, 3
4449 
6548Status is the basic reality that team members face in the workplace. The view that status is one of the basic needs of human beings has also been universally recognized by scholars. Previous studies on status mostly regard status as a static and stable phenomenon to explore the impact of different team members’ status differences. However, status is not unchanged, but in the process of continuous acquisition, maintenance and loss of change. Scholars have expanded this field from the causes, antecedents and impacts of changes in status. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive literature to summarize the existing research and point out the direction for future research. Therefore, this paper firstly defines team membership and distinguishes it from other similar concepts such as power, reputation, influence, etc. Status is the degree to which a person is respected, worshipped and voluntarily complied with by others because of his perceived instrumental social value. Secondly, this paper reviews the existing literature on the static research of team members’ status, and holds that the static research of team members’ status mainly focuses on two topics: identifying the advantages brought by high status of team members and exploring the internal mechanism of maintaining stable status. Thirdly, this paper focuses on the dynamic change of team members’ status. The dynamic change of team members’ status mainly focuses on the related research of team members’ status acquisition and status loss. Status acquisition refers to the promotion of team members’ status in the team; status loss refers to the reduction of their status in the team. The dynamic change of status mainly involves the interaction of individuals, other team members and situations. At present, most studies neglect the role of context and only discuss the interaction between individuals and other members of the team, which is a major drawback of current research. According to the way of setting the situation, we divide the current research on the dynamic change of status into three aspects: the passive perspective, the interactive perspective and the situational decision perspective. The passive perspective is also called the functional perspective, which emphasizes the subjective initiative of the individual and regards the situation as given and passive. The interactive perspective emphasizes the interaction between individual subjective factors and situations, breaking through the hypothesis that the team is task-oriented, and takes overall performance as the main goal. The situational decision perspective emphasizes the influence of environment itself and its sudden change of the active selection effect on status acquisition and loss. From this perspective, the situation is in the active actor position, while the individual is the passive acceptance role. Based on the above three research perspectives, this paper summarizes the relevant research on the acquisition and loss of existing status, and obtains an integrated theoretical framework. In addition, this paper also describes the dynamic process of status change (the process of status acquisition and the process of status loss) from three perspectives. At the same time, this paper also elaborates the antecedent variables and influence results of team members’ status. Finally, this paper summarizes the shortcomings of the existing research and points out future research directions.
/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
LiZengquan, Editor-in-Chief
ZhengChunrong, Vice Executive Editor-in-Chief
YinHuifang HeXiaogang LiuJianguo, Vice Editor-in-Chief
A Review on the Dynamic Change of Team Members’ Status
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 41, Issue 08, pp. 58 - 72,85 (2019) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2019.08.005
Summary
References
Summary
Keywords
[1] Hu Q, Xie X. Group members’ status and knowledge sharing behavior: A motivational perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, (4): 545-554.
[2] Liu Z, Deng C, Liao J, Long L. Organizational support, perceived status and employees’ innovative behavior: Perspective of employment diversity[J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2015, 18(10): 80-94.
[3] Wei X, Zhang Z. When does the superior adopt promotive and prohibitive voice: The effect of superior status and subordinate professionalism [J]. Management World, 2014, (1): 132-143, 175.
[4] Anderson C, Brion S, Moore D A, et al. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012a, 103(4): 718-735.
[5] Anderson C, Hildreth J A D, Howland L. Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 2015, 141(3): 574-601.
[6] Anderson C, John O P, Keltner D, et al. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, 81(1): 116-132.
[7] Anderson C, Kilduff G J. The pursuit of status in social groups[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009, 18(5): 295-298.
[8] Anderson C, Kraus M W, Galinsky A D, et al. The local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being[J]. Psychological Science, 2012b, 23(7): 764-771.
[9] Anderson C, Shirako A. Are individuals’ reputations related to their history of behavior?[J] Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, 94(2): 320-333.
[10] Anderson C, Srivastava S, Beer J S, et al. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, 91(6): 1094-1110.
[11] Anderson C, Willer R, Kilduff G J, et al. The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012c, 102(5): 1077-1088.
[12] Bendersky C, Shah N P. The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(2): 308-322.
[13] Berger J, Rosenholtz S J, Zelditch M Jr. Status organizing processes[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1980, 6: 479-508.
[14] Bianchi A J, Kang S M, Stewart D. The organizational selection of status characteristics: Status evaluations in an open source community[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(2): 341-354.
[15] Blader S L, Chen Y R. What influences how higher-status people respond to lower-status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status[J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(4): 1040-1060.
[16] Blader S L, Shirako A, Chen Y R. Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2016, 42(6): 723-737.
[17] Bothner M S, Kim Y K, Smith E B. How does status affect performance? Status as an asset vs. status as a liability in the PGA and NASCAR[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(2): 416-433.
[18] Bunderson J S. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003, 48(4): 557-591.
[19] Bunderson J S, Reagans R E. Power, status, and learning in organizations[J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(5): 1182-1194
[20] Chen Y R, Peterson R S, Phillips D J, et al. Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table—Attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(2): 299-307.
[21] Cheng J T, Tracy J L, Foulsham T, et al. Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013, 104(1): 103-125.
[22] Flynn F J. How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 2003, 46(5): 539-553.
[23] Flynn F J, Amanatullah E T. Psyched up or psyched out? The influence of coactor status on individual performance[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(2): 402-415.
[24] Flynn F J, Reagans R E, Amanatullah E T, et al. Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, 91(6): 1123-1137.
[25] Hays N A, Bendersky C. Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015, 108(6): 867-882.
[26] Hays N A, Blader S L. To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2017, 112(1): 17-38.
[27] Joshi A. By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2014, 59(2): 202-239.
[28] Kilduff G J, Galinsky A D. From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mindsets lead to greater status[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013, 105(5): 816-831.
[29] Li H J, Chen Y R, Blader S L. Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2016, 36: 185-198.
[30] Magee J C, Galinsky A D. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2008, 2(1): 351-398.
[31] Marr J C, Thau S. Falling from great (and not-so-great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2014, 57(1): 223-248.
[32] McClean E, Martin S R, Emich K J, et al. The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 2017, 61(5): amj.2016.0148 .
[33] Neeley T B. Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations[J]. Organization Science, 2013, 24(2): 476-497.
[34] Neeley T B, Dumas T L. Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global language mandate[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(1): 14-43.
[35] Pettit N C, Doyle S P, Lount R B Jr, et al. Cheating to get ahead or to avoid falling behind? The effect of potential negative versus positive status change on unethical behavior[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2016, 137: 172-183.
[36] Pettit N C, Sivanathan N. The eyes and ears of status: How status colors perceptual judgment[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012, 38(5): 570-582.
[37] Pettit N C, Yong K, Spataro S E. Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010, 46(2): 396-401.
[38] Pratto F, Sidanius J, Stallworth L M, et al. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994, 67(4): 741-763.
[39] Sivanathan N, Pettit N C. Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010, 46(3): 564-570.
[40] Tiedens L Z, Ellsworth P C, Mesquita B. Sentimental stereotypes: Emotional expectations for high-and low-status group members[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000, 26(5): 560-575.
Cite this article
Liu Depeng, Zheng Yaqin, Jia Liangding, et al. A Review on the Dynamic Change of Team Members’ Status[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2019, 41(8): 58-72.
Export Citations as:
For
ISSUE COVER
RELATED ARTICLES
