using these data, we distinguish status


4

conflict from the other types of conflicts. Based on these results, we then develop and validate a four-item status conflict scale using our second and third student samples. Finally, we examine the effects of status conflict on group performance in addition to those of task, relationship and process conflict in our third student sample. Together, these analyses suggest that status conflict is a distinct, reliable, and valid construct that significantly improves our predictions of group performance over models with only task, relationship and process conflict. INTRODUCTION OF STATUS CONFLICTS Effects of Conflict on Group Performance Early research on conflict within groups focused on how it can produce tension and animosity and distract a team from the task at hand, thereby hindering team performance (Hackman & Morris 1975; Pondy 1967). By analyzing the discrete effects of task, relationship and process conflict on group outcomes, however, Jehn (1995; 1997) found that, although all types of conflict are detrimental to member satisfaction, moderate levels of task conflict actually improve team performance. These results were consistent with other research indicating that divergent viewpoints within a group can improve decision quality by forcing members to take others’ perspective and stimulating creativity (Amason 1996; Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major & Phillips 1995; Schwenk 1990). Despite the potential benefits of task conflict on group performance, the positive relationship first reported by Jehn (1995) has been found inconsistently in subsequent research. In their meta-analysis, DeDreu and Weingart (2003b) determined that the average, corrected correlation between task conflict and group performance was -.23. This has generated a proliferation of research that attempts to uncover moderating variables that clarify the relationship between various types of conflict and performance (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart 2003a; Hinds & Mortensen 2005; Jehn & Bendersky 2003; Lovelace, Shapiro & Weingart 2001). Such complex models have led some scholars to conclude that the performance benefits of task conflicts may occur only under highly proscribed circumstances (De Dreu & Weingart 2003b).


5

We posit that the presence of conflict over status may partially explain the inconsistent relationship between task conflict and performance. Although status conflicts, per se, have not emerged as a focal topic in the extant conflict literature, research suggests such conflicts may be pervasive. A substantial body of research suggests that task groups without a formal hierarchical structure inevitably establish a social hierarchy (Bales 1958; Tiedens, Unzueta & Young 2007). Although researchers have traditionally depicted status hierarchies as systematically constructed (Berger, Cohen & Zelditch 1972; Berger et al. 1980) and stable (Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring 2001; Stewart 2005), negotiated order theory suggests that social order is continuously (re)constructed as actors negotiate for power and vie for legitimacy (Strauss, Schatzman, Ehrlich, Bucher & Sabshin 1963). Furthermore, evidence suggests that people engage in status contests (Maclay & Knipe 1972; Owens & Sutton 2001; Zhou 2005) and may overtly challenge the status of others (Polzer & Caruso 2008; Porath et al. 2008) or engage in status auctions (Sutton & Hargadon 1996) to sort out their relative standing. Thus, status hierarchies appear to be negotiable and contested much like other resources over which conflict occurs. What is Status Conflict in Groups? Simply stated, status conflicts are attempts to defend or elevate one’s own relative status. They have four distinctive features that, in combination, can be used to identify them and differentiate them from other types of conflict (i.e., task, relationship or process conflicts) and related constructs. First, they are not motivated by the quality of the interpersonal relationship but by instrumental interests to gain higher or to defend one’s status position (Owens & Sutton 2001). Consider the example of a conflict over identity and legitimacy claims involved in a musician’s strike at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (Glynn 2000). Although the dispute was ostensibly over wages and working conditions, "claims and counterclaims over the organization’s identity are made in an effort to legitimate certain groups over others, thereby defining firm capabilities in ways that advantage them” (p. 287). Although these disputants were passionate about their claims, their interpersonal relationships were not the motivation for the dispute and they were able to return to working together productively once the conflict was resolved.


6

Second, status conflicts are zero-sum, as status hierarchies are based on structures of relative level of prominence and respect (Chase 1980; Ridgeway & Walker 1995). As Sutton and Hargadon (1996) described in their study of brainstorming sessions at the IDEO design firm, “[t]here are winners and losers in these competitions and the losers suffer status losses” (p. 707). A specific position in a status hierarchy represents a fixed amount of a social resource, making status conflicts similar to a distributive negotiation where one party’s gain is the other’s loss. Third, because they are zero-sum, the arguments used to initiate status conflicts can aggrandize the self, directly elevating one’s own status and consequently lowering another’s status, or denigrate others, directly lowering their status and consequently raising one’s own status. Morrill (1995) provides an example of an effort of enhance one’s own status through self-aggrandizement. Relatively low status Jimson “had recently made partner due in no small part to his mentoring by Vega…Jimson repeatedly boasted about his latest engagements, and laughingly added that ‘a new era had dawned’ in which Jimson would mentor Vega on how to deal with clients.” Vega defended his higher status with a response that was aimed at deflating Jimson’s status ambitions by “telling Jimson that one of the distinguishing marks of an Independent partner is a ‘reserved and professional perspective.’ ‘Too much confidence,’ Vega warned, ‘could lead one to arrogance and ruination’” (pps. 166 – 167). Morrill (1991) also illustrates status conflict focused on lowering other’s status in his study of Playco (an entertainment company), where executives engaged in ritualistic conflict processes designed to sort out the relative status of the disputants. For example, he describes a “duel” that took place between two executives, West and Harris, who presented competing proposals during a team meeting. After each presentation, they exchanged questions and answers until Harris’ rebuttals got weaker and she sat mute in response to West’s questions. At this point, Harris tore up her copy of her plan, indicating acceptance of West’s proposal (pp 600- 601). Finally, coalitions are often, but not necessarily, involved in status conflicts. Coalition activity in status conflicts is consistent with the role of bystanders in legitimating and enforcing hierarchies (Berger et al. 1998; Kalkhoff 2005; Stewart 2005). Both as a source of social proof that validates the status order


7

(Kalkhoff 2005) and as a sign of middle status conformity to the group’s norms (Phillips & Zuckerman 2001), bystander’s reinforcement of deference patterns reifies a status order. For example, Strauss, et al. (1963) noted that “both resident and nurse's aide seek to draw higher administrators into the act, negotiating for support and increased power" (p. 162). Similarly, designers participating in brainstorming sessions at IDEO understood that validation from others was an important part of the status contest. Conceptual Distinctiveness of Status Conflict These four distinctive characteristics help place status conflicts on a conceptual map with constructs related to identity threats and negative social relationships more generally. The closest related concepts are those that have to do with identity threats. In particular, face theory (the social value given to others in social situations (Goffman 1967)) identifies efforts people take to preserve and attack face. Brown and Levinson (1987) list actions that attack face, including threats, warnings, orders, disapproval, contempt, accusations, and insults. In recent research, Brett, Olekalns, Friedman, Goates, Anderson and Lisco (2007) find that how disputants convey respect and esteem for the other party affects the likelihood of conflict resolution. Like status conflicts, “[a]ttacking face communicates that the speaker views him/herself as one up and the recipient as one down in the relationship.” (Brett et al. 2007: 89). Unlike status conflicts, however, face theory does not assume status is a zero-sum resource and that the negotiation is to determine which of the two involved parties have relatively higher status. Instead, a face attack is an effort to gain compliance from the other person contrary to what that person wants to do (Brown & Levinson 1987: 65 - 66). It is a tactic in a negotiation rather than the subject of the negotiation. Furthermore, Brett, at al., (2007) assert that “the giving (or attacking) of face…is not directly measurable” (p. 86). By framing status conflicts in the tradition of research on group conflict, measuring them quantitatively becomes more tractable. Nonetheless, there is considerable overlap between these two concepts. Other kinds of identity threats are less closely related to status conflicts. Social undermining – behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon 2002: 332) – may


8

reduce another’s social status in an organization. It also includes negative emotions such as anger and dislike that are directed at a target and efforts that cause interpersonal harm (Vinokur & van Ryn 1993). Social undermining is, thus, a broader and more relationally-motivated construct than is status conflict. Similarly, an ego threat, which is a discrepancy between a favorable self-appraisal and an external appraisal that is much less favorable (Baumeister, Smart & Boden 1996; Vohs & Heatherton 2003), is much broader than is status conflict because it encompasses interpersonal evaluations well beyond those that might be used to convey relative status. Compared to other identity threat constructs, then, status conflict is more proscribed, measurable and distinguished by its zero-sum nature and relational neutrality. Another category of related concepts has to do with negative social actions. They are related to status conflicts in that each may be a way to enact a status conflict by denigrating another person. Like the identity threat constructs, negative social actions are distinguished from status conflicts by their breadth and relational motivation, emphasis on other-denigration but not self-aggrandizement and non-zero-sum qualities. The most closely related constructs are disrespect, which is social information about one’s low relational value within the group (De Cremer & Tyler 2004), workplace incivility, which is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Pearson, Andersson & Wegner 2001; Porath et al. 2008) and interpersonal harm, which involves behaviors that go against the legitimate interests of another individual in the organization (Venkataramani & Dalal 2007). Examples of these kinds of actions include using demeaning language and voice tone, making implicit threats, demonstrating disregard for others (Pearson et al. 2001), getting into an argument or a physical altercation, gossiping behind another person’s back and interfering with others’ work (Venkataramani & Dalal 2007). As these definitions and examples suggest, such negative social actions may have the effect of lowering another’s status in the organization but the motivation tends to be more relational than is the motivation for status conflicts. Furthermore, they are not conflicts, per se, but rather communication and behavior directed at another individual that may or may not provoke a response. Furthermore, these constructs are more akin to social capital, which can be conceptualized and measured in absolute terms (Oh, Labianca & Chung 2006; Portes 1998) than to relative social status. In other


9

words, the effects of these negative social actions may reduce another’s social capital without necessarily raising that of the perpetrator. Having distinguished status conflicts from other, related constructs, we now turn to empirically distinguishing status conflict from other types of conflicts that occur in task groups. STUDY 1: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF STATUS CONFLICT In this first study, we sought to systematically identify the characteristics of status conflicts in task groups comprised of peers (i.e., without a formal hierarchical structure) where we could observe the emergence and evolution of status hierarchies. Thus, in Study 1, we explore 1) how status conflict is distinct from task, relationship and process conflict; 2) how it relates to the other types of conflicts; and 3) with what frequency it occurs in isolation and in combination with different types of conflicts. Methods Participants. Participants are 25 full time MBA students at a West Coast University during their first quarter in the program. They are organized into five teams of five members each and worked together on assignments from five required courses. Fifteen are men, 13 are Caucasian and their average age is 27 years (s.d. = 1.88). On average they have 4.26 years (s.d. = 1.25 years) of post-graduate work experience. Procedure. At the beginning and end of the quarter (after all course grades had been submitted), the members ranked themselves and their teammates on six status dimensions: status, influence, contribution, respectability, intelligence and social popularity. During the 10-week quarter, each team audio taped all team meetings and copied the lead researcher on all intra-team emails, from which we excised conflict episodes. We define a conflict as perceptions of discrepant views or interpersonal incompatibilities (Jehn 1995). A conflict episode involves a single set of participants talking about a single topic. When the topic or participants change, a new conflict episode begins. This definition resulted in 259 total conflict episodes. Coding process and scheme. We iteratively developed our coding scheme using the team with the most change in its status order, based on mean Spearman’s correlations of the time one and time two rank


10

orders for each of the six status dimensions on which the participants were surveyed. We used this team for developing our coding scheme because the ranking data suggested it was likely to have the highest levels of status-based conflicts. We considered each conflict episode in terms of Jehn’s (1997) definitions of task, relationship and process conflict, then discussed episodes that seemed not to fit one of the categories and/or appeared to involve issues of relative social standing. After iterating our coding definitions together, the authors independently coded a subset of the conflict episodes in terms of all four types of conflicts, allowing for multiple conflict codes (e.g., an episode could be coded as having both task and status conflict present). Our Cohen’s Kappa measure of interrater reliability for task conflict equaled .86; for process conflict equaled .72; for relationship conflict equaled .76 and for status conflict equaled 1. We then trained an independent rater who was blind to the purposes of the study about our coding scheme to ensure that others would also be able to reliably identify status conflicts along with the other three types of conflicts. Validating our coding scheme, we achieved a Cohen’s Kappa of 1 for task conflict, .77 for relationship conflict, .76 for process conflict and .76 for status conflict. We discussed all disagreements and a final set of codes for each conflict episode were determined. The second author then coded the other four teams with the final protocol.1 Results Our analyses indicate that 47 percent of all conflicts experienced by these groups involved some aspect of status. Table 1 presents the frequency of coded conflict episodes, including how often status conflicts occurred alone and with task, relationship and process conflict by team, with sample quotes. Insert Table 1 here To illustrate what we identified as status conflict and how it is distinct from task, relationship and process conflict, we begin with several examples of “pure” conflicts. Pure status conflicts. Pure status conflicts are focused exclusively on the social hierarchy of the group. For example, two members of Team 2, A and B, discussed their high schools as a way of asserting their superior “pedigree.” “B: We still had a better education than you guys, so that’s okay. A: Yeah, I 1

The coding protocol is available from the first author upon request.


11

don’t think so…Madeline Albright went to my high school, motherf****r. Madeline motherf****n’ Albright! B: So? Every single president and prime minister came out of my high school. A: Yeah? B: Like, 70 percent of politicians in that country come from my high school. A: That doesn’t mean anything… No. I went to a very, very wealthy high school. B: Well, I just went to the most intelligent high school in all of Southeast Asia.” This conversation about who had superior education credentials was purely an attempt to increase the relative esteem in which other group members held each of them. Thus, it was related to instrumental concerns and featured competing claims for a fixed resource, namely the top ranking in the status hierarchy of this group. Further, this excerpt demonstrates a self-focus where each participant attempted to elevate his own relative status. In general, we found that team members generally employed one of three "arguments" in service of their goal to modify or reinforce the hierarchy by: 1) asserting superior legitimacy of a viewpoint, 2) attempting to assert dominance relative to others, or 3) devaluing another’s or inflating one’s own contributions. Legitimacy of viewpoint arguments challenge another’s logic or understanding of the information to justify why the challenger’s views were more accurate or appropriate than another team member’s views. Use of this argument is consistent with status construction research where displays of competence lead to higher status (Berger et al. 1972; Lord 1985; Ridgeway & Erickson 2000; Van Vugt 2006). For example, in our student teams we observed comments like, “You’ve always got it wrong. I get all this stuff ” (Member R, Team 3); and “I understand what you’re saying, but I’ve read that sentence like ten times” (Member S, Team 1). Asserting dominance was identifiable by being assertive relative to group norms, telling others what to do or how to do something, insulting or interrupting others. Displays of dominance have been associated with higher status and influence (Anderson & Berdahl 2002; Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt 2002; Lord, Devader & Alliger 1986). This is due, in part, to others’ increased perceptions of competence (Anderson & Kilduff 2008), and the elicitation of complementary submissive behaviors in others (Tiedens & Fragale 2003). Examples of this tactic in our student groups include “Just shut up, don’t even say any


12

more” (Member S, Team 5), “I see it, but you tell me in the terms I’ll agree” (Member L, Team 3) and “C: [Y]ou’re so- I don’t know what the word for it is. Blunt… Sometime the internal censor should kick in” (Member C, Team 2). Value of contribution arguments generally involved undermining or devaluing another’s contribution to the group’s task or accentuating one’s own contribution. This is consistent with research demonstrating that group members thought to be capable of contributing more to the group’s goals are conferred higher status (Berger, Webster, Ridgeway & Rosenholtz 1986). For example, “Not later, not when, you know, a few people have other plans because then it’s like, ok let’s shove it off for those people um…’cuz you know I-I think me and L were sitting there Saturday afternoon… And there I was, one of the two people who were typing it up when I didn’t wanna be that person” (Member R, Team 3). By accentuating his and L’s contribution to the group’s homework assignment, R is attempting to raise their status relative to those who had “other plans” and, therefore, did not help complete their assignment. Another distinctive feature of status conflicts is that they frequently involve a coalition of group members opposing a dissenting individual. This kind of behavior is consistent with the role of bystanders in legitimating and enforcing hierarchies (Kalkhoff 2005). For example, “L: Why didn’t you go? A: I don’t know. I can’t remember. B: ‘Cuz his girlfriend doesn’t let him go out. L: That’s lame.” In this excerpt, B and L gang up on A and undermine his status by stating that his girlfriend controls his whereabouts and activities. L’s alliance with A helps reinforce the legitimacy of A’s higher relative status than B’s. Pure task conflicts. In contrast, task conflicts arose from differences of opinion related to the task at hand. An example of a pure task conflict is, “D: Your profits [are] still going to be zero. Right? M: No, your profit’s negative apparently. J: No- D: In the long run, it’s going to be zero. J: But why will it be zero? …D: Because you’re in a perfectly competitive market. J: Right, but [overlap] D: That’s the definition” (Team 5). Although this was a quite heated disagreement, the parties were all focused on figuring out the right answer to the problem, thus, it was coded only as task conflict.


13

Pure relationship conflicts. Relationship conflict is motivated by a negative interpersonal relationship based on different values, preferences and priorities. This distinguishes it from status conflicts, which may occur regardless of the quality of the interpersonal relationship. An example of a pure relationship conflict comes from a heated discussion among members of Team 3 over hiring practices and gender discrimination. “P: You take the same person, the same education, the same qualities, one is a man, one is a woman, which one will you pick? L: I’ll hire a woman…. Just because I want women to be more in the work force. Why would you hire a man? R: That’s, you’re so discriminatory…L: Why would you hire a man? …You’re denying a qualified woman from entering the work force-- that’s ridiculous!” This argument was about differences of values and opinions, but the participants did not attempt to bolster their own status or lower another’s status in the process, so it was coded as just relationship conflict. Pure process conflicts. Process conflict relates to how to accomplish a task. Examples of pure process conflict include: “J: I really think we should get together to do the last finance case. We all know that S and P could do it together, but I think it would be better if we all read it and then met and discussed it before you two shoot out the answer. B: J, that's fine. I think you should still attempt to do the case yourself whenever you can so that we can make our group discussion more effective” (Team 1). Pure process conflicts were, essentially, logistical discussions. Conflict co-occurrence. As Table 1 indicates, status conflict frequently occurred with other types of conflict. That is, the subject of a conversation appeared to be task, process, or relationship conflict but it also had an underlying theme of challenging the social hierarchy. Task, relationship and process conflicts that occurred with status components were considerably different than in their ‘pure’ form. For example, Members B and Z of Team 2 argue vehemently about the answer to a homework problem, but B challenges the legitimacy of Z’s opinion by implying that Z is not thinking rationally, which introduces a status component to the task conflict. “B: You’ve got to be rational…Okay, Z, you’ve got to think rationally…You’ve got to think conceptually.” B’s derogation of Z’s logic left Z feeling frustrated and unappreciated, and he disengaged from the group’s discussion (based on a subsequent interview with the first author). Thus, we found that when a task conflict was used as an opportunity to try to gain status


14

relative to another group member, the exchanges were more defensive and the parties shared less information than they did in pure task conflict exchanges. Status and relationship conflicts may co-occur when interpersonal differences are used as the basis for challenging the social hierarchy. When a status conflict occurs between people who have a negative interpersonal relationship, it may be especially emotionally intense. Consider this example from Team 1 where Member S responded to a joke Member B made about him in the school newspaper: “S: While I like joke [sic], it depends on time, place and occasion. Obviously [the] Professor and his TAs are grading our final exam paper. I can't understand why you execute me publicly and try to make my poor grade worse.” B’s public teasing of S both hurt him interpersonally and made him fear that it might lower the esteem in which the professor and TA held him. The status component of this relationship conflict seemed to exacerbate the negative emotions between B and S. We observed similar kinds of exacerbated negative dynamics when status conflicts co-occurred with process conflicts. Study 1 Discussion Our inductive analysis of these conflict episodes indicates that status conflicts are distinguishable from other types of conflicts and that they are relatively common in these kinds of task groups. The distinguishing feature of status conflict is asserting or challenging the status order, or the relative levels of prominence and respect in the group, regardless of the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the individuals involved. These efforts were most often made by asserting superior legitimacy of a viewpoint, attempting to assert dominance relative to others, devaluing another’s or inflating one’s own contributions and/or mobilizing allies. Although status conflict does occur independently, it was more common that a task, relationship or process conflict served as an arena for a status contest. We believe this is due to the relative social acceptability of the other types of conflict compared to an overt status contest. Interestingly, when a task, relationship or process conflict had a status element, it seemed to function differently in the group. Task conflict appeared more detrimental to the group’s process, relationship conflict seemed more intense and


15

process conflict extended well beyond logistical discussions when they co-occurred with a status conflict than without. It is notable that the groups we observed engaged in relatively little relationship conflict. We believe this occurred primarily because the qualitative data came from recordings of formal group meetings and intragroup emails. To the extent that these groups socialized and discussed personal issues outside of “working hours,” or when a subset of the group members met informally, they did not record these gatherings. Additional relationship conflicts may have occurred during these more informal, unrecorded meetings. We next develop and validate a survey instrument based on our qualitative observations and determine that status conflict is empirically distinct from task, relationship and process conflict. STUDY 2: CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT Methods Having identified the characteristics of status conflicts with our qualitative data and distinguished it from related constructs in the literature, we next developed a nine-item survey scale. We designed questions to reflect the four common manifestations of status conflicts that we observed in Study 1: Asserting superior legitimacy of a viewpoint (e.g., “Members of my team questioned the credibility of other group members”); asserting influence or dominance (e.g., “My team members competed for influence”); devaluing another’s or inflating one’s own contributions (e.g., “My team members disagreed about the relative value of members contributions) and mobilizing allies (e.g., “My team members frequently took sides (i.e., formed coalitions) during conflicts”). We also added several items reflecting the zero-sum nature of status conflicts, which seems to be a particularly distinctive characteristic of this construct (e.g., “In my group, I’ve experienced or observed two people both fighting to have the last word in an argument”). The full list of items is in Table 2. We also included the nine items from Jehn (1995) and Shah and Jehn (1993) that have been typically used to measure task, relationship and process conflict.


16

Participants. We surveyed two samples of working middle managers enrolled in a part-time MBA program at a West Coast business school. The first sample includes 134 people (53 percent response rate) from four classes of students configured in 24 groups of five to six people (M = 5.8). Respondents are 26 years old on average (s.d. = 10.08) with an average of 6.16 years of post-graduate work experience (s.d. = 5). Sixty-eight percent of the sample is male and 33 percent is Caucasian. The second sample has 240 people (a 95 percent response rate) from the same population of working students who were configured in 44 different groups (but of the same size) than was the first sample. Sixty-eight percent of respondents in this sample are male and 39 percent are Caucasian. The average age is 29.5 (s.d. = 3.68), and the respondents have an average of 6.12 (s.d. = 4.2) years of post-graduate work experience. Procedure. We collected data from the first sample via an online survey that was administered to all first-year part time MBA students at the end of their quarter, right before their final exams. The survey instructions were to “Please think about your group experiences over the entire quarter, not just on your most recent group project,” and to “Rate the extent to which each statement resembles your own study group.” All questions were on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “To No Extent” (1) to “To a Great Extent” (7). We used this first sample to conduct exploratory factor analyses on all 18 conflict items and determine the reliabilities of the conflict scales. The procedure and materials used with the second sample was identical to the first, but the survey was administered in the final class of the student’s core Organizational Behavior course during a different academic quarter than was the first sample. This time, students were required to complete the survey for course credit but could opt out of the research study. We use this larger second sample to conduct comparative confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and aggregation analyses. Results Exploratory factor analyses and reliability tests. To determine the association among items, we conducted exploratory factor analyses using Principal Components extraction with Promax rotation (kappa = 4) on responses from our first sample (see Table 2). Four factors accounted for 73 percent of the


17

variance. The three items that measure task conflict loaded together,2 the three items that measure relationship conflict loaded together and two of the three process conflict items loaded together. One process conflict item, “My team members had disagreements about who should do what” double loaded almost equally on the process and relationship conflict factors, so we excluded it from subsequent analyses. Four of the nine status conflict items loaded together, positively and uniquely on a separate factor. Two additional items loaded negatively on the status conflict factor, and three others loaded (or cross-loaded) on the relationship conflict factor. We suspect these latter items tapped into the quality of the interpersonal relationship making them less clearly distinguishable from relationship conflicts than were the other six items. Cronbach’s Alpha measuring the reliability of the four-item status conflict scale equals .90. Alphas for the other conflict scales were all acceptable (task conflict: α = .74, relationship conflict: α = .79, two-item process conflict: α = .74). Insert Table 2 here Comparative CFAs. To test the discriminant validity of our scales, we conducted comparative CFAs on our second sample of responses to determine if our four-factor model adequately represents the data and fit better than alternative models. Fit statistics for the unconstrained four-factor model met standard criteria:3 χ2 = 114.60, df = 48, p < .001, GFI/NFI = .92, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .076. We then conducted a series of sequential chi-squared differences tests to assess whether the unconstrained model fit the data better than a one-factor model with the covariance among all four latent conflict factors set equal to one, and three separate three-factor models where status conflict was assumed to load on the same factor as relationship conflict, process conflict, or task conflict, respectively. For the latter analyses, we fixed the covariance between the status conflict factor and each of other conflict factors to one. Results of all

2

One task conflict item, “My team members frequently had disagreements about the task we were working on” also loaded at .46 with the process conflict items. Since it loaded predominantly, at .67, with the rest of the task conflict items and because of the substantial precedent for using these three items to measure task conflict, however, we included it as part of the task conflict factor. 3 Although an RMSEA of less than .06 is optimal, Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham (2006) suggest that anything less than .10 is acceptable, particularly for small samples (Kim & Bentler 2006).


18

model comparisons confirmed that our unconstrained four-factor model demonstrated the best fit of the data (see Table 3). Insert Table 3 Here Aggregation analyses. We calculated the within-group agreement index, rwg (James, Demaree & Wolf 1984) and the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(1), to determine the appropriateness of aggregating the task, relationship, process and status conflict constructs from our larger, second sample to the group level of analysis.4 The rwg index ranges from 0 to 1, with values greater than .7 justifying group aggregation (Klein et al. 2000). ICC(1) is a point estimate of interrater reliability that takes into account group size. A value greater than .12 is generally considered acceptable (James 1982). Because there was not much variance in group size, we averaged it across the teams (Bliese 2000). The aggregation statistics produce support for group-level aggregation. For task conflict, the ICC(1) equaled .25 and the mean rwg equaled .84; for relationship conflict, the ICC(1) equaled .33and mean rwg = .90; for the two item process conflict scale, the ICC(1) equal to .21 and mean rwg equal to .82; and for status conflict ICC(1) equal to .13and rwg = .84. Thus, the within-group agreement and interrater reliabilities were all acceptable. STUDY 3: EFFECTS ON GROUP PERFORMANCE Having developed a measurement scale for status conflicts, we now assess its effects on group performance. Given the unambiguous and consistent negative relationship found between individual satisfaction and all types of conflict (De Dreu & Weingart 2003b), we had no reason to expect that the effect of status conflict would be any different. Therefore, we chose to focus our analyses on the relationship between team performance and status conflict. We posit that including status conflict along with the traditional measures of task, relationship and process conflict will enhance our understanding of the role of group conflict on performance. Hypotheses 4

We did not calculate ICC(2) scores, as we are less concerned about the reliability of the means as a way to distinguish between groups as we are about the within in group reliability and agreement of the members.


19

Given the prevalence of status conflicts in Study 1, we conclude that they are fairly common in task groups and often co-occur with other types of conflicts. Previous studies that have measured only task, relationship and process conflict, therefore, may have had limited explanatory power due to noise from unobserved status conflicts. Like other forms of conflict, status conflict consumes team resources; therefore, considering its effect on performance along with those of task, relationship and process conflict may help explain more of the variance in performance than do models without it. We hypothesize: Hypothesis 1: Including status conflict in analyses will explain more total variance of group performance than will models with only task, relationship and process conflict. Status conflicts will likely hinder team performance. Because conflict over status is not related to the group’s task, it should serve as a distraction and harm group performance, much like relationship and process conflict do (Jehn 1997). As individuals assert their status interests by challenging or defending their status position, they may make suboptimal decisions that hurt the group’s task performance (Hambrick & Cannella 1993). Furthermore, groups with many high status individuals may easily become preoccupied with sorting out their status hierarchy, leading to dysfunctional team processes (Groysberg, Polzer & Elfenbein 2008; Overbeck, Correll & Park 2005). Responding to status challenges may also hamper group processes, as individuals’ attention is focused on determining responses that maintain or enhance one’s status position rather than the group’s task (Loch, Huberman & Stout 2000; Porath et al. 2008). For these reasons, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2: Status conflict will exert a negative main effect on group performance. Our Study 1 results indicate that conflicts that are ostensibly over tasks, relationships or processes may be a forum for challenging status; when they are, the dynamics may be very different than when status concerns are not represented. In particular, the presence of status elements in task conflicts may undermine the positive potential of the task conflicts to surface unshared information and question underlying assumptions by generating threat rigidity responses -- restriction of information processing and constriction of control (Staw, Sandelands & Dutton 1981). For example, if I disagree with a teammate’s opinion regarding a way to approach our task and offer an alternative idea supported by new


20

information, that is a task conflict that could benefit the group’s performance. If, however, I disagree with a teammate’s opinion regarding our group’s task by asserting my superior credibility or more legitimate expertise, that is a challenge to my teammate’s status, which may induce a defensive response and hurt our group’s performance. This kind of restrictive reaction to a status component of a conflict would be particularly detrimental to a creative, problem solving task where a group’s ability to utilize diverse information is strongly related to its performance (De Dreu & West 2001; Hollenbeck et al. 1995). Formally: Hypothesis 3: Status conflict will moderate the effect of task conflict on group performance such that group performance is highest when task conflict is at a high level and status conflict is at a low level. When the main effect of a type of conflict on performance is negative, introducing a status element to it should exacerbate the negative effect. While an interpersonal difference may be distracting from the task at hand, one that is used as the basis for trying to minimize another’s status in a group may generate defensive behaviors, like excessive commitment to one’s position (Diekmann, Tenbrunsel, Shah, Schroth & Bazerman 1996). We also observed in Study 1 that relationship and process conflicts that had a status component were particularly emotionally intense, potentially making them more difficult to resolve (Van Kleef & Cote 2007). Thus, we predict that: Hypothesis 4: Status conflict will moderate the effect of relationship conflict on group performance to produce the lowest group performance when both are experienced at high levels; and Hypothesis 5: Status conflict will moderate the effect of process conflict on group performance to produce the lowest group performance when both are experienced at high levels. Methods We use the same data as we used for the CFA and aggregation analyses in Study 2. Dependent variable. The dependent variable is the grade each team received on their final group project for the Organizational Behavior core course during which these data were collected. The assignments were collected prior to the survey’s administration but graded afterwards. The assignments


21

were graded by two graders on a 12 to 16 - point scale with a mean grade of 13.70 (s. d. = 1.36). The graders both independently graded a subset of seven assignments to establish an inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa = .78). There were no differences across class section, so we pooled the data. Independent variables. The standardized, aggregated task, relationship, process and status conflict scales we collected from the survey are our independent variables. Control variables. Following past conflict research, we included a number of control variables in our analyses: the number of team members (M = 5.82, s.d. = .45), the percent of the team members that are male (M = 67.7, s.d. = 15.29), the percent that are Caucasian (M = 37.8, s.d. = 24.17) and the mean GMAT standardized test scores as a measure of general business knowledge for the team (M = 677.63, s.d. = 24.52). In addition to the demographic composition variables, we included three group process variables. The group cooperativeness scale (Lester, Meglino & Korsgaard 2002) reflects the extent to which team members communicated and cooperated with each other. It is comprised of eight items that are adapted to fit the question structure of our survey (e.g., “My team members cooperated to get the work done”). The Cronbach’s Alpha from the individual responses was equal to .88 and the aggregation statistics support group level analyses (ICC(1) = .37 and mean Rwg = .96). In addition, although the full seven-item conflict norms scale (Jehn 1995) was unreliable (Alpha = .40), two items addressing open conflict norms (“Conflict was dealt with openly in my team” and “If conflict arose in my team, the people involved initiated steps to resolve the conflict immediately”) achieved an acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha of .76. Since the open discussion of conflict has been a key conflict management strategy for teams that benefit from task conflict (Jehn & Mannix 2001), we included this two item scale in our analyses as well, even though the mean Rwg is a bit lower than is recommended (ICC(1) = .19 and mean Rwg = .66). Since there was no variation in task interdependence across our groups, we considered the quality of the group’s taskbased processes instead, based on the effort process criteria scale (Wageman, Hackman & Lehman 2005). The scale is comprised of three items regarding the level of effort members collectively expend on the task. We included this particular subscale from their overall group process criteria measure because


22

concerns regarding free-riders and team members shirking their responsibilities were particularly salient in this sample. The effort process criteria scale achieved an individual-level Cronbach’s Alpha equal to .84, ICC(1) equal to .35 and mean Rwg equal to .81, justifying aggregation to the group level of analysis. Results Correlations and descriptive statistics are reported in Table 4. Consistent with previous conflict research (De Dreu & Weingart 2003b), the four conflict scales are all significantly positively correlated with each other. None of the conflict scales has a significant bivariate correlation with group performance. Insert Table 4 here Hierarchical OLS regression. We next tested our hypotheses with respect to group performance (Table 5). The R2 of Model 1, with just the control variables, equals .16. When task, relationship and process conflict are added to the control variables in Model 2, the R2 increases to .28, but the change is not significant (p = .15). The main effect of relationship conflict is significantly negative (Beta = -.69, p < .05). Task and process conflict have non-significant positive coefficients. Adding status conflict to the model increases the R2 significantly to .39 (p < .05) and relationship conflict is no longer significant. Status conflict exerts a significant negative effect (Beta = -.70, p < .05). These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2; adding a status conflict variable increases the percent of variance in team performance explained by the conflict model and status conflict has a negative main effect on team performance. The reduction of relationship conflict’s effect size and significance also suggests that some of the variance that has been explained by the relationship conflict scale in the past may, in fact, be due to status conflict. Finally, in Model 4 with the introduction of the three two-way interactions between each of the task, relationship and process conflict scales and status conflict, the R2 increases significantly to .55 (p < .05). Of the four types of conflict in the model, only status conflict has a significant main effect (Beta = -.73, p < .01). The task by status conflict interaction term is significant and negative (Beta = -.42, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 3. None of the other interaction terms are significant, so Hypotheses 4 and 5 are not supported.


23

We checked the variance inflation factors (VIF) in Models 3 and 4 to determine if our conflict items were collinear, given their high bivariate correlations. The VIFs were all less than 10, except for relationship conflict in the final model, which was equal to 10.68. Removing it from the analysis does not change the results. Nonetheless, multicollinearity may explain why the coefficient’s sign changed and, potentially, the lack of significance in the final model. Following the advice of Aiken and West (1991), we plotted the task by status conflict interaction one standard deviation above and below the means of those variables, holding all other variables constant at their means and gender equal to 0. We find that, consistent with our Hypothesis 3, the group performance cell mean is highest at 15.3 when task conflict is high and status conflict is low. Group performance is lowest at 12.0 when both task and status conflict are high (cell means for task conflict low and status conflict low = 13.8; task conflict low and status conflict high = 13.1). Insert Table 5 here Study 3 Discussion Our results suggest that status conflict improves the explanatory power of models of conflict on group performance beyond those that include just task, relationship and process conflict. Controlling for task, relationship and process conflict, status conflict exerts a negative main effect on group performance. Furthermore, status conflict moderates the effect of task conflict on group performance such that the highest group performance occurred when task conflict is high and status conflict is low. Some of the ambiguity around the relationship between task conflict and group performance may, therefore, be accounted for by unobserved status conflicts that hurt group performance. These results suggest that status conflicts are an important group process construct to consider in addition to task, process and relationship conflict. It is important to note, however, that we did not replicate the results of earlier research in our models with just task, relationship and process conflicts (Model 2). Although the task conflict coefficient was positive in the analysis on group performance, it was not statistically significant, and process conflict was also positive and not significant. It is, therefore, necessary to cautiously interpret the generalizability of


24

our findings. Although our sample has many strengths, the group dynamics may be somewhat unique to an academic setting (Pfeffer & Fong 2004). Furthermore, with the status conflict main effect in the model (Model 3), the other types of conflict did not significantly affect group performance at all. It is possible that by asking about status conflicts as well as the other types of conflict, respondents in this sample may have made more of a distinction among them than they would have if we had only asked the traditional nine-item conflict scales. Determining if there are situations where task, relationship, process and status conflict exert independent main effects on group performance will help further define and differentiate these constructs. GENERAL DISCUSSION In a series of qualitative and quantitative studies, we have defined status conflicts, developed and validated a scale to measure the construct, and quantified the effects of status conflicts on group performance. In doing so, we make several important contributions to the group conflict and group status literatures. Our first contribution is demonstrating that task groups experience conflicts over status. While status may be ascribed based on a person’s characteristics (Berger et al. 1980) and reinforced by interpersonal interactions of dominance and deference (Ridgeway, Boyle, Kuipers & Robinson 1998), our research suggests status is a resource that may also be contested and negotiated. Thus, status should be thought of as a dynamically evolving construct, manipulable through efforts of the parties involved rather than as an emergent, static one. Previous research on the effects of conflict on performance has overlooked this important aspect of group processes, and this may be one reason its findings have been inconclusive. Our second contribution, thus, is demonstrating that in addition to instrumental and relational concerns, group members strive for the social and symbolic resources that are associated with high status. Our qualitative data indicate that task conflicts are quite different when status conflict was or was not also present in the interaction. When status conflict was not present, the task conflicts played out the way research on the positive effects of


25

task conflict on group performance suggests: Assumptions were questioned, information was shared, and options were critically debated. With an apparent status motivation, however, the benefits of information sharing were lost as individuals defended their social standing, and the conflict was more likely to decay into a non-productive contest of wills. Our quantitative results indicate that the effects of each type of conflict may need to be similarly reconsidered when status conflicts are taken into account. Status interests may contribute to groups and individuals behaving in ways that are distinct from how they engage in other types of conflicts. For example, given the role of bystanders in legitimating status orders (Ridgeway & Erickson 2000), coalitions may be particularly important in resolving status conflicts. Another possibility is that when confronted by a status challenge, individuals behave more competitively than they would in response to other types of conflicts in order to demonstrate and assert their social dominance (Brett et al. 2007). This may lead to sub-optimal agreements or higher impasse rates than would be predicted based on the content of a conflict. Lastly, the outcome of conflicts for one’s status position in a group may be an important type of subjectively valued outcome, which research suggests may predict negotiating processes and outcomes (Curhan, Elfenbein & Heng 2006). Thus, expanding the scope of conflicts that are considered in research on group dynamics to include those over status may help clarify the role of conflicts in many group and individual processes and outcomes. Our final contribution is the validation of a four-item status conflict scale that we hope other scholars will utilize to build our understanding of the dynamics of status conflicts in groups. Consistent measurement of the construct would support its validity and enable comparisons of the effects of status conflict across settings, ultimately leading to a greater understanding of the way status conflicts influence group processes. Identifying status conflicts as an additional type of group conflict may help real task groups manage conflicts they experience more effectively than when they ignore status interests. In particular, by implementing decision procedures that allow influence to vary with task expertise rather than social status, groups may be able to better leverage the potential benefits of task conflict on their performance.


26

REFERENCES Aiken, L.S. & S.G. West. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, US. Amason, A. 1996. Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad. Manage. J. 39(1) 123-148. Anderson, C. & J.L. Berdahl. 2002. The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83(6) 1362-1377. Anderson, C., O.P. John, D. Keltner & A.M. Kring. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups 81(1) 116-132. Anderson, C. & G.J. Kilduff. 2008. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Anderson, C., S. Srivastava, J.S. Beer, S.E. Spataro & J.A. Chatman. 2006. Knowing your place: Selfperceptions of status in face-to-face groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91(6) 1094-1110. Bales, R. 1958. Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb &E. Hartley, eds. Social psychology, 3rd ed. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 437-447. Baumeister, R.F., L. Smart & J.M. Boden. 1996. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psych. Rev. 103(1) 5-33. Berger, J., B.P. Cohen & M. Zelditch. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37(3) 241-255. Berger, J., C.L. Ridgeway, M.H. Fisek & R.Z. Norman. 1998. The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63 379-405. Berger, J., S.J. Rosenholtz & M. Zelditch. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6 479508. Berger, J., M. Webster, C.L. Ridgeway & S.J. Rosenholtz. 1986. Status cues, expectations, and behavior. E.J. Lawler, ed. Advances in group process. JAI Press, New York, NY, 1-22. Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. K. Klein &S. Kozlowski, eds. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 349-381. Brett, J.M., M. Olekalns, R. Friedman, N. Goates, C. Anderson & C.C. Lisco. 2007. Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Acad. Manage. J. 50(1) 85-99. Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K. . Chase, I.D. 1980. Social-Process and Hierarchy Formation in Small-Groups - a Comparative Perspective. Am. Sociol. Rev. 45(6) 905-924.


27

Curhan, J.R., H.A. Elfenbein & X. Heng. 2006. What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91(3) 493-512. De Cremer, D. & T.R. Tyler. 2004. A matter of intragroup status:The importance of respect for the viability of groups. . B. Mannix, M. Neale &M. Thomas-Hunt, eds. Research on managing groups and teams. . Elsevier Science Press, Greenwich, CT, 1 - 22. De Dreu, C. & M. West. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(6) 1191-1201. De Dreu, C.K.W. & L.R. Weingart. 2003a. A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. M. West, D. Tjosvold &K. Smith, eds. International handbook of teamwork and cooperation. Wiley, Chincester, UK, 151-165. De Dreu, C.K.W. & L.R. Weingart. 2003b. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(4) 741-749. Diekmann, K.A., A.E. Tenbrunsel, P.P. Shah, H.A. Schroth & M. Bazerman. 1996. The descriptive and prescriptive use of previous purchase price in negotiations. Organ. Behav. and Human Decision Proc. 66 179-191. Duffy, M.K., D.C. Ganster & M. Pagon. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Acad. Manage. J. 45(2) 331-351. Friedkin, N.E. 1999. Choice shift and group polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 64(6) 856-875. Glynn, M.A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organ Sci. 11(3) 285-298. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Anchor Books, New York. Groysberg, B., J.T. Polzer & H.A. Elfenbein. 2008. Too many cooks spoil the broth: How High Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Hackman, J. & C.G. Morris. 1975. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. L. Berkowitz, ed. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 45-99. Hair, J.F., Jr., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson & R.L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hambrick, D.C. & A.A. Cannella. 1993. Relative standing: A framework for understanding departures of acquired executives. Acad. Manage. J. 36(4) 733-762. Hinds, P.J. & M. Mortensen. 2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci. 16(3) 290-307. Hollenbeck, J.R., D.R. Ilgen, D.J. Sego, J. Hedlund, D.A. Major & J. Phillips. 1995. Multilevel theory of team decision-making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. J. Appl. Psychol. 80(2) 292-316.


28

James, L. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 67(2) 219-229. James, L., R. Demaree & G. Wolf. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 69 85-98. Jehn, K.A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 40 256-282. Jehn, K.A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 530-557. Jehn, K.A. & C. Bendersky. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. R. Kramer &B. Staw, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 189-244. Jehn, K.A. & E.A. Mannix. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Manage. J. 44(2) 238-251. Judge, T.A., J.E. Bono, R. Ilies & M.W. Gerhardt. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. J. Appl. Psychol. 87(4) 765-780. Kalkhoff, W. 2005. Collective validation in multi-actor task groups: The effects of status differentiation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 68(1) 57-74. Kim, K.H. & P.M. Bentler. 2006. Data modeling: Structural equation modeling. J.L. Green, G. Camilli &P.B. Elmore, eds. Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, 161-175. Klein, K., P. Bliese, S. Kozlowski, F. Dansereau, M. Gavin, M. Griffin, D.A. Hoffman, L. James, F.J. Yammarino & M.C. Bligh. 2000. Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. K. Klein &S. Kozlowski, eds. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 512-553. Lester, S.W., B.M. Meglino & M.A. Korsgaard. 2002. The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Acad. Manage. J. 45(2) 352-368. Loch, C.H., B.A. Huberman & S. Stout. 2000. Status competition and performance in work groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 43(1) 35-55. Lord, R.G. 1985. An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in organizational behavior 7 87-128. Lord, R.G., C.L. Devader & G.M. Alliger. 1986. A metaanalysis of the relation between personality-traits and leadership perceptions - An application of validity generalization procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 71(3) 402-410. Lovelace, K., D.L. Shapiro & L.R. Weingart. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 44(4) 779-793.


29

Maclay, G. & H. Knipe. 1972. The dominant man: The pecking order in human society. Delacorte Press, New York. Morrill, C. 1991. Conflict management, honor and organizational change. Am. J. Sociol. 97(3) 585-621. Morrill, C. 1995. The executive way: Conflict management in corporations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Oh, H., G. Labianca & M.H. Chung. 2006. A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review 31(3) 569-582. Overbeck, J.R., J. Correll & B. Park. 2005. Internal status sorting in groups: The problem of too many stars. M.C. Thomas-Hunt, E.A. Mannix &M.A. Neale, eds. Research on Managing Groups & Teams. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 169-199. Owens, D.A. & R.I. Sutton. 2001. Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal order. M.E. Turner, ed. Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 299-316. Pearson, C.M., L.M. Andersson & J.W. Wegner. 2001. When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Hum. Relat. 54(11) 1387-1419. Pfeffer, J. & C.T. Fong. 2004. The business school 'business': Some lessons from the US experience. J. Manage. Stud. 41(8) 1501-1520. Phillips, D.J. & E.W. Zuckerman. 2001. Middle status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. Am. J. Sociol. 102(2) 379-429. Polzer, J. & H. Caruso. 2008. Identity negotiation processes amidst diversity. A.P. Brief, ed. Diversity at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 89 - 126. Pondy, L.R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Adm. Sci. Q. 12(2) 296-320. Porath, C.L., J.R. Overbeck & C.M. Pearson. 2008. Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38(7) 1945-1980. Portes, A. 1998. Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24 124. Ridgeway, C. & H.A. Walker. 1995. Status structures. K. Cook, G. Fine &J. House, eds. Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Newton, MA. Ridgeway, C.L., E.H. Boyle, K.J. Kuipers & D.T. Robinson. 1998. How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63(3) 331-350. Ridgeway, C.L. & S.J. Correll. 2006. Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Soc. Forces 85(1) 431453. Ridgeway, C.L. & K.G. Erickson. 2000. Creating and spreading status beliefs. Am. J. Sociol. 106(3) 579615.


30

Roy, D.F. 1959. Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization 18(4) 158168. Schwenk, C. 1990. Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study. Manage. Sci. 36(4) 436-449. Shah, P. & K.A. Jehn. 1993. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict and task. Group Decis. Negot. 2 149-165. Staw, B., L.E. Sandelands & J.E. Dutton. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational-behavior: A multilevel analysis. Adm. Sci. Q. 26(4) 501-524. Stewart, D. 2005. Social status in an open-source community. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70(5) 823-842. Strauss, A., L. Schatzman, D. Ehrlich, R. Bucher & M. Sabshin. 1963. The hospital and its negotiated order. E. Freidson, ed. The hospital in modern society. Free Press, New York, 147-169. Sutton, R.I. & A. Hargadon. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Adm. Sci. Q. 41(4) 685-718. Tiedens, L.Z. & A.R. Fragale. 2003. Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84(3) 558-568. Tiedens, L.Z., M.M. Unzueta & M.J. Young. 2007. An unconscious desire for hierarchy? the motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93(3) 402-414. Van Kleef, G.A. & S. Cote. 2007. Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(6) 1557-1569. Van Vugt, M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10(4) 354-371. Venkataramani, V. & R.S. Dalal. 2007. Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(4) 952-966. Vinokur, A.D. & M. van Ryn. 1993. Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effect on mental health in unemployed persons. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65 350-359. Vohs, K.D. & T.R. Heatherton. 2003. The effects of self-esteem and ego threat on interpersonal appraisals of men and women: A naturalistic study. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29(11) 1407-1420. Wageman, R., J.R. Hackman & E. Lehman. 2005. Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41(4) 1-25. Zhou, X.G. 2005. The institutional logic of occupational prestige ranking: Reconceptualization and reanalyses. Am. J. Sociol. 111(1) 90-140.

RUNNING HEAD: Status conflict in groups TABLE 1: Frequencies and Examples of Status Conflict Occurring Alone and In Conjunction with Task, Relationship and Process Conflicts Team 1 4 1

Team 2 50 12

Team 3 44 8

Team 4 12 2

Team 5 11 4

Total 121 27

% of total con. episodes 47% 10%

With task conflict

2

26

15

8

6

57

22%

With process conflict

1

6

8

2

1

18

7%

With relationship conflict

0

2

8

0

0

10

4%

With multiple types

0

4

5

0

0

9

3%

Task Conflict Alone

17

27

19

34

17

114

44%

Process Conflict Alone

1

4

10

1

0

16

6%

Relationship Conflict Alone

2

3

3

0

0

8

3%

Total episodes

24

84

76

47

28

259

Status Conflict Alone

Illustrative Quotations “(A): Well, I just went to the most intelligent high school in all of Southeast Asia. (B): So why did you get a 53 on your stats quiz? (A): I didn’t pay attention.” (Team 2) “(M): You skipped the fact that you don’t need the correlation ‘cuz it is the 1. And that [overlap] (J): When it comes to math, just accept it” (Team 5) “(T): Is it okay if I come back just for Tivo? (B): It would be nice if you did all the econ stuff, if you could talk to us about it... Because we’re supposed to work on it as a group.” (Team 2) “While I like to joke, it depends on time, place and occasion. Obviously the professor is grading our final exam paper. I can't understand why you execute me publicly and try to make my poor grade worse.” (S, Team 1) “(B): I would rather get a B than cheat. (T): I wasn’t talking about the grade. I was just making sure that the material was correct.” (Team 2) “(E): So I guess my question is what’s the best for the patient? (M): None of them; they’re all equivalent. (C): That’s the entire-entire point of an iso-quant.” (Team 4) “(J): I think it would be better if we all read it and then met and discussed it before you send out the answer. (B): I think you should still attempt to do the case yourself whenever you can so that we can make our group discussion more effective.” (Team 1) “(R): When’s H. coming back? (L): No he’s never coming. (laughs) (R): What’s this thing with coming in with other groups? (L): He’s just shady like…He’s like shady ass.” (Team 3)


32

TABLE 2: Exploratory Factor Analysesa b Status Relationship Process Task Conflict Conflict Conflict Conflict .020 -.065 -.041 My team members experienced conflict of ideas. .877 My team members frequently had disagreements about -.027 -.194 .460 .667 the task we were working on. My team members often had conflicting opinions about .094 .065 .161 .663 the task we were doing. My team members experienced relationship tension that .026 .164 -.007 .710 was not related to the task. My team members often got angry while working in this -.051 .246 -.138 .751 team. -.030 .145 .228 My team members experienced emotional conflict. .674 My team members had disagreements about who should do -.140 .487 .573 .058 what. My team members experienced conflicts about task -.043 .122 .174 .749 responsibilities. .196 .049 .005 My team members disagreed about resource allocation. .653 My team members had arguments where those involved seemed to care more about who was right than what was .494 .418 .033 .067 right. In my group, I've experienced or observed two people .254 .675 -.259 .163 both fighting to have the last word in an argument. My team members frequently took sides (i.e., formed .022 -.021 .048 .775 coalitions) during conflicts. My team members experienced conflicts due to members .227 -.097 .154 .706 trying to assert their dominance. .010 -.143 .335 My team members competed for influence. .711 My team members disagreed about the relative value of -.077 .198 -.044 .885 members' contributions. My team members were condescending to each other. .259 .697 .060 -.307 Members of my team questioned the credibility of other -.833 .148 -.428 .199 group members. Certain members of my team frequently contradicted each other or “butted heads”, regardless of the topic of -.775 -.207 .032 .043 conversation. a Items in bold used in subsequent confirmatory factor analysis. b Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Promax (Kappa=4) with Kaiser Normalization.

Status conflicts in groups TABLE 3: Sequential Chi-squared Difference Tests5 χ2

df

p

Unconstrained four-factor model

114.60

48

< .001

One-factor model

318.59

54

< .001

Difference from four-factor model

203.99

6

< .001

Three-factor model (TC, PC, SC/RC)

178.08

49

< .001


63.48

1

< .001

Three-factor model (PC, RC, SC/TC)

241.05

49

< .001


126.45

1

< .001

Three-factor model (TC, RC, SC/PC)

147.91

49

< .001


33.31

1

< .001

Model

5

TC = Task conflict, PC = Process conflict, RC = Relationship conflict and SC = Status conflict

33


34

TABLE 4: Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Group Level Variables (N = 44) Task Conflicta

Task Conflict

.062

1

Relationship Conflict

-.035

.600**

1

.038

.731**

.745**

1

-.084 .024

.565** .170

.825** -.097

.665** .061

1 .009

1

-.193

.052

-.204

-.030

-.111

.271

1

.098

.356*

-.040

.169

.028

.336*

.273

1

% White Cooperativeness

-.014 -.216

-.259 -.451**

-.114 -.743**

-.326* -.592**

-.058 -.699**

-.430** .186

-.093 .142

-.189 -.009

1 .053

1

Effort Process Criteria Open Con. Norms

-.046

-.387**

-.591**

-.535**

-.487**

.163

.161

-.003

-.140

.763**

1

-.059

-.285

-.524**

-.419**

-.424**

.437**

.139

.106

-.388**

.732**

.742**

1

Mean S. D.

13.70 1.36

0 1.00

0 1.00

0 1.00

0 1.00

5.82 .45

677.63 24.52

67.73 15.29

37.81 24.17

5.95 .60

5.71 .86

5.09 .79

Group Perform.

Process Conflict Status Conflict Team Size Mean GMAT % Male

a

Relationship Conflicta

Process Conflicta

Standardized scores used * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Status Conflicta

Team Size

Mean GMAT

% Male

% White

Cooperativeness

Effort Process Criteria

Group Perfom. 1

Open Con. Norms

Status conflicts in groups TABLE 5: Hierarchical OLS Regression on Group Performance a Group Performance Variables Model I Model II Model III Mean GMAT -.23 -.30 + -.30 + % Male .14 .05 .03 % Caucasian .17 .23 .45 + Team Size .09 .11 .19 Cooperativeness -.57 + -.96 ** -1.34 ** Effort Process Criteria .30 .32 .46 + Open Conflict Norms .17 .25 .46 Task Conflict .11 .16 Relationship Conflict -.69 * -.32 Process Conflict .23 .39 Status Conflict -.70 * Task Conflict x Status Conflict Relationship Conflict x Status Conflict Process Conflict x Status Conflict R2 .16 .28 .39 R2 Change .12 .11 * a

Standardized Beta and two-tailed t-tests reported. + = p < .10 * = p < .05 ** = p < .01

Model IV -.25 + .06 .37 + .09 -1.24 ** .39 .64 * .06 .16 .19 -.73 ** -.42 * .24 -.26 .55 .16 *

35