The role of perspective-taking in attenuating self-group distancing in women managers

Contrary to expectations about solidarity and sisterhood between women, women managers sometimes distance themselves from junior women in the workplace when facing identity threat, that is, the feeling that one's social identity-such as race or gender-is devalued or undermined. For example, women managers might distance themselves from lower status junior women by seeing themselves as more masculine and career committed than their junior women colleagues. To advance our understanding of how to combat self-group distancing, the present research proposed and tested whether taking the perspective of junior women would attenuate these ingroup-distancing tendencies in women managers. Findings from a field study and an experimental study indicated that women managers reported greater self-distancing from junior women (on masculine trait perceptions) compared to women employees. As predicted, this effect was attenuated for women managers with high levels of perspective-taking (Study 1) and for women who were experimentally led to take the perspective of junior women (Study 2). For ratings of career commitment and support for affirmative actions, we did not replicate the self-ingroup distancing effect reported in the literature. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Individual power in human motivation - Review and theoretical perspective

There are many studies in Psychology and other sciences about the concept of power. We believe that individual power is one of the most critical factors in human motivation, which is considered by prominent motivation theories, like Choice Theory or McClelland's Human Motivation Theory. This paper aims to study the concept of power, considering ego and social orientation. The extensive literature review allowed us to describe the concepts related to those orientations and to induce a theoretical model that may typify and explain the relationships between the two perspectives of power. The model might contribute to describing four motivational profiles, namely the imperator, with high ego-power and power over others orientation; the supporter, with low ego-power and power with other orientation; the leader, with high ego-power and power with others orientation; and the controller, with low ego-power and power over others orientation. The Ego-Social Power Motivation Model could help describe the power signature of an individual. This individual picture might help psychologists work on motivations, attitudes, and behaviours to enhance people's lives and well-being.

Self- and Other-Orientation in High Rank: A Cultural Psychological Approach to Social Hierarchy

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Social hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of human life, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a new theory about how social hierarchy is shaped by the wider societal contexts (i.e., cultures). Comparing East Asian and Western cultural contexts, we show how culture comprises societal beliefs about who can raise to high rank (e.g., become a leader), shapes interactions between high- and low-ranking individuals (e.g., in a team), and influences human thought and behavior in social hierarchies. Overall, we find cultural similarities, in that high-ranking individuals are agentic and self-oriented in both cultural contexts. But we also find important cross-cultural differences. In East Asian cultural contexts, high-ranking individuals are also other oriented; they are also concerned about the people around them and their relationships. We close with a call to action, suggesting studying social hierarchies in more diverse cultural contexts.

Perception Differences in Burnout: A Study of Swiss-German Managers and Subordinates

OBJECTIVE

Burnout differences between management and subordinates can affect preventative interventions chosen by management. Our study investigated if these differences in experiences of burnout (1) are dimension specific (2) correspond to differences in perceptions of the effectiveness of burnout prevention methods.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty nine managers and 217 subordinates completed an online survey that categorized their self-reported experiences into the three dimensions of burnout and investigated their perceptions of the effectiveness of burnout prevention techniques.

RESULTS

Contrary to the literature, Swiss-German managers experienced greater exhaustion than subordinates. Despite this experiential difference, their perceived effectiveness of burnout prevention methods did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Contextual differences explain dimension-specific differences in self-reported experiences of burnout at different hierarchal levels; however, these did not contribute to leader distance or perception gap either due to foundational or context-specific factors.

A Tale of Two Hierarchies: Interactive Effects of Power Differentiation and Status Differentiation on Team Performance

Scholars have long wrestled with whether hierarchical differentiation is functional or dysfunctional for teams. Building on emerging research that emphasizes the distinction between power (i.e., control over resources) and status (i.e., respect from others), we aim to help reconcile the functional and dysfunctional accounts of hierarchy by examining the effects of power differentiation on team performance, contingent on status differentiation. We theorize that power differentiation is dysfunctional for teams with high status differentiation by increasing knowledge hiding, which undermines team performance. In contrast, we predict that power differentiation is functional for teams with low status differentiation by decreasing knowledge hiding, which improves team performance. In a field study, we found that power differentiation harmed team performance via knowledge hiding in teams with high status differentiation, but power differentiation had no effect on knowledge hiding or performance in teams with low status differentiation. In an experiment, we again found that power differentiation harmed team performance by increasing knowledge hiding in teams with high status differentiation. However, power differentiation improved team performance by decreasing knowledge hiding in teams with status equality. Finally, in a third study, we confirm the role of status differentiation in making team climates more competitive and examine the effect of power-status alignment within teams, finding that misalignment exacerbates the dysfunctional effects of power differentiation in teams with high status differentiation. By examining how power and status hierarchies operate in tandem, this work underscores the need to take a more nuanced approach to studying hierarchy in teams.

Power and social distance

Magee and Smith (2013) theorized that asymmetric dependence creates asymmetric social distance in power relations, and that high-power individuals feel more distant than their low-power counterparts. I review research consistent with, and in some cases possibly inspired by, the social distance theory of power. Four findings emerge from the review. First, in dyadic relationships, the goals of the high-power partner are privileged over those of the low-power partner. Second, higher power reduces attunement and attention to others and also increases the tendency to objectify and dehumanize others. Third, power increases expressions of interpersonal dominance and aggression, particularly when the level of situational power diverges from expectations or norms. Fourth, greater power reduces the harmful psychological effects of social rejection. I conclude that social distance continues to be a useful factor to consider in making predictions and explaining the psychological effects of power.

Power and leadership

Social collectives often grant power to leaders so they can facilitate collective performance. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of how power influences the effectiveness of different influence mechanisms leaders use to achieve this goal. To help develop such an overview, I review recent research on the positive and negative effects of power on some of these influence mechanisms: leaders' punishment of norm transgressions, concern for followers, and procedural fairness enactment. I also highlight the role of individual differences and contextual factors in these processes. I end by discussing implications and future research directions.

When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it

Good team decisions require that team members share information with each other. Yet, members often tend to selfishly withhold important information. Does this tendency depend on their power within the team? Power-holders frequently act more selfishly (than the powerless)—accordingly, they might be tempted to withhold information. We predicted that given a task goal to ‘solve a task’, power-holders would selfishly share less information than the powerless. However, a group goal to ‘solve the task together’ would compensate for this selfishness, heightening particularly power-holders’ information sharing. In parallel, an individual goal to ‘solve the task alone’ may heighten selfishness and lower information sharing (even) among the powerless. We report five experiments (N = 1305), comprising all studies conducted in their original order. Analyses yielded weak to no evidence for these predictions; the findings rather supported the beneficial role of a group goal to ensure information sharing for both the powerful and the powerless.

When Essentialism Facilitates Intergroup Conflict Resolution: The Positive Role of Perspective-Taking

Essentialism, a fundamental belief of the fixedness of social group essences, is often associated with negative intergroup outcomes. However, research is yet to explore the role of essentialism in intergroup conflicts, despite their prevalence. To address this gap, we conducted the first direct examination on how essentialism influences conflict management toward out-group members. Moreover, we examined perspective-taking as a positive factor in improving conflict management among essentialist individuals relative to their non-essentialist counterparts in intergroup contexts. Results across three experiments provided little support to the negative effect of essentialism on intergroup (vs. intragroup) conflict management. Yet, we found that perspective-taking promoted the use of problem solving and improved one’s own gain and the dyad’s joint gain among essentialist individuals, but not non-essentialist individuals, in intergroup (vs. intragroup) conflict situations. This research suggests that when coupled with perspective-taking, essentialism can promote constructive conflict resolution in intergroup contexts.

“But that was meant to be a compliment!”: Evaluative costs of confronting positive racial stereotypes

Past research on confronting racial prejudice has largely examined negative racial stereotypes. In the present work, we investigate perceiver and target perspectives associated with the evaluative costs of confronting positive racial stereotypes. We demonstrate that, in general, Asian Americans and African Americans who confront positive racial stereotypes suffer higher evaluative costs compared to targets who confront negative racial stereotypes and those who do not confront due, in part, to the lower perceived offensiveness of positive stereotypes (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, Asian American and African American participants report lower confrontation intentions and higher anticipated evaluative costs for confronting positive, compared to negative, stereotypes. Furthermore, higher perceived offensiveness and lower anticipated favorable evaluations serially mediate the relationship between stereotype valence and confrontation intentions (Study 3). Overall, this research extends our understanding of the evaluative costs associated with confronting prejudice, with important downstream consequences regarding the continued prevalence of positive racial stereotypes.

Highly identified power-holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups

Power relations affect dynamics within groups. Power-holders' decisions not only determine their personal outcomes, but also the outcomes of others in the group that they control. Yet, power-holders often tend to overlook this responsibility to take care of collective interests. The present research investigated how social identification - with the group to which both the powerful and the powerless belong - alters perceived responsibility among power-holders (and the powerless). Combining research on social power and social identity, we argue that power-holders perceive more responsibility than the powerless when strongly (rather than when weakly) identifying with the group. A study among leaders and an experiment supported this, highlighting that although power-holders are often primarily concerned about personal outcomes, they do feel responsible for considering others' interests when these others are included in the (social) self.

A matter of focus: Power-holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other-focus, rather than a self-focus

Social power implies responsibility. Yet, power-holders often follow only their own interests and overlook this responsibility. The present research illuminates how a previously adopted cognitive focus guides perceived responsibility when a person receives high (vs. low) power. In three experiments, adopting a cognitive focus on another person (vs. on the self or taking over another person's perspective) promoted perceived responsibility among individuals receiving high (but not low) power in a subsequent context. This effect was specific for perceived responsibility - a cognitive focus on another person did not change the perceived opportunity to pursue goals or the perceived relationship to an interaction partner (e.g., interpersonal closeness). While prior research examined how social values (i.e., chronically caring about others) guide responsibility among those holding power, the current findings highlight that mere cognitive processes (i.e., situationally focusing attention on others) alter perceived responsibility among those just about to receive power.

Power boosts reliance on preferred processing styles

A significant amount of research has proposed that power leads to heuristic and category based information processing, however, the evidence is often contradictory. We propose the novel idea that power magnifies chronically accessible information processing styles which can contribute to either systematic or heuristic processing. We examine heuristic (vs. systematic) processing in association with the need for closure. The results of three studies and a meta-analysis supported these claims. Power increased heuristic information processing, manifested in the recognition of schema consistent information, in the use of stereotypical information to form impressions and decreased the complexity of categorical representations, but only for those participants who, by default, processed information according to simplified heuristics, i.e., are high in need for closure. For those who prefer this processing style less, i.e., low in need for closure, power led to the opposite effects. These findings suggest that power licenses individuals to rely on their dominant information processing strategies, and that power increases interpersonal variability.

Looking Out From the Top: Differential Effects of Status and Power on Perspective Taking

The impact of hierarchical rank on perspective taking is both practically and theoretically important, prompting considerable research attention to this issue. However, prior research has primarily examined how power affects perspective taking, and has neglected to investigate the impact of status (i.e., the respect and esteem that an individual holds in the eyes of others). Yet status represents a distinct and ubiquitous basis of hierarchical differentiation, one that may profoundly affect perspective taking. The current research addresses this gap, theorizing and testing the prediction that high status enhances perspective taking, in contrast to prior research that has generally found that high power diminishes perspective taking. Five studies, examining various forms of perspective taking across diverse paradigms, provide converging evidence that status and power exert differential effects on perspective taking. Moreover, these studies provide insight regarding the distinction between status and power, as well as the distinct psychology associated with status.

The Quiet Ego: Assuaging Organizational Concerns About Mindfulness

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) provide ample evidence regarding the value of mindfulness to individuals and the industrial–organizational community as a whole. However, as they noted, mindfulness programs and practices have not yet found widespread implementation among businesses and other organizations. Hyland et al. suggest two primary reasons for this. First, the move toward a nonjudgmental, presently aware, and accepting mind is a tall order for most individuals in our Western society who are heavily conditioned to be relatively self-interested, judgmental, and future oriented. Second, typical mindfulness programs (e.g., mindfulness based stress reduction; MBSR) may be too costly and time consuming for organizations.

Maximizing the Gains and Minimizing the Pains of Diversity

Empirical evidence reveals that diversity—heterogeneity in race, culture, gender, etc.—has material benefits for organizations, communities, and nations. However, because diversity can also incite detrimental forms of conflict and resentment, its benefits are not always realized. Drawing on research from multiple disciplines, this article offers recommendations for how best to harness the benefits of diversity. First, we highlight how two forms of diversity—the diversity present in groups, communities, and nations, and the diversity acquired by individuals through their personal experiences (e.g., living abroad)—enable effective decision making, innovation, and economic growth by promoting deeper information processing and complex thinking. Second, we identify methods to remove barriers that limit the amount of diversity and opportunity in organizations. Third, we describe practices, including inclusive multiculturalism and perspective taking, that can help manage diversity without engendering resistance. Finally, we propose a number of policies that can maximize the gains and minimize the pains of diversity.

Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason

An overview of the basics of metaphorical thought and language from the perspective of Neurocognition, the integrated interdisciplinary study of how conceptual thought and language work in the brain. The paper outlines a theory of metaphor circuitry and discusses how everyday reason makes use of embodied metaphor circuitry.