The Matthew Effect as an Unjust Competitive Advantage: Implications for Competition Near Status Boundaries

Abstract

Merton often envisioned status growth as a process of stepping across a boundary between one status grade and another more elite status grade. Such boundaries include the border between graduate school and a top academic department that young researchers try to traverse, or the frontier between scientists outside the French Academy and scientists inside the French Academy. As it is now common to measure status continuously using network data, the behavioral ramifications of status boundaries have been understudied in recent research. In this essay, we focus on competitive behaviors that emerge near a status boundary because of the desirability—as well as the “double injustice”—of the Matthew Effect. Offering insights for future research, we discuss how these competitive behaviors are likely to delay, or even derail, status growth for those who are near a status boundary.

The risk of being ranked: Investor response to marginal inclusion on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list

“…As our results suggest, these categorical comparisons may be detrimental for lower ranked firms by enhancing the salience of the performance disparity with higher ranked firms. We see this counterintuitive finding as providing further evidence of the limits and potential downsides of status (Azoulay et al, 2014;Graffin, Bundy, Porac, Wade, & Quinn, 2013;Reschke et al, 2018) and as further motivation to study the implications of competition near status boundaries (Otner, 2018;Piezunka et al, 2018).…”

“…To date, the literature on rankings has generally assumed that the consequence of inclusion on a ranked list is bimodal in that it produces unequal benefits for ranked firms relative to the unranked (Azoulay, Stuart, & Wang, 2014; Merton, 1968; Podolny, 2010) and that this effect is most salient for firms at the margins. Referred to as “the Matthew effect” (Merton, 1968, p. 3), this notion that rankings produce disproportionate compounding benefits to award recipients compared with essentially equivalent unrecognized peers has largely become taken for granted by both scholars and practitioners (Piezunka, Lee, Haynes, & Bothner, 2018; Reschke, Azoulay, & Stuart, 2018). Despite these prevailing theoretical assumptions, few empirical analyses have been able to causally examine whether marginal inclusion on a ranked list is beneficial.…”

Distributed decision‐making in the shadow of hierarchy: How hierarchical similarity biases idea evaluation

“…Our research also speaks to the literature on how perceived structural similarity between individuals affect their organizational behavior. While some found that structural similarity elicits favorable evaluations and behaviors (Hwang et al, 2015; Reitzig & Sorenson, 2013), others found that it creates conflict (Kilduff et al, 2010; Piezunka et al, 2018b). Our results integrated these results by juxtaposing two competing latent processes: homophily and rivalry.…”

“…In turn, rivalry among similar ranks may induce adverse behaviors (Gould, 2003), since individuals increase their competitive behaviors to outperform a rival (Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006). Competition is more likely to yield conflict under status similarity (Piezunka, Lee, Haynes, & Bothner, 2018b).…”