An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners.

Abstract

In 6 studies, the authors examined the perception of dominance complementarity, which is the perception of a target as different from the self in terms of dominance. The authors argue that these perceptions are motivated by the desire for positive task relationships. Because dominance complementarity bodes well for task-oriented relationships, seeing dominance complementarity allows one to be optimistic about a work relationship. As evidence that perceptions of dominance complementarity are an instance of motivated perception, the authors show that complementary perceptions occur when participants think about or expect task-oriented relationships with the target and that perceptions of dominance complementarity are enhanced when individuals care about the task component of the relationship.

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

“…Similarly, human groups organized into hierarchies accrue numerous organizational and cognitive advantages (Abramitzky, 2011;Gould, 2002;Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky, 2011;Halevy, Chou, Galinsky, & Murnighan, 2012;Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, & Galinsky, 2012;Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007;Zitek & Tiedens, 2012). Moreover, in addition to these functional benefits for the group as a whole, it is also easy to understand why higher-ranked individuals prefer hierarchies: By definition, being at the top provides access to material resources that others lack, an ancestral and contemporary benefit.…”

“…Hierarchy is often rife with unfairness and undeserved advantage that can be daunting to challenge. Yet for some organizational tasks or goals it may also be more efficient than flatter forms of social organization (Abramitzky, 2011;Halevy et al, 2011;Halevy et al, 2012;Ronay et al, 2012;Tiedens et al, 2007;Zitek & Tiedens, 2012, but see Deutsch, 19852006;Maner & Mead, 2010). It may be important for activists who seek to dismantle illegitimate hierarchies to differentiate between the hierarchies they oppose and these other types of hierarchies that people may have good reason to see as relatively fair and efficient.…”

When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance

“…In fact, such debates may then only stimulate time-consuming disagreements and unnecessary deviations from common operating procedures (Dewar & Werbel, 1979;Jehn, 1995). A steeper hierarchy can prevent this from happening because clear top-down task directives from higher-status members reduce ambiguities about the scheduling of task activities (De Kwaadsteniet & Van Dijk, 2010;Overbeck et al, 2005;Scott, 1987;Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007).…”

All the power in two hands: The role of CEOs in family IPOs

“…A co-leadership structure would seem crucial to the effectiveness of a family CEO. The case under scrutiny can be interpreted as an extreme form of hierarchical structure: it may well be that individuals prefer hierarchical settings where leadership power is clearly defined (Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007). Moreover, a powerful CEO may also affect employee behaviour: Jost and Banaji (1994) show that people are inclined to disempower themselves to create or sustain a hierarchical structure, which is particularly true among family members.…”