Hierarchies take different forms, which individuals mentally represent using different geometric shapes. We propose and empirically demonstrate that individuals’ mental representations of the shape hierarchy takes affect its consequences. Five studies compared two common mental representations of hierarchy shapes—ladders and pyramids—to explore whether, why, and how individuals’ perceptions of hierarchy’s shape undermine constructive relationships within groups and group performance. Study 1 demonstrated that individuals commonly mentally represent hierarchies as ladders and pyramids. In Studies 2 and 3, employees who perceived their workplace hierarchies to be shaped like ladders (as compared with pyramids) experienced worse intragroup relationships. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 experimentally manipulated groups’ hierarchical shape in the lab and found that ladder-shaped hierarchies undermined social relationships and group performance relative to pyramid-shaped hierarchies. Taken together, these findings enhance our understanding of hierarchies’ multifaceted consequences and help shed light on the (dis)utility of hierarchy for group functioning.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
2.
BenderskyC.HaysN. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323-340.
3.
BersonY.OregS.DvirT. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29, 615-633.
4.
BiemannT.KearneyE. (2010). Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 582-599.
5.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107-126.
6.
BlauP. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
7.
BloomM. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 25-40.
8.
BoehmS. A.KunzeF.BruchH. (2014). Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67, 667-704.
BundersonJ. S.Van der VegtG. S. (2018). Diversity and inequality in management teams: A review and integration of research on vertical and horizontal member differences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 47-73.
11.
BundersonJ. S.Van der VegtG. S.CantimurY.RinkF. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1265-1289.
12.
De JongB. A.ElfringT. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 535-549.
13.
EisenbergerR.HuntingtonR.HutchisonS.SowaD. (1986). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
16.
FiskeS. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
17.
GallistelC. R. (2001). Mental representations, psychology of. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences (pp. 9691-9695). New York, NY: Elsevier.
18.
GarciaS. M.TorA. (2007). Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 95-108.
19.
GarciaS. M.TorA. (2009). The N-effect: More competitors, less competition. Psychological Science, 20, 871-877.
20.
GarciaS. M.TorA.SchiffT. M. (2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 634-650.
21.
GreerL. L.CarusoH. M.JehnK. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 116-128.
22.
GreerL. L.de JongB. A.SchoutenM. E.DannalsJ. E. (2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 591-613.
23.
GreerL. L.Van BunderenL.YuS. (2017). The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 103-124.
24.
GreerL. L.Van KleefG. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032-1044.
25.
GruenfeldD.TiedensL. (2010). Organizational preferences and their consequences. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1252-1286). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
26.
HalevyN. (2018). Managing team paradoxes. Manuscript in preparation.
27.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32-52.
28.
HarbringC.IrlenbuschB. (2011). Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Management Science, 57, 611-627.
29.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.
30.
HaysN. A.BenderskyC. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 867-882.
31.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KearneyE.GebertD.VoelpelS. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581-598.
33.
KrackhardtD. (1994). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. In CarleyK.PrietulaM. (Eds.), Computational organizational theory (pp. 89-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
La GuardiaJ. G.RyanR. M.CouchmanC. E.DeciE. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.
35.
LazearE. P.RosenS. (1981). Rank order tournaments as an optimum labor contract. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 561-580.
36.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.
37.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420-430.
38.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.
39.
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40.
MuellerJ. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 111-124.
NeeleyT. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24, 476-497.
43.
NisbettR.RossL. (1991). The person and the situation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
44.
PettitN. C.DoyleS. P.LountR. B.ToC. (2016). Cheating to get ahead or to avoid falling behind? The effect of potential negative versus positive status change on unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 172-183.
45.
RauthmannJ. F.Gallardo-PujolD.GuillaumeE. M.ToddE.NavC. S.ShermanR. A.. . . FunderD. C. (2014). The situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677-718.
46.
RonayR.GreenawayK.AnicichE. M.GalinskyA. D. (2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy when hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23, 669-677.
47.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
48.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
49.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
50.
SligteD. J.de DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A. (2011). Power, stability of power, and creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 891-897.
51.
StaatsB. R.MilkmanK. L.FoxC. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 132-142.
52.
StasserG.TitusW. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
53.
Van BunderenL.GreerL. L.Van KnippenbergD. (2018). When interteam conflict spirals into intrateam power struggles: The pivotal role of team power structures. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 1100-1130.
54.
WilsonG. L.HannaM. S. (1990). Groups in context: Leadership and participation in small groups (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
55.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686-688.
56.
WrightT. A.BonettD. G. (1997). The contribution of burnout to work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491-499.
57.
ZitekE. M.TiedensL. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 98-115.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
