Near-Winners in Status Competitions: Neglected Sources of Dynamism in the Matthew Effect

Abstract

Current research on status hierarchy dynamics focuses on the potential for, and constraints to, individual mobility. In this essay, I argue that Merton’s Matthew Effect incorrectly categorizes activity below a status threshold as linear. This misspecification calls into question existing models of competitions for social status. I argue for an improved theory of status tournaments as asymmetric, non-binary, and agentic. Through that new perspective, I raise questions for the legitimacy and power of stratifying institutions.

Keywords

status Matthew Effect competition economic sociology threshold effects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anicich

E. M.

Godart

F. C.

Swaab

R. I.

Galinsky

A. D.

Kim

H. Y.

Pettit

N. C.

. . . Perry

J. L.

(2017, August 7). Power, status, and social hierarchy. Papers presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Askin

Bothner

M. S.

Lee

(2015). Emergence of stratification in small groups. In Scott

R. A.

Buchmann

M. C.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1-16). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

Bitektine

A. B.

(2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151-179.

Bitektine

A. B.

Miller

(2015). Methods, theories, data, and the social dynamics of organizational research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24, 115-130.

Bothner

M. S.

Podolny

J. M.

Smith

E. B.

(2011). Organizing contests for status: The Matthew Effect vs. The Mark Effect. Management Science, 57, 439-457.

Crane

(1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Crane

(1976). Reward systems in art, science, and religion. American Behavioral Scientist, 19, 719-734.

Crant

J. M.

Bateman

T. S.

(1993). Assignment of credit and blame for performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 7-27.

Cronin

M. A.

Weingart

L. R.

Todorova

(2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571-612.

10.

Crowe

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.

11.

Denrell

Liu

(2015). Below top status indicates mediocrity when social influence is strong. [Manuscript submitted for publication] Coventry, UK: Warwick Business School.

12.

Devers

C. E.

Dewett

Mishina

Belsito

C. A.

(2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20, 154-171.

13.

Duguid

M. M.

Goncalo

J. A.

(2015). Squeezed in the middle: The middle status trade creativity for focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 589-603.

14.

Feldman

Skow

(2016). Desert. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

15.

Galinsky

A. D.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Magee

J. C.

(2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.

16.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

17.

Goldstone

J. A.

(1979). A deductive explanation of the Matthew Effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 9, 385-391.

18.

Harvey

Madison

Martinko

Crook

T. R.

Crook

T. A.

(2014). Attribution Theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 128-146.

19.

Hays

N. A.

Blader

S. L.

(2017). To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 17-38.

20.

Higgins

E. T.

(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.

21.

Holmes

R. M.

Bromiley

Devers

C. E.

Holcomb

T. R.

McGuire

J. B.

(2011). Management theory applications of Prospect Theory: Accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Management, 37, 1069-1107.

22.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

23.

Kelley

H. H.

Michela

J. L.

(1980). Attribution Theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457-501.

24.

Leary

M. R.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

25.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.

26.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

Gruenfeld

D. H.

(2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200-212.

27.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.

28.

Neeley

T. B.

Dumas

T. L.

(2016). Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global language mandate. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 14-43.

29.

Pettit

N. C.

Sivanathan

Gladstone

Marr

J. C.

(2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24, 1579-1584.

30.

Pettit

N. C.

Yong

Spataro

S. E.

(2010). Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 396-401.

31.

Phillips

D. J.

Zuckerman

E. W.

(2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379-429.

32.

Piazza

Castellucci

(2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40, 287-315.

33.

Piezunka

Lee

Haynes

Bothner

M. S.

(2018). The Matthew Effect as an unjust competitive advantage: Implications for competition near status boundaries. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 378-381.

34.

Reschke

B. P.

Azoulay

Stuart

T. E.

(2017). Status spillovers: The effect of status-conferring prizes on the allocation of attention. Administrative Science Quarterly. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0001839217731997

35.

Rossman

(2014). The diffusion of the legitimate and the diffusion of legitimacy. Sociological Science, 1, 49-69.

36.

Shaver

K. G.

(1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

37.

Simcoe

T. S.

Waguespack

D. M.

(2011). Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name? Management Science, 57, 274-290.

38.

Sorenson

Waguespack

D. M.

(2006). Social structure and exchange: Self-confirming dynamics in Hollywood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 560-589.

39.

Sturm

R. E.

Antonakis

(2015). Interpersonal power. Journal of Management, 41, 136-163.

40.

Suddaby

Bitektine

A. B.

Haack

(2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 451-478.

41.

Tasselli

Kilduff

Menges

J. I.

(2015). The microfoundations of organizational social networks. Journal of Management, 41, 1361-1387.

42.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

43.

Waguespack

D. M.

Salomon

(2016). Quality, subjectivity, and sustained superior performance at the Olympic games. Management Science, 62, 286-300.

44.

Weber

(1946). The sociology of the world religions. In Gerth

H. H.

Wright Mills

Turner

(Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (2009 ed., pp. 267-301). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

45.

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

Reyt

J.-N.

Brockner

Trope

(2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367-400.