CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 528Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective

Bunderson, J. Stuart·2003·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/3556637
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper develops and tests a theory of expertise recognition and utilization in groups that focuses on the critical role of members' status cues as indicators of task expertise. The theory draws on status characteristics theory and past research on groups to propose that while attributions of expertise in work groups will be informed by both specific (i.e., task-relevant) and diffuse (i.e., social category) status cues, the strength of this association will be contingent on the type of cue as well as on characteristics of the group context. So, whereas specific status cues will better predict attributions of expertise in decentralized, longer-tenured groups, diffuse status cues will better predict attributions of expertise in centralized, shorter-tenured groups. Further, attributions of expertise should fully mediate the relationship between members' status cues and intragroup influence. A multilevel test of these hypotheses in a sample of self-managed production teams in a Fortune 100 high-technology firm provides strong support. Group-level analyses confirm that the alignment of intragroup influence with specific status cues is positively associated with group performance.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3556637

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 101 references

2 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Argote L., 2001, Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, 369
  2. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214 · DOI
  3. Dalkey N., 1969, The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Decisions
  4. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.233 · DOI
  5. Fiske S. T., 1991, Social Cognition
  6. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.315 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.324 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.511 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.431 · DOI
  10. Snijders T. A. B., 1999, Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.619 · DOI
  12. Thompson J. D., 1967, Organizations in Action
  13. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 528

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bunderson, J. S.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Bunderson, J. Stuart
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2003-12
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
557-591
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
DOI
10.2307/3556637
OpenAlex
W2087944368
Cited by
527
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 25
FWCI
3.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
status characteristics theory, status signals, group performance, self-managing teams, work teams

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review