The social alignment theory of power: Predicting associative and dissociative behavior in hierarchies

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT Research in Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2022.100178
Nathanael J. Fast , Jennifer R. Overbeck
{"title":"The social alignment theory of power: Predicting associative and dissociative behavior in hierarchies","authors":"Nathanael J. Fast ,&nbsp;Jennifer R. Overbeck","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2022.100178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Evolutionary social psychologists have demonstrated that powerholders generally attain and maintain rank in social hierarchies through two distinct types of behaviors: associative (prestige-based) strategies or dissociative (dominance-based) strategies. However, the dual-strategies literature lacks a theoretical account of when and why people adopt one approach over the other. We provide a theoretical model of power to address this question and also expand the focus to include low-power versions of associative (persuasion-based) and dissociative (passivity-based) strategies. To develop our framework, we build on the distinction between power (i.e., asymmetric control over valued resources) and volitional influence (i.e., the ability to produce willful changes in others). We posit that individuals who perceive high volitional influence with regard to another party are in a state of <em>social alignment</em>, because their interests and those of the other party are, or can easily become, aligned. As a result, they pursue associative strategies (prestige for high-power actors, or persuasion for low-power actors). In contrast, individuals with low perceived volitional influence are in a state of <em>social misalignment</em>, because their interests and those of the other party are misaligned. As a result, they pursue dissociative strategies (dominance for high-power actors, or passivity for low-power actors). To help distinguish between power and volitional influence, we offer a new capital-based typology of power and outline key antecedents of volitional influence. We conclude by outlining future directions for research on power and key topics in organizational behavior.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308522000247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Evolutionary social psychologists have demonstrated that powerholders generally attain and maintain rank in social hierarchies through two distinct types of behaviors: associative (prestige-based) strategies or dissociative (dominance-based) strategies. However, the dual-strategies literature lacks a theoretical account of when and why people adopt one approach over the other. We provide a theoretical model of power to address this question and also expand the focus to include low-power versions of associative (persuasion-based) and dissociative (passivity-based) strategies. To develop our framework, we build on the distinction between power (i.e., asymmetric control over valued resources) and volitional influence (i.e., the ability to produce willful changes in others). We posit that individuals who perceive high volitional influence with regard to another party are in a state of social alignment, because their interests and those of the other party are, or can easily become, aligned. As a result, they pursue associative strategies (prestige for high-power actors, or persuasion for low-power actors). In contrast, individuals with low perceived volitional influence are in a state of social misalignment, because their interests and those of the other party are misaligned. As a result, they pursue dissociative strategies (dominance for high-power actors, or passivity for low-power actors). To help distinguish between power and volitional influence, we offer a new capital-based typology of power and outline key antecedents of volitional influence. We conclude by outlining future directions for research on power and key topics in organizational behavior.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
权力的社会结盟理论:预测等级中的联想和分离行为
进化社会心理学家已经证明,掌权者通常通过两种不同类型的行为来获得和维持社会等级:联合(基于声望的)策略或分离(基于支配的)策略。然而,关于双重策略的文献缺乏关于人们何时以及为什么采用一种方法而不是另一种方法的理论解释。我们提供了一个权力的理论模型来解决这个问题,并将重点扩展到包括联想(基于说服)和分离(基于被动)策略的低权力版本。为了发展我们的框架,我们建立在权力(即,对有价值资源的不对称控制)和意志影响(即,在他人中产生故意改变的能力)之间的区别之上。我们假设,那些对另一方有高度意志影响力的个人处于一种社会一致的状态,因为他们的利益和另一方的利益是一致的,或者很容易成为一致的。因此,他们追求联想策略(高权力行为者追求声望,低权力行为者追求说服)。相比之下,低感知意志影响力的个体处于社会失调状态,因为他们的利益与另一方的利益不一致。因此,他们采取分离策略(高权力行为者的主导地位,或低权力行为者的被动地位)。为了帮助区分权力和意志影响,我们提出了一种新的基于资本的权力类型,并概述了意志影响的关键前提。最后,我们概述了权力研究的未来方向和组织行为学的关键主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Organizational Behavior
Research in Organizational Behavior Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Creativity as privilege Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale Leading for human sustainability: An extension of Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory Are experts overconfident?: An interdisciplinary review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1