nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

14.12.2022 | Original Paper

Stratification or Polarization: a Qualitative Study of the Formation of Status-Based Subgroups in China

verfasst von: Yue Zhang, Qiaozhuan Liang, Wei Deng

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Researchers continue to debate about how high-status and low-status members will divide into subgroups. The purpose of this research is to enrich the faultline, subgroup, and status literature by specifying how and why status-based subgroups (i.e., subgroups based on status positions) are formed within a team. This research employed a grounded theory approach and conducted interviews with 111 individuals distributed over 21 work teams in Chinese highly competitive industries. The results identify two typical formation patterns of the status-based subgroup: vertical stratification that indicates team members vertically split into different subgroups along status hierarchies, and horizontal polarization that indicates team members at the same status horizontally divided into different subgroups. Furthermore, the results distinguish different sources for the formation of stratified and polarized status-based subgroups. This study expands faultline and subgroup literature by identifying multiple formation patterns and sources of status-based subgroup, and contributes to status literature by clarifying how high-status and low-status members will bound together or split within a work team.

Vorheriger Artikel Communicating Adverse Impact Analyses Clearly: A Bayesian Approach

Nächster Artikel Are Multiple-Identity Holders More Creative? The Roles of Ambivalence and Mindfulness

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The top-right and bottom-left quadrants of Fig. 4 show another two special cases. The top-right quadrant indicates that all team members (both high and low-status members) are independent individuals. Thus, no subgroup form in this case. The bottom-left quadrant depicts that only a single subgroup is formed, involving part of high-status members and part of low-status members, while other team members are excluded from the subgroup. In phase 1, three samples (individual #24, #30, #31) reported this situation. The single subgroup acts as “a single compact galaxy” in a work team, and “other team members who are excluded from the galaxy are like the stars scattered in the universe” (#24). However, since our research interest is in how teams divide into multiple subgroups, we excluded these samples in the phase 2 team interviews.

Abramsky, Z., & Sellah, C. (1982). Competition and the role of habitat selection in Gerbillus allenby and Meriones tristram: A removal experiment. Ecology, 63(5), 1242–1247. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938850CrossRef

Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear association between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 92(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307CrossRefPubMed

Antino, M., Rico, R., & Thatcher, S. M. (2019). Structuring reality through the faultlines lens: The effects of structure, fairness, and status conflict on the activated faultlines–performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1444–1470. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0054CrossRef

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00517-4CrossRef

Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/256918CrossRef

Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0734CrossRef

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch Jr, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual review of sociology, 6 (1) 479–508. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2946017

Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 520–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.520CrossRefPubMed

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0379CrossRef

Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023684CrossRefPubMed

Bunderson, J. S., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Cantimur, Y., & Rink, F. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1265–1289. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0601CrossRef

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0322CrossRef

Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). Affective responses to professional dissimilarity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 808–826. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.52814603CrossRef

Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036363CrossRefPubMed

Chung, S., Singh, H., & Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200001)21:1%3c1::AID-SMJ63%3e3.0.CO;2-PCrossRef

Cropanzano, R. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602CrossRef

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. Yale University Press.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159361CrossRef

Ellis, A., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 948–961. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033725CrossRefPubMed

Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2011). Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0556-4CrossRef

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.

Groysberg, B., Polzer, J. T., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2011). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22(3), 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0547CrossRef

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., et al. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111CrossRefPubMed

Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2011). Clean climbing, carabiners, and cultural cultivation: Developing an open-systems perspective of culture. Organization Science, 22(2), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0538CrossRef

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181CrossRef

Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008CrossRef

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533229CrossRef

Lee, T. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage.

Levin, S., Federico, C. M., Sidanius, J., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (2002). Social dominance orientation and intergroup bias: The legitimation of favoritism for high-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282002CrossRef

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 415–469). McGraw-Hill.

Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.805480CrossRef

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Designing a naturalistic inquiry. In Y. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 221–249). Sage.

Mannix, E. A. (1993). Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on coalition formation in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1021CrossRef

Meister, A., Thatcher, S. M., Park, J., & Maltarich, M. (2020). Toward a temporal theory of faultlines and subgroup entrenchment. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1473–1501. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12538CrossRef

Meyer, B., Shemla, M., Li, J., & Wegge, J. (2015). On the same side of the faultline: Inclusion in the leader’s subgroup and employee performance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12118CrossRef

Olson, M. (2009). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, second printing with a new preface and appendix. Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Overbeck, J. R., Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). Internal status sorting in groups: The problem of too many stars. In M. Thomas-Hunt, E. Mannix, & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams (pp. 169–199). Elsevier Press.

Peiró, J. M., & Meliá, J. L. (2003). Formal and informal interpersonal power in organizations: Testing a bifactorial model of power in role-sets. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00121CrossRef

Porath, C. L., Overbeck, J. R., & Pearson, C. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1945–1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00375.xCrossRef

Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Where do status value beliefs come from? New developments. In J. Szmatka, J. Skvoretz, & J. Berger (Eds.), Status, network, and structure: Theory development in group processes (pp. 137–158). Stanford University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173–211). Stanford University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An inter- group theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

Ren, H., Gray, B., & Harrison, D. A. (2015). Triggering faultline effects in teams: The importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Organization Science, 26(2), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0944CrossRef

Shelly, R. K., & Webster, M., Jr. (1997). How formal status, liking, and ability status structure interaction: Three theoretical principles and a test. Sociological Perspectives, 40(1), 81–107.CrossRef

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Wadsworth.

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558CrossRefPubMed

Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (2001). Constructive conflict in China: Cooperative conflict as a bridge between East and West. Journal of World Business, 36(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00051-7CrossRef

Van Dijk, H., & van Engen, M. L. (2013). A status perspective on the consequences of work group diversity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12014CrossRef

Van der Kamp, M., Tjemkes, B. V., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The rise and fall of subgroups and conflict in teams: Faultline activation and deactivation, paper presented at International Association for Conflict Management. IACM 25th Annual Conference, June 15 2012, Stellenbosch, South Africa. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2084738

Titel: Stratification or Polarization: a Qualitative Study of the Formation of Status-Based Subgroups in China
verfasst von: Yue Zhang
Qiaozhuan Liang
Wei Deng
Publikationsdatum: 14.12.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09865-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Facing an Unexpected Negotiation Partner: the Impact of Hiring Manager Gender Role Violation on Job Candidates

Are All Allyship Attempts Helpful? An Investigation of Effective and Ineffective Allyship

Cognitive Reflection and Decision-Making Accuracy: Examining Their Relation and Boundary Conditions in the Context of Evidence-based Management

The Role of Time, Skill Emphasis, and Verifiability in Job Applicants’ Self-Reported Skill and Experience

Communicating Adverse Impact Analyses Clearly: A Bayesian Approach

Improving Reactions to Forced-Choice Personality Measures in Simulated Job Application Contexts Through the Satisfaction of Psychological Needs

Premium Partner