CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,385Social Power and Status DynamicsManagement and Organizational StudiesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status

Magee, Joe C., Galinsky, Adam D.·2008·Academy of Management Annals
DOI 10.5465/19416520802211628
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hierarchy is such a defining and pervasive feature of organizations that its forms and basic functions are often taken for granted in organizational research. In this review, we revisit some basic psychological and sociological elements of hierarchy and argue that status and power are two important yet distinct bases of hierarchical differentiation. We first define power and status and distinguish our definitions from previous conceptualizations. We then integrate a number of different literatures to explain why status and power hierarchies tend to be self‐reinforcing. Power, related to one’s control over valued resources, transforms individual psychology such that the powerful think and act in ways that lead to the retention and acquisition of power. Status, related to the respect one has in the eyes of others, generates expectations for behavior and opportunities for advancement that favor those with a prior status advantage. We also explore the role that hierarchy‐enhancing belief systems play in stabilizing hierarchy, both from the bottom up and from the top down. Finally, we address a number of factors that we think are instrumental in explaining the conditions under which hierarchies change. Our framework suggests a number of avenues for future research on the bases, causes, and consequences of hierarchy in groups and organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/19416520802211628

Cites

226 of 226 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Formal power most often accrues to those who hold positions reflecting higher rank in the organization.

    “formal power most often accrues to those who hold positions in the organization that reflect higher rank or position in the organization (Magee & Galinsky, 2008;Mechanic, 1962)”

    From Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity (2010) · cites this paper as Magee & Galinsky, 2008

  • Low-status members are less likely to deviate from expected behaviour or challenge high-rank users, because consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals.

    “Lowstatus members are also less likely to deviate from expected behaviour or challenge high-rank users, since '[t]he consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals, especially when low-status individuals act above their rank' [13, 375].”

    From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

  • New users are more hesitant to call out individuals because the consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals, especially when low-status individuals act above their rank.

    “We posit that new users are more hesitant to call out individuals because, as discussed in the introduction, '[t]he consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals, especially when low-status individuals act above their rank'[13, 375].”

    From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Magee, Joe C.
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Annals
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2008-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
351-398
ISSN
  • 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-6520
DOI
10.5465/19416520802211628
OpenAlex
W4237123392
Cited by
2,385
References
223
Citations by year
2026: 153 · 2025: 189 · 2024: 193 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 170 · 2020: 185 · 2019: 205 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 152 · 2016: 125 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 109 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 63
FWCI
132.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
social hierarchy, power, status, power hierarchies, organizational hierarchy, belief systems, resource control, status expectations

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