IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v33y2022i1p464-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formal Hierarchy As a Source of Upward Status Disagreement? A Theoretical Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Andy J. Yap

    (INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

  • Nikhil Madan

    (Indian School of Business, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500111, India)

  • Phanish Puranam

    (INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

Abstract

Formal hierarchies may be presumed to reduce uncertainty about the status ordering of employees as they imply a consistent global ranking. However, formal hierarchies in organizations are not merely linear, but are characterized by branching and nesting (i.e., they comprise subunits within the organization and subunits within other subunits), which creates a local ranking of individuals within each subunit. This can create tension between global and local formal ranks as status cues. Moreover, individuals may also draw on informal status cues that are inconsistent with formal ranks. Consequently, organizational members may experience upward status disagreement (USD), whereby each assumes they have higher status than the other. We offer a theoretical model that identifies important conditions under which cues arising from the structure of the formal hierarchy—either on their own or in conjunction with informal status cues—can be a source of USD. We also explore when USD can result in status conflict and identify moderators of this relationship. Our research has implications for how the frequency of USD can be mitigated as organizational structures become more complex and the workforce becomes increasingly diverse.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy J. Yap & Nikhil Madan & Phanish Puranam, 2022. "Formal Hierarchy As a Source of Upward Status Disagreement? A Theoretical Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 464-482, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:1:p:464-482
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1523
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1523?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:1:p:464-482. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.