The DOI matches its Crossref record; 224 of the 224 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
Items 201–224 of 224
Fragale, A. R. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.004 · Cited by 121
Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1023/a:1026481205719 · Cited by 120
Status competition and performance in work groups
Loch, C. H., Huberman, B. A., & Stout, S. K. (2000) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(00)00107-4 · Cited by 119
Phillips, D. J. (2001) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/320293 · Cited by 116
Umphress, E. E., Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Watkins, M. B. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.396 · Cited by 114
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Adarves‐Yorno, I. (2005) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167205279904 · Cited by 100
The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical organizations
Athanassiades, J. C. (1973) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255323 · Cited by 96
Status inconsistency in organizations: From social hierarchy to stress
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Mundell, B. (1993) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030140104 · Cited by 89
Stratification and Organization
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1986) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511570759 · Cited by 88
Brown, P., Levinson, S., & Gumperz, J. (2021) · Cross-Cultural Pragmatics · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813085 · Cited by 87
Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1984) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392938 · Cited by 86
Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination.
Fiske, S., & Lee, T. L. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753725.004 · Cited by 81
Sorrentino, R. M., & Roney, C. J. R. (1986) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.420 · Cited by 75
Being Polite and Keeping MUM: How Bad News is Communicated in Organizational Hierarchies1
Lee, F. (1993) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01025.x · Cited by 72
The Logic of Social Hierarchies.
Hazelrigg, L. E., Laumann, E. O., & Siegel, P. M. (1971) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093708 · Cited by 71
Sande, G. N., Ellard, J. H. T., & Ross, M. G. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.684 · Cited by 70
The Balance of Power: Interpersonal Consequences of Differential Power and Expectancies
Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167200262006 · Cited by 62
On Creating Efficient Industrial Administrations.
Whyte, W. F., & Stinchcombe, A. L. (1975) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2576512 · Cited by 50
Status and Power in Organizational Group Research: Acknowledging the Pervasiveness of Hierarchy
Mannix, E. A., & Sauer, S. J. (2006) · Advances in group processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(06)23006-6 · Cited by 34
Ospina, S. M. (1996) · Cornell University Press eBooks · doi:10.7591/9781501735172 · Cited by 34
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2012) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446218556.n15 · Cited by 32
Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753725.009 · Cited by 24
Theory and research in abnormal psychology
ROSENHAN, D. L., & London, P. (1969) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 19
The Blackwell Companion to Organizations
(2005) · Blackwell Publishing Ltd eBooks · doi:10.1111/b.9780631216940.2005.00009.x · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Bargh J.A., 1995, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768, 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768 · DOI
- Brauer M., 2005, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology
- Brief A.P., 2001, Groups at work: Theory and research, 471
- Deci E.L., 1987, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024, 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 · DOI · Paper page
- DePaulo B.M., 1998, The handbook of social psychology, 2, 3
- French J.R.P., 1959, The bases of social power
- Greer L.L., 2007, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management
- Guinote A., 2007, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 685
- Hollander E.P., 1985, The handbook of social psychology, 2, 485
- Kipnis D., 1976, The powerholders
- Lewin K., 1997, Field theory in social psychology, 337
- Marx K., 1970, The German ideology
- Milliken F.J., 2008, Seeing through the lens of power: Sense‐making and communication in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
- Morand D.A., 2001, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management
- Overbeck J., 2005, Research on managing groups and teams, 7, 171
- Roese N.J., 2007, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, 91
- Rudman L.A., Research in organizational behavior
- Sivanathan N.S., 2008, Scurrilous competitors: Risk‐takers, bribers and saboteurs in promotion tournaments
- Weisman S.R., 1981, New York Times, A20
- Winter D.G., 1973, The power motive
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038781 · Cited by 1,133
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A. F., & Henrich, J. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030398 · Cited by 1,036
Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-Granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.61967925 · Cited by 998
Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012633 · Cited by 932
Self-citationBerg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.645 · Cited by 890
Metadata
- Authors
- Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Magee, Joe C.
- 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
- 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
