5
Distinct Sources of Power and Status in Diversified Army Units
Military organizations are distinctive in the visibility and rigidity of their formal power hierarchies and chain of command. Military ranks define an explicit, consistent, complete ordering of formal authority and power. Furthermore, the paths of promotion to higher levels of power in the Army are well defined; there are few detours to promotion outside the standard routes and no “external hires.” But, as in every organization, there are also important informal and less explicit sources of respect, esteem, and social influence that determine an individual’s placement on the status hierarchy, a hierarchy distinct but interrelated to the power hierarchy. In this chapter, the committee proposes research to understand soldiers’ access to positions of social influence and authority not only in the formal, rank-based power hierarchy but also through informal, respect-based sources of status in the Army. The proposed research addresses questions such as the following:
- To the extent that soldiers derive status from their similarity to ideal or typical soldiers, where do valued identities originate and how do these socially shared beliefs change?
- How do changes in the skills that are required in military operations impact how soldiers achieve status?
- How does the attainment of status influence career development, particularly for individuals who do not match the stereotype of the prototypical soldier (for example, individuals who are minorities in terms of gender, race, or sexual orientation or who represent a
-
smaller and different job skill than the majority within the unit they serve)?
- What are the implications for leadership and authority for soldiers from traditionally disadvantaged groups, whose informal status may not align with their formal power?
An individual’s position on the informal status hierarchy is based on social perceptions of competence (especially tactical and technical competence in military environments) and the value that the individual brings to the unit’s collective tasks. These social perceptions are influenced both by ascribed individual characteristics, such as race and gender, and by achieved characteristics, such as technical skills and experience (Berger, 1977). Because social perceptions of competence systematically vary by ascribed and achieved characteristics, some individuals are disadvantaged in their opportunities to attain high-status positions of social influence and, therefore, are disadvantaged in their ability to lead authoritatively and effectively. This chapter focuses first on issues that have to do with differential opportunities to move up in informal status hierarchies and second on the leadership implications for soldiers whose positions on power and status hierarchies are misaligned (e.g., soldiers who possess a higher formal rank but who have relatively low status within the small unit context).
Achievement of high status in Army small units varies on numerous dimensions. This discussion focuses on three prominent status-conferring attributes: gender, combat versus noncombat assignments,1 and formal designations of military rank. Within military environments, the institutionalized rank system influences a soldier’s power and status. For simplicity, we refer to an individual’s placement on the formal power hierarchy in terms of achieved military rank, to include recognition of power differentials between officer and enlisted ranks (i.e., the most junior officer outranks the most senior enlisted member of the military). Additionally, military rank is also a signal or indicator of status and therefore explains much of
__________________
1Army jobs are grouped into military occupational specialties (MOS) for enlisted soldiers and functional areas for officers that are further grouped into branches (e.g., ordnance corps, infantry, and military intelligence). Historically, soldiers belonged to units in one of three categories: combat arms, combat support, or combat support services. In 2008, the Army rescinded these terms and units are now described by warfighting functions (Department of the Army, 2008, p. D-3). However, the concept of “combat and noncombat soldiers” remained salient to service members who engaged in discussions with the committee regarding job and unit assignments, combat awards, and status among unit members. For the purpose of this chapter, the term combat soldier refers to those soldiers whose MOS and job assignment comes with the expectation of direct engagement with enemy forces, and the term noncombat soldier refers to those soldiers whose warfighting functions are historically associated with combat support and combat support service units.
the status variance between individual soldiers; however, rank is only one among many status-conferring attributes.
To understand the importance of informal status hierarchies to mission success, the committee highlights the example of integrating women soldiers into rewarding, equal-opportunity Army careers. Future research into gender as a status-conferring attribute should be of particular interest because of the current shift in roles for women in the U.S. military services (for a historical account, see National Women’s Law Center, 2013). Gender is also an ascribed attribute (a trait beyond the individual’s control), on which status is assigned, that is prominent in scientific research on sources of power and status. The greater the gender imbalance within an organization (ratio of males to females, such as in the Army), the more gender seems to matter (Eagly et al., 1995). We also highlight challenges of status achievement for soldiers in noncombat jobs because of the traditional importance of combat duty to status attainment in the Army. Nonetheless, the committee does not intend to restrict the focus of research that might follow our recommendations to female or noncombat personnel. The research we propose should explore many other socially significant ascribed (e.g., race, sexual orientation) and acquired (e.g., technical competence) characteristics and their relevance to status hierarchies within the Army context.
To illustrate the importance of this topic, consider the following example. A new lieutenant is assigned to a platoon midway through its deployment and needs to take command quickly. In all likelihood, the new platoon leader will turn to the platoon sergeant for assistance during the leadership transition period. However, if additional or different support is needed, how does the platoon leader identify the noncommissioned officer (NCO) he can rely on to have the right expertise and informal leadership skills? He may look for signals of competence, experience, and bravery. For example, visual representations of military qualifications (e.g., an NCO’s badges—tabs or insignia patches worn on the soldier’s uniform) serve as an immediately accessible indicator of expertise. He may also notice who among the NCOs is most respected and trusted by the rest of the troops. He may assess who comes closest to his image of the ideal soldier: strong, brave, stoic, and Ranger-certified.2
But the success of the unit may be impacted if the NCO who has the greatest potential to assist the platoon leader does not have the right tab, the right image, or the right friends. Due to biases that favor individuals who exemplify an ideal soldier prototype, it may be difficult for the platoon leader to identify the smartest, bravest, most adaptive, and most committed
__________________
2The details of this paragraph are drawn from interviews with military service members with relevant personal experiences. The conclusions may be subjective and impressionistic, but they are based upon experiences described to the committee separately by several individuals.
soldier if that soldier is a woman who did not complete a coveted certification course applicable for her branch of service (e.g., Ranger certification3 among combat arms soldiers) or who lacks connections to her peers in the social network because she is quartered in a different barracks and misses many of the bonding experiences available to other (male) soldiers. The platoon’s mission may suffer if the platoon leader overlooks the potential contributions of an outstanding candidate who does not fit the traditional image of the ideal soldier, and in turn, those soldiers who do not fit traditional stereotypes may be frustrated and demotivated.
Importantly, the committee notes that, although there is a prima facie case to expect that women and soldiers of both genders assigned to noncombat jobs (or perhaps those who have not experienced direct combat) may be disadvantaged compared to males or soldiers with combat experience, we do not start from the assumption that these attributes result in career disadvantages. Indeed, the well-defined and methodical promotion-based military career paths make it distinctively important to conduct research on the effects of such attributes on career trajectories within the military context. In contrast, research on civilian career paths is likely to be much less definitive because of the enormous variation in conditions, career roles, promotion opportunities, and standards for evaluation of contributions and success. We elaborate below on the Army’s unique opportunity to study sources and consequences of social status.
Social science research has a long history of studying social hierarchies in task groups such as Army units (e.g., Bales et al., 1951; French and Raven, 1959; Blau, 1970; Russell, 1938; Goffman, 1967). Recent research has distinguished between hierarchies based on access to and control over resources (also called “power” hierarchies), which include the formal rank hierarchy in the Army,4 and socially constructed hierarchies of respect and esteem-based expectations of competence and contribution to group goals, often called “status” hierarchies (for reviews, see Magee and Galinsky, 2008; Correll and Ridgeway, 2006). Numerous benefits accrue to the indi-
__________________
3As of the writing of this report, the Army has not yet opened its Ranger school to women; however, the Army Chief of Staff, General Raymond Odierno, has indicated that the Army will not adjust physical standards for women as they are integrated into ground combat roles. Furthermore, scientific validation of current physical fitness standards is required by the Army’s Soldier 2020 initiative.
4The committee notes that power may be attained through means other than formal rank because certain roles such as logistics or supplies control access to resources. In our research questions, however, we focus on formal rank and informal status because they are both hierarchically organized social resources.
viduals who attain high positions in both power and status hierarchies. While many of the advantages of having higher versus lower power are self-evident, recent research has documented less obvious psychological effects of experiencing high power. Specifically, high power is associated with an approach mindset that is characterized by attention to rewards, positive emotions, automatic cognition, and behavioral disinhibition (Keltner et al., 2003). Low power, in contrast, produces an inhibition mindset, which is characterized by attention to threats, negative emotions, systematic and controlled cognitions, and constrained behavior (Keltner et al., 2003). Research has also documented substantial benefits of having relatively higher status, including more opportunities to contribute to group tasks, more positive evaluations for the contributions made, and more influence in group processes and outcomes (Bales, 1958; Magee and Galinsky, 2008; Berger et al., 1980). Although people and cultures differ in the degree to which they endorse the concept of status hierarchies (for individual differences, see work on “social dominance orientation” such as Sidanius and Pratto, 1993; for cultural differences see work on “power distance” such as Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), these social structures and the relative benefits of being higher versus lower in them exist universally (Bales, 1958; Tiedens et al., 2007; Gould, 2003; Mazur, 1973).
Informal Status Versus Formal Power
A critical distinction between power and status is that power is more a property of an individual (the resources a person controls), whereas status is more a property of a social collective (it only exists in the eyes of others, or to the extent that others grant it to a person) (Emerson, 1962; Magee and Galinsky, 2008; Goldhamer and Shils, 1939; Goffman, 1967). Power hierarchies may be institutionally established and endorsed, as is the rank hierarchy of the Army; however, status hierarchies emerge organically through social negotiations (Strauss, 1978; Strauss et al., 1963). Therefore, the criteria used to determine opportunities to attain power often differ from those used to determine opportunities to attain status. Different people (or types of people) may have more access to power than to status, and there are conditions under which power and status are not perfectly aligned (Fragale et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2007), as discussed in further detail in the second section of this chapter.
Status in task group contexts is not just social popularity. Perceptions of status are based on expected performance, specifically competence and contribution to achieve group goals (Berger, 1977; Berger et al., 1972, 1974, 1986; Correll and Ridgeway, 2006). Although social network centrality is another correlate of high status, scholars generally consider centrality in task-related advice networks to be more important than status
in friendship networks (e.g., Podolny, 2005; Podolny and Baron, 1997; DeKlepper et al., 2013).
Yet performance expectations are in large part socially constructed. People have stereotypes about the qualities and resources associated with categories of people with particular characteristics (Ridgeway, 1991; Ridgeway and Balkwell, 1997; Ridgeway et al., 1998; Ridgeway and Erickson, 2000). Although there are idiosyncratic attributes for which individuals may be awarded high status, there are also categorical attributes that are systematically associated with higher and lower performance expectations (as an initial impression, that may or may not be validated by actual performance) and, hence, status values.
Prior research shows that in many workplace contexts, women have lower status than men because of their lower expected performance (Kanter, 1977; Ickes and Knowles, 1982; Biernat et al., 1998; Carli and Eagly, 1999; Lucas, 2003; Heilman and Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004). The more masculine the workplace domain, meaning the more it values strength and competitiveness, the more difficult it is for women to demonstrate competence (Heilman, 2012; Eagly et al., 1995) because of the perceived incongruence between the valued skills (strength, competitiveness) and stereotypes about women: for example, that women are, or should be, warm, communal, and supportive (Fiske et al., 2002).
The socially constructed nature of status also means that people invest substantial personal resources (e.g., money, effort, attention) to enhance their status in groups (Bendersky and Shah, 2012; Pettit et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2004). For example, group members may proactively demonstrate their task competence (Bunderson, 2003; Berger et al., 1974; Cheng et al., 2013), act generously to the group (Ridgeway, 1982; Willer, 2009; Flynn et al., 2006; Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006), behave dominantly (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009; Ridgeway, 1987; Ridgeway and Diekema, 1989) or aggressively (Faris, 2012; Faris and Felmlee, 2011), speak powerfully (Fragale, 2006), or express overconfidence (Anderson et al., 2012). Ironically, the status rewards for these behaviors can vary for people with different status-valued attributes. For instance, women often experience punitive backlash when they behave in a dominant or aggressive manner (Amanatullah and Tinsley, 2013; Berdahl, 2007; Rudman et al., 2012) or fail to show active support for others (Amanatullah and Tinsley, 2013), and women receive especially high rewards (compared to those received by men) for being generous towards others (Ridgeway, 1982; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly and Johnson, 1990).
Once established, performance expectations can create self-fulfilling prophecies. Those in higher-status positions are given more opportunities and support for performing well than are lower-status members of groups (Bales, 1958; Berger et al., 1980; Magee and Galinsky, 2008). Social
order is most stable when both high-status and low-status actors recognize their positions and conform appropriately (Ridgeway and Berger, 1986; Sampson, 1963). At the extreme, expectations can undermine the performance of stereotyped group members. For example, stereotypes about African Americans’ inferior intellectual capabilities can create self-fulfilling prophecies for African Americans’ performance on intellective tasks (Steele and Aronson, 1995), due to anticipated evaluative threats; similar effects have been found for women in technical fields of study (Pronin et al., 2004; Beilock et al., 2007). These results are most evident when stereotypes are subconsciously activated, as conscious awareness of any subordinating stereotype can elicit stereotype reactance: the desire to prove the stereotype wrong (Kray and Thompson, 2005; Kray et al., 2001).
Are There Opportunity Differences in Military Environments?
Some of the most contentious questions in current research concern the nature and consequences of differential treatments of individual members of organizations as a function of their background characteristics including gender, race, religion, and sexual preferences (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). There are many social facts that seem to imply differential treatment or subconscious prejudice against the members of certain classes of individuals in particular settings. People’s implicit, or subconscious, associations between race, gender, and performance have been related to a wide variety of differential treatment (Biernat et al., 1998; Jost et al., 2002; Rudman and Kilianski, 2000). But it is difficult to reach definite conclusions about the causes of these differences, and there is a continuing debate about how much of these differential outcomes is “legitimate” in the sense that it stems from differential performance and not just expectations and prejudices against classes of individuals.
The committee believes military service offers a unique setting in which to study the role of personal attributes (gender, race, aptitudes, etc.) on career achievements and to possibly develop empirical support for more definite conclusions. In particular, the extreme standardization of the formal military ranks, the well-defined job descriptions, and the extensive replication of cases of similar career tracks up the orderly military promotion paths provide a setting in which variables of interest can be controlled and suggestive results can be tested through replication. Although causality is difficult to determine for behavioral and social outcomes, military environments provide a context in which we believe it possible to frame and test precise hypotheses about the contributions of personal characteristics (including “social capital” and physical endowments), attitudes and organizational culture, institutional factors (allocations of responsibilities, opportunities, and training), and distribution of individuals in roles in the
past (e.g., women in combat roles or African Americans promoted to general officers) on current and future promotion patterns. We note the value of the longitudinal database recommended in Chapter 7 as one instrument with which to pursue such research.
One such important personal attribute to study is the role of gender. Women are a minority in the Army, representing approximately 13 percent of active duty personnel (Department of Defense, 2012), and until recently, women have been excluded from many positions intended for engagement in direct combat5 (see Harrell et al., 2007, for further discussion). The culture of the Army—as reflected in the Seven Core Army Values: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage6—suggests that women and noncombat personnel might face more obstacles in demonstrating competence and achieving status. For example, one way in which soldiers display their “ideal soldier” credentials is through the badge (insignia or tab) system that communicates the location and nature of soldiers’ training and military experiences and any special qualifications they have earned, such as Army Ranger certifications. As was explained to the committee by military service members, soldiers often look at each other’s badges and visible physical attributes to initially establish a widely shared understanding of their status hierarchy, which is heavily driven by masculine-typed achievements (e.g., passing the extreme “strength-based” physical challenges of special services training) and combat experience. Competencies will be validated over time through shared experiences within the unit, but surface-level indicators, like badges and physique, offer initial legitimacy and contribute to the ease with which status can be achieved.
A second important attribute that confers status in military environments is combat and noncombat job assignments. A paper on Army teams prepared for the committee by Major Benjamin J. Tupper (U.S. Army National Guard)7 explains the divide between “combat arms” units (infantry, armor, Special Forces, and field artillery) whose soldiers directly engage enemy forces and support units that provide combat soldiers with “beans and bullets.” Soldiers assigned to combat arms units have a degree of status that is evident through such behaviors as referring to support soldiers by unflattering nicknames such as “marshmallow soldiers.” Tupper explains, “Support troops normally remain on large bases, ‘in the rear,’ living comfortable lives with air conditioning and shopping and elaborate chow halls,
__________________
5Is it worth noting, however, that despite the current combat exclusion policy, females are assigned to units that have engaged in direct fire, such as military police and attack aviation, and have received valorous commendations for their performance in direct fire environments in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
6Descriptions of the Seven Core Army Values are available at http://www.army.mil/values/ [April 2014].
7Paper available by request from this study’s public access file.
while their combat arms brethren are out eating dirt and getting shot at” (p. 24). In short, combat arms soldiers enjoy a superior status because of their embodiment of the idealized soldier values.
Military environments and military careers provide distinctively effective research settings in which to explore comparative hypotheses about differences between the perceptions and treatment of members of minority groups defined by various attributes, as well as differences between combat and noncombat soldiers. For example, a research study can measure precisely in what ways women’s military careers are similar to and different from others’ military careers. Given the traditional female stereotypes, as well as visible differences in physical characteristics, women may be perceived as less powerful physically and less “warrior-like” temperamentally than their male peers. For example, longitudinal research that was conducted during a 9-week Army officer’s leadership training course found persistent and increasing sex-based stereotyping of female officer’s lesser competence and leadership effectiveness than males’ (Biernat et al., 1998). Moreover, under some conditions, female soldiers are objects of sexual desire for male soldiers (Department of Defense, 2013). Military women may also face challenges in gaining status working in culturally different environments in which American allies as well as American enemies may have expectations of women that differ significantly from those typical in American society. How do these expectations and characteristics play out in ways that are specific to gender discrimination? And how are these possible career achievement disadvantages comparable to, and different from, the expectations, behaviors, and treatment of male African American soldiers? Furthermore, do the measures the Army has taken in the past to reduce the obstacles arising from racial prejudice (at least on career paths from the bottom to the middle of military ranks) offer insights that could be applied to improve the prospects for female soldiers’ careers?
Of course, there are exceptions to any generalization about a topic as broad as gender and career achievements. There must be cases, including in military contexts, where expectations about female soldiers and leaders may be advantageous, even for the most tangible outcomes of performance evaluations and promotions (cf. Eagly and Carli, 2003; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Furthermore, in some cases, women may find their status in culturally different environments to be advantageous for certain military missions (e.g., Afghan female engagement teams [International Security Assistance Force, 2011]). One important objective for research on gender and military careers would be to identify the military roles and career paths that are currently the most supportive of achievements by women and other minority soldiers.
Based on current trends in technology and military strategy, the committee anticipates future combat roles will include a greater variance of
necessary physical power, whereby some roles will be more “indirect” and require lower levels of physical power and endurance but higher levels of cognitive skills and capacities such as vigilance, detection, and inference. Some modern technologies (e.g., drones and long-range artillery) facilitate combat unlikely to require the physical strength and training necessary for hand-to-hand fighting. Simultaneously, however, the operating environments experienced by other combat soldiers (e.g., especially those engaged in special forces and counterinsurgency operations) may present greater physical challenges as the soldiers maneuver urban environments in close contact with enemy forces among noncombatants. Consequently, the value of attributes that have traditionally been associated with the ideal soldier, such as physical strength (Department of the Army, 2011, 2012a) and aggressiveness, may expand to alter the image of the ideal soldier prototype. It is this expansion of the ideal soldier prototype that the committee believes will be an important issue to understand as it relates to the attainment of status within the small unit. Thus, another question arises: As the activities of engaging in combat change so that a wider range of personal attributes and roles become important for mission accomplishment, how will this impact how soldiers achieve status?
One example of how social perceptions have evolved in response to changes in combat operations during the wars of the past decade has been the creation of the Combat Action Badge (CAB), as described by Major Tupper:8
However, the playing field of bragging rights has gradually been leveled during the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These conflicts, which lack defined front lines and are known best for the [improvised explosive device] IED-type attacks (as opposed to traditional unit on unit fighting), have served to weaken some of the anti-support troop bias among combat arms soldiers. Truck drivers, military police, and other support forces have regularly been in combat, which has begrudgingly earned them the respect of many of their combat arms peers.
Another equalizer has been the recognition of the sacrifices being made by support troops in combat through the creation of the Combat Action Badge (CAB). Prior to 2005, the Combat Infantryman Badge was the only badge awarded as recognition of direct combat experience, and it was only issued to infantry soldiers. Since 2005, the CAB is … [available to] non-infantry [and non-special forces] soldiers who have [been engaged by the enemy or who have personally engaged the enemy], allowing truck drivers and other assorted support soldiers to wear recognition that they too were involved in direct combat with the enemy.
Creating the CAB, while momentarily alienating the infantry, ultimately serves the greater goal of honoring the sacrifices of all Army teams, regard-
__________________
8Paper available by request from this study’s public access file.
less of their position. Personally, when I see a soldier wearing a CAB, I feel a greater sense of camaraderie, as I know they too have experienced the challenges of life and death combat. This has fostered a greater sense of appreciation in my mind for support soldiers.
As with any organization, there will always be individuals who inappropriately receive merit awards, recognition, and promotion. If inappropriate rewards become widespread, however, it may delegitimize the value of the award across the organization. This reiterates a point made earlier that visible indicators of military expertise offer initial legitimacy and contribute to the ease with which status can be achieved, but unit members will confirm these qualities and characteristics in action.
Similar efforts to expand opportunities for women to enter all fields of operations in the Army, including the full spectrum of direct combat jobs, have not been effective at equalizing status opportunities. Of particular note, the committee finds that different physical fitness requirements for male and female soldiers have undermined the status value of those accomplishments for women (see Department of the Army, 2011, for details of the Army Standards of Medical Fitness). Military service members, in speaking with the committee, repeatedly noted the differential respect accorded female soldiers who are held to lower strength and stamina standards. Army soldiers speaking with the committee argued that the Army should determine the necessary physical fitness competency to be an effective solider and then hold all soldiers accountable to that same standard, without adjusting expectations based on gender. Likewise, Deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, David Brinkley, was quoted in the Associated Press (Baldor, 2014): “The men don’t want to lower the standards because they see that as a perceived risk to their team … The women don’t want to lower the standards because they want the men to know they’re just as able as they are to do the same task.”
As the Army Physical Readiness Training manual recognizes, “the effectiveness of Soldiers depends largely on their physical condition. Full spectrum operations place a premium on the Soldier’s strength, stamina, agility, resiliency, and coordination” (Department of the Army, 2012a, p. 1-1). The impact of the current Army policy of unequal standards, rather than increasing status opportunities for women by enabling more of them to qualify for service, has resulted in devaluing the status for women. When asked what a female soldier could do to earn the respect of the elite male soldiers the committee interviewed, one responded, “if she could do ten pull-ups, everyone would respect her.” Clearly, differences in physical abilities for men and women are a substantial barrier to status opportunities for women in the military context. Of course, successful soldiers need more than just brawn; but if the social context emphasizes raw physical
strength as a gateway to opportunity, it is unclear how women can successfully negotiate status commensurate with the actual value they bring to their units. In the current military context, the achievable status levels of females are limited by organizational policy outside their control; this committee judges this to be a significant issue of human resource management that the Army should care about a great deal.
EFFECTS ON LEADERSHIP CAPABILITIES OF MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN POWER AND STATUS
The discussion so far has focused on status hierarchies that are distinctively important in the modern Army, and especially on opportunities to move up status hierarchies based on status-conferring attributes such as gender. In this section, the committee turns attention to a consequence of status hierarchies that can be a source of problems in the Army: misalignments between power hierarchies (e.g., formal military rank) and status hierarchies (e.g., informal respect and esteem). Misalignments, especially those in which power is greater than status, can produce negative leadership outcomes such as toxic leadership behaviors, which include “dysfunctional behaviors to deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly punish others” (Department of the Army, 2012b, p. 3).
While the criteria for status attainment in the Army are predominantly masculine and related to preparation for combat and combat experience, the criteria for formal rank promotions are broader. Officer promotions, prescribed by 10 U.S.C. § 3001-5000 (2011),9 are largely based on time-in-grade and performance records (including the officer evaluation report and current and past responsibilities). Promotion methods vary depending on circumstances and need, but an officer “fully qualified” for promotion “is one of demonstrated integrity, who has shown that he or she is qualified professionally and morally to perform the duties expected of an officer in the next higher grade” (Department of the Army, 2005, p. 9.19). Enlisted soldier promotion methods transform over the course of a soldier’s career, shifting from strict time-in-grade promotions for junior enlisted soldiers (E-1 to E-4) to NCO local promotion exam boards (E-5 to E-6), in which candidates are scored on a range of items from personal appearance to knowledge of basic soldiering, and then to centralized NCO promotions based on performance records (E-7 to E-9). The potential for misalignment between power and status within a small unit is especially salient when one considers that a platoon is led by its highest ranking member, an officer who is relatively young and inexperienced compared to the years of expe-
__________________
9See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112HPRT67344/pdf/CPRT-112HPRT67344.pdf [June 2014].
rience of the platoon sergeant. While the Army relies upon effective chain of command protocols and the authority of commanding officers to make decisions that will be followed, disparities in power versus status within a small unit certainly affect collective behaviors and ultimately mission success in ways the Army should seek to better understand.
To be clear, power and status are not entirely independent; they contribute to and influence each other. Rank may act as a status-conferring attribute and status may contribute to a soldier’s qualification for promotion in rank. However, to simplify, while the Army’s status hierarchy is heavily influenced by status-conferring attributes, such as gender and physical attributes, promotions up the power hierarchy of formal military rank are based on experience, task-relevant skills, and conduct. Because soldiers may advance in power and status hierarchies based on different criteria, a misalignment between power and status may develop, resulting in potentially negative consequences on unit effectiveness and individual careers.
Research on the interactive effects of power and status in other contexts suggests that considering the alignment between these two sources of social influence may help explain a variety of behaviors of interest for the Army. For instance, research on legitimacy implies that aligned power and status are associated with effective leadership (i.e., high power and high status) and deferential followership (i.e., low power and low status) (Tyler, 2006; Ellemers et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 2006; Ridgeway et al., 1994, 1995; Tost, 2011; Berger et al., 1998). However, when leaders have high power and low status, dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., intimidation) may result.
Structurally different opportunities and misaligned social hierarchies may produce dysfunctional behaviors for both the institution and the individuals in it (Fast et al., 2012; Blader and Chen, 2012; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Berdahl, 2007; Rudman et al., 2012; Oldmeadow and Fiske, 2010; Anderson and Brown, 2010). For example, managers who have high power and low status tend to demean subordinates and treat them unjustly (Fast et al., 2012; Blader and Chen, 2012) and so may be more likely to engage in “toxic leadership.” For instance, a recent study by Fast and colleagues (2012) determined that leaders with high power and low status are most likely to demean their subordinates by requiring them to do things like bark like a dog or reveal negative traits about themselves. Subordinates are less likely to defer to the authority of high-power superiors whom subordinates don’t respect—they have low status (Thomas et al., 1986; Walker et al., 1986; Zelditch and Walker, 1984). Furthermore, the institutional interventions to equalize opportunities to gain power (such as demographically blinded testing procedures) are different from those that may equalize access to status (such as the 2005 creation of the Combat Action Badge to recognize soldiers who engage or are engaged by the enemy, regardless of
their branch of service or occupational specialty).10 In other words, research studies suggest that misaligned power and status (e.g., high power and low status) produce dysfunctional leadership behaviors and less deferential followership.
Dysfunctional behaviors in Army leaders, including self-centered attitudes and motivations, adversely affect subordinates, the organization, and mission performance (Department of the Army, 2012b) and are “associated with low unit cohesion, low subordinate motivation, work quality, and commitment to the Army” (Center for Army Leadership, 2012, p. 3). Yet, dysfunctional leadership behaviors persist in the Army: Recent survey results indicate that 83 percent of soldiers observed a toxic leader in the past year (Center for Army Leadership, 2011) and 1 in 5 soldiers believe their direct supervisor displayed toxic behaviors (Center for Army Leadership, 2012). Before effective policies can be developed to improve this situation, the Army would benefit from a better understanding of the darker sides of leadership (Larsson, 2012) to develop fundamental knowledge of the factors, especially those that may be prevalent in military environments, that influence these behaviors (for a review of recent research on unethical leadership behaviors, see Barling et al., 2010). Research into factors, such as misalignments between power and status in small units, that may influence such behaviors will be important to pursue as the Army moves toward a leaner force where promotions and career service may be more difficult to attain.
The general question of how power and status alignment (or misalignment) impact success in leadership roles and the performance of the units being led by those leaders is of great practical significance in Army contexts. Specifically, how does variance in the respect accorded to higher-ranking soldiers affect their leadership behaviors, from effective to toxic (e.g., engaging in deceit, intimidation, or coercion)? Based on research conducted outside the military, one would expect that the lower the status of higher-ranking soldiers within a small unit, the more likely they are to engage in toxic or less authoritative leadership behaviors. On the other hand, research on transformational leadership in nonmilitary contexts has found that men are more likely to engage in non-optimal leadership behaviors than are women (Eagly et al., 2003), which suggests that it is possible that misalignments between status and power motivate more effective leadership behaviors in some circumstances. Therefore, the committee believes the Army would be well served to investigate how the interaction between
__________________
10Previously, soldiers outside infantry or Special Forces units did not receive an award for service in combat. Information on U.S. Army awards and decorations is available through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command website, available: https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Awards%20and%20Decorations%20Branch [April 2014].
power and status may affect leadership capabilities in specifically military contexts, to determine whether and to what extent the research results from civilian contexts apply.
Research on status effects on leadership poses significant challenges requiring innovation in survey and experimental design. It will be methodologically difficult, but not impossible, to tease apart the contributions of a leader’s characteristics (individual differences including but not limited to differences that produce status-power discrepancies, i.e., gender, race, sexual orientation, religion), training, characteristics of the troops (“the followers”), and the difficulty of the missions assigned to the unit. In Chapter 4, the committee proposed development of “contextual leadership” (and “followership”) assessment tools; such tools should also prove useful in this research on status effects. For example, using newly developed measures of effective leadership and team communication (e.g., assessments of how well the troops understand the commander’s intent and the leader’s awareness of the overall and individual readiness and motivation levels of his/her troops), research should provide a more refined description of the ramifications of effective and toxic leadership. Furthermore, the new longitudinal survey recommended in Chapter 7 would be useful to establish evidence for causal relationships among factors found to be statistically associated. This could, for instance, begin with surveys of soldiers in Officer Candidate School, with follow-ups throughout their careers, including performance evaluations and surveys of their subordinates’ respect and other status-relevant perceptions.
Recognizing the different access opportunities and behavioral implications of attaining positions of power versus status may help explain many behaviors of interest across military environments. In particular, challenges facing nonprototypical soldiers in earning status likely create systematically different opportunities to exercise social influence and informal leadership, such that the Army may be overlooking valuable potential among its troops. For example, Implicit Leadership Theory proposes that people have certain prototypes or idealized visions about what constitutes good leadership for any particular context (Lord and Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 1984). This idealized leader is used as a standard against which actual leaders are compared. If a leader is high on prototypicality it means that he or she is thought to embody the group’s norms and values. Although some Implicit Leadership Theory researchers have argued that followers update their mental image of a good unit leader, the empirical data so far do not support this view. Followers’ perceptions of who constitutes a good leader appear to be fairly stable over time, despite disconfirming evidence (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005a, 2005b; see also Snyder, 1982; Tinsley et al., 2002). Ultimately, the success of a leader is highly dependent upon whether followers accept the individual as a leader and thereby afford the
leader a level of status commensurate with his or her position of power; the importance of followers’ perceptions in the leader-follower relationship cannot be overstated.
Furthermore, the inability to gain status may be a factor that contributes to soldiers’ engaging in dysfunctional behaviors such as alcoholism, aggression, or suicide, as well as behaviors associated with toxic leadership or other, less extreme, forms of ineffective leadership. Motivation to maintain the status hierarchy may also be related to harassment of low-status unit members who try to negotiate higher status for themselves.
Based on the research summarized above, one would predict that misalignments between power and status may be associated with a range of behaviors of significant importance for small unit effectiveness. In order to study these dynamics effectively, research should be designed with actual Army personnel as the subjects because the particular status values associated with different characteristics and behaviors are specific to the context of Army units. Furthermore, to understand how these ubiquitous social dynamics play out in the Army, research needs to be conducted on them in situ.
FUTURE RESEARCH ON DISTINCT SOURCES OF POWER AND STATUS
Conclusion 5
The committee concludes that informal processes of negotiating status (e.g., respect and admiration from peers) are an important source of influence in small units in addition to formal power; these processes have substantial implications for human resource utilization and small unit performance.
Recommendation 5
The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and other U.S. military funding agencies should fund basic research on:
- how soldiers gain status;
- how status attainment may differ between men and women and between combat and noncombat functions;
- how the interaction between rank and status may produce positive or negative leadership outcomes; and
- how status affects careers, behavioral outcomes, and small unit effectiveness.
Many research methods could be employed in the proposed research on negotiated status (e.g., the dynamic processes by which respect and admiration are given by peers) within military environments. An ideal approach would combine experimental and nonexperimental methods, including observational and ethnographic studies. For example, the longitudinal survey recommended in Chapter 7 could be a useful vehicle for nonexperimental studies tracking career paths for soldiers with different ascribed status characteristics and accumulated experiences.
An experimental study could be designed to establish causality by comparing men and women in support versus combat roles in a military training simulation. Small teams could be composed of research participants who all have the same formal ranks in order to hold power equal. They would complete a round-robin questionnaire of each team member’s perceptions of every other individual teammate along with self-surveys to assess their expectations of their own and each other teammate’s respect, prestige, skills, knowledge, and task competence in the upcoming task.11 They would then perform the simulated task, and their performance would be captured. Following the task, they would complete another round-robin questionnaire with the same set of questions, followed by questions about the extent to which they felt that (1) they were appropriately respected by other members of the team, (2) they contributed to accomplishing the team’s goal, (3) status was important to them in this context, and (4) they were motivated to increase their status in the team. Other questions would ask about any actions, both competitive and collaborative, that they engaged in to increase their status. Videotaped records could also be coded and biosensors or “smart badges” could be used to determine interactive patterns and provide objective process data. In this way, nonintrusive methods based on digital monitoring of interpersonal interactions or periodic qualitative or ethnographic observations could be used to supplement the self-report instruments.
A parallel survey design, sampling respondents from actual units, would provide externally valid answers to questions about how status-enhancing processes in the Army vary by individual differences (e.g., gender) and functional role requirements. The soldiers would be surveyed when first assigned to new units, with a round-robin questionnaire like the one described in the experimental study above. The survey would include ratings of status and competence perceptions and the extent to which they felt respected and influential; it would ask about their motivation to increase
__________________
11For an example of a round-robin questionnaire format, see http://www.qualtrics.com/qualtrics-360/ [April 2014].
their status and the behaviors in which they have engaged to do so. This survey could be repeated periodically for at least 3 years (assuming the unit membership remains relatively intact during that time so that the same individual unit members complete the survey several times), especially before and after deployments or special training activities.
Amanatullah, E.T., and C.H. Tinsley. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much … or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1):110-122.
Anderson, C., and C.E. Brown. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(C):55-89.
Anderson, C., and G.J. Kilduff. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2):491-503.
Anderson, C., S. Brion, D.A. Moore, and J.A. Kennedy. (2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4):718-735.
Baldor, L.C. (2014). AP Exclusive: Few Army Women Want Combat Jobs. Available: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-few-army-women-want-combat-jobs [March 2014].
Bales, R. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley, Eds., Readings in Social Psychology, 3rd ed. (pp. 437-447). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bales, R.F., F.L. Strodtbeck, T.M. Mills, and M.E. Roseborough. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4):461-468.
Barling, J., A. Christie, and A. Hoption. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck, Ed., APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 183-240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beilock, S.L., R.J. Rydell, and A.R. McConnell. (2007). Stereotype threat and working memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spill over. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2):256-276.
Bendersky, C., and N. Shah. (2012). The costs of status enhancement: Performance effects of individual’s status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23(2):308-322.
Berdahl, J.L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2):641-658.
Berger, J. (1977). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier.
Berger, J., B.P. Cohen, and M. Zelditch Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3):241-255.
Berger, J., T.L. Connor, and M.H. Fisek. (1974). Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
Berger, J., S.J. Rosenholtz, and M. Zelditch Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1):479-508.
Berger, J., M. Webster, C.L. Ridgeway, and S.J. Rosenholtz. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behavior. In E.J. Lawler, Ed., Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 3 (pp. 1-22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berger, J., C.L. Ridgeway, M.H. Fisek, and R.Z. Norman. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63(3):379-405.
Biernat, M., C.S. Crandall, L.V. Young, D. Kobrynowicz, and S.M. Halpin. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2):301-317.
Blader, S.L., and Y.R. Chen. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5):994-1014.
Blau, P. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35(2):201-218.
Bunderson, J.S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4):557-591.
Carli, L.L., and A.H. Eagly. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G.N. Powell, Ed., Handbook of Gender and Work (pp. 203-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Center for Army Leadership. (2011). Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Army Leader’s Perceptions of Army Leaders and Army Leadership Practices. Available: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Repository/CASAL_Participant?Feedback_2011_1.pdf [April 2014].
Center for Army Leadership. (2012). 2011 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Main Findings. Leadership Research, Assessment, and Doctrine Division. Fort Leavenworth, KS. Available: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/repository/CASAL_TechReport2012-1_MainFindings.pdf [April 2014].
Cheng, J.T., J.L. Tracy, T. Foulsham, A. Kingstone, and J. Henrich. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1):103-125.
Correll, S., and C. Ridgeway. (2006). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater, Ed., Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. XVI (pp. 29-51). New York: Springer.
DeKlepper, M., G. Labianca, E. Sleebos, and F. Agneessens. (2013). The Emergence of the Iron Cage: The Role of Sociometric Status in Establishing a Concertive Control System. Unpublished paper, Amsterdam University College, the Netherlands.
Department of the Army. (2005). Officer Promotions. Army Regulation 600-8-29. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_29.pdf [February 2014].
Department of the Army. (2008). Unified Land Operations. Army Field Manual 3-0. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://downloads.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf [April 2014].
Department of the Army. (2011). Standards of Medical Fitness. Army Regulation 40-501. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r40_501.pdf [February 2014].
Department of the Army. (2012a). Field Manual 7-22, Army Physical Readiness Training. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm7_22.pdf [February 2014].
Department of the Army. (2012b). Army Doctrine Publication 6-22. Army Leadership. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available: http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adp6_22_new.pdf [February 2014].
Department of Defense. (2012). 2012 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy). Available: http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/FY12_ARMY_PROFILE.pdf [June 2014].
Department of Defense. (2013). Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Fiscal Year 2012. Volumes 1 and 2. Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available: http://www.sapr.mil/ [June 2014].
Eagly, A.H., and L.L. Carli. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6):807-834.
Eagly, A.H., and M.C. Johannesen-Schmidt. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4):781-797.
Eagly, A.H., and B.T. Johnson. (1990). Gender and leadership-style: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 108(2):233-256.
Eagly, A.H., and S.J. Karau. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3):573-598.
Eagly, A.H., S.J. Karau, and M.G. Makhijani. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1):125-145.
Eagly, A.H., M.C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and M.L. van Engen. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129:569-591.
Ellemers, N., H. Wilke, and A. Van Knippenberg. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5):766-778.
Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31-41.
Epitropaki, O., and R. Martin. (2005a). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4):659-676.
Epitropaki, O., and R. Martin. (2005b). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4):569-589.
Faris, R. (2012). Aggression, exclusivity, and status attainment in interpersonal networks. Social Forces, 90(4):1,207-1,235.
Faris, R., and D. Felmlee. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1):48-73.
Fast, N.J., N. Halevy, and A.D. Galinsky. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1):391-394.
Fiske, S.T., A.J.C. Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6):878-902.
Fiske, S.T., A.J.C. Cuddy, and P. Glick. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(2):77-83.
Flynn, F.J., R.E. Reagans, E.T. Amanatullah, and D.R. Ames. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6):1,123-1,137.
Fragale, A.R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2):243-261.
Fragale, A.R., J.R. Overbeck, and M.A. Neale. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgments based on targets’ power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4):767-775.
French, J.R.P., and B. Raven. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, Ed., Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goldhamer, H., and E.A. Shils. (1939). Types of power and status. American Journal of Sociology, 45(2):171-182.
Gould, R.V. (2003). Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity about Social Rank Breeds Conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hardy, C.L., and M. Van Vugt. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10):1,402-1,413.
Harrell, M.C., L. Werber Castaneda, P. Schirmer, B.W. Hallmark, J. Kavanagh, D. Gershwin, P. Steinberg. (2007). Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute. Available: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG590-1.pdf [May 2014].
Heilman, M.E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32:113-135.
Heilman, M.E., and T.G. Okimoto. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1):81-92.
Heilman, M.E., A.S. Wallen, D. Fuchs, and M.M. Tamkins. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3):416-427.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Huberman, B.A., C.H. Loch, and A. Önçüler. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1):103-114.
Ickes, W.J., and E.S. Knowles. (1982). Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
International Security Assistance Force. (2011). Engaging the Female Populace. Kabul, Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force. Available: http://info.publicintelligence.net/ISAF-FemaleEngagement.pdf [June 2014].
Johnson, C., T.J. Dowd, and C.L. Ridgeway. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1):53-78.
Jost, J.T., B.W. Pelham, and M.R. Carvallo. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6):586-602.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Keltner, D., D.H. Gruenfeld, and C. Anderson. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2):265-284.
Kray, L.J., and L. Thompson. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26:103-182.
Kray, L.J., L. Thompson, and A. Galinsky. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6):942-958.
Larsson, G. (2012). Leader development in a natural context. In J.H. Laurence and M.D. Matthews, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology (pp. 187-196). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lord, R.G., and K.J. Maher. (1991). Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Organizational Performance. Boston, MA: Rutledge.
Lord, R.G., R.J. Foti, and C.L. De Vader. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3):343-378.
Lucas, J.W. (2003). Status processes and the institutionalization of women as leaders. American Sociological Review, 68(3):464-480.
Magee, J.C., and A.D. Galinsky. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1):351-398.
Mazur, A. (1973). A cross-species comparison of status in small established groups. American Sociological Review, 38(5):513-530.
National Women’s Law Center. (2013). Restrictions on Assignments of Military Women: A Brief History. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center. Available: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/women_in_military_assignments_a_brief_history_revised_may_2013.pdf [June 2014].
Oldmeadow, J.A., and S.T. Fiske. (2010). Social status and the pursuit of positive social identity: Systematic domains of intergroup differentiation and discrimination for high- and low-status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(4):425-444.
Pettit, N.C., K. Yong, and S.E. Spataro. (2010). Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2):396-401.
Podolny, J.M. (2005). Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Podolny, J.M., and J.N. Baron. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5):673-693.
Pronin, E., C.M. Steele, and L. Ross. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2): 152-168.
Ridgeway, C.L. (1982). Status in groups: The importance of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47(1):76-87.
Ridgeway, C.L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. American Sociological Review, 52(5):683-694.
Ridgeway, C.L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70(2):367-386.
Ridgeway, C.L., and J.W. Balkwell. (1997). Group processes and the diffusion of status beliefs. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1):14-31.
Ridgeway, C.L., and J. Berger. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51(5):603-617.
Ridgeway, C.L., and D. Diekema. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54(1):79-93.
Ridgeway, C.L., and K.G. Erickson. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3):579-615.
Ridgeway, C.L., C. Johnson, and D. Diekema. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Social Forces, 72(4):1,051-1,077.
Ridgeway, C.L., D. Diekema, and C. Johnson. (1995). Legitimacy, compliance, and gender in peer groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4):298-311.
Ridgeway, C.L., E.H. Boyle, K.J. Kuipers, and D.T. Robinson. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 63(3):331-350.
Rudman, L.A., and S.E. Kilianski. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11):1,315-1,328.
Rudman, L.A., C.A. Moss-Racusin, J.E. Phelan, and S. Nauts. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1):165-179.
Russell, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Sampson, E.E. (1963). Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26(2):146-162.
Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: new dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon, Eds., Individualsm and Collectivism: Theory, Application and Methods (pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sidanius, J., and F. Pratto. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P.M. Sniderman, P.E. Tetlock, and E. Carmies, Eds., Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma (pp. 173-211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Snyder, M. (1982). Self-fulfilling stereotypes. Psychology Today, July:60-88.
Steele, C.M., and J. Aronson. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5):797-811.
Strauss, A.L. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A.L., L. Schatzman, R. Bucher, D. Ehrlich, and M. Sabshin. (1963). The hospital and its negotiated order. In E. Friedson, Ed., Hospital in Modern Society (pp. 147-169). New York: Free Press.
Thomas, G.M., H.A. Walker, and M. Zelditch Jr. (1986). Legitimacy and collective action. Social Forces, 65(2):378-404.
Tiedens, L.Z., M.M. Unzueta, and M.J. Young. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3):402-414.
Tinsley, C.H., K. O’Connor, and B. Sullivan. (2002). “Tough” guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88:621-642.
Tost, L.P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4):686-710.
Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57:375-400.
Walker, H.A., G.M. Thomas, and M. Zelditch Jr. (1986). Legitimation, endorsement, and stability. Social Forces, 64(3):620-643.
Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1):23-43.
Williams, K.Y., and C.A. O’Reilly. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20:77-140.
Zelditch, M. Jr., and H.A. Walker. (1984). Legitimacy and the stability of authority. In E.E. Lawler, Ed., Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
