What Happens When Power and Status Misalign?

I recall a conversation with a much-loved teacher, in which he was smiling and soulfully lamenting how students used to respect their teachers. I understood the source of his sentiment, but given my respect and admiration for him, and my desire that he ‘pull himself together’, I simply responded with a smile and said, “respect needs to be earned these days”. He ceased his lament and got back to work.

Certainly, the default of ‘respect for people in positions of power’ may vary over time, across groups, and across cultures, but the analysis of group dynamics also reveals a complex and often tense relationship between power and status in groups. Indeed, psychologists make an important distinction between power and status (and measure them in different ways), and it is widely understood that power and status are not always aligned or correlated. Power is generally a function of one’s formal position and level of control over valued resources that group members depend upon, whereas status reflects one’s social ranking and the level of respect and admiration received by members of the group. As such, you can have power without status, and you can have status without power. The question is: How do these different asymmetries in the experience of power and status influence the way people feel and behave in groups?

Choi and colleagues (2023) hypothesise based on available evidence that powerholders generally have heightened motivation for status, whereas statusholders may have very little motivation for power. Notably, in order to achieve their goals and maintain stability in the group, powerholders need status — they need to be respected and admired, at least to a certain extent. At the same time, research suggests that a sense of entitlement may further lead powerholders to believe that they are deserving of status. Conversely, people who are high in status may enjoy some of the benefits of power (e.g., being able to mediate between group members and access valued resources), but they may not be motivated by power. In their everyday group experience, other-oriented and communal motivations may be more prominent than power motivation for those high in status. Choi and colleagues further hypothesise that powerholders lacking status are likely to experience negative emotion and potentially behave in more negative (e.g., selfish) ways, but these negative consequences are less likely to be observed for statusholders without power. Across a series of innovative studies, Choi and colleagues (2023) tested these hypotheses.

In study one, participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions where they were simply asked to write about a situation where they felt high (or low) power (Study 1A), and a situation where they felt high (or low) status (Study 1B). Simply prompting high power memories (but not low power memories) increased participants' tendency to report higher levels of status motivation. But there was no difference in reported levels of power motivation when high status and low status memory conditions were compared.

Study two looked at a groupwork scenario. A total of 130 participants were placed into groups of four where they were asked to work together on a group project — they had to generate a business proposal, which included deciding their product or service, their business name, and developing a business strategy. Importantly, two members of each group were confederates (i.e., they were asked by the experimenter to behave in a particular way); the other two group members were study participants who were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (a) high power (but low status), or (b) high status (but low power). High status derived from the ratings that group members provided one another. Notably, participants in the high status (low power) condition were rated favourably by the two confederates (i.e., rated as contributing more to group work than everyone else). Everyone in the group understood in advance that this contribution rating would influence in part the decision as to who would win the $10 best performer award. Those in the high power (low status) condition were not rated as favourably by the confederates, but they had control over the group project submission and they were also allowed to provide separate (i.e., leader only) group member ratings that were added to group member ratings and further influenced the final decision in relation to the $10 best performer award. So how did powerholders and statusholders behave in this scenario?

Powerholders were found to give a significantly lower contribution score to statusholders but not confederates (i.e., they took the statusholders down a peg), while also giving a significantly higher contribution score to themselves. Conversely, statusholders didn’t give themselves higher contribution ratings relative to confederates or powerholders. Interestingly, powerholders also reported significantly higher negative emotion, particularly those who used the rating system in their favour. Furthermore, powerholders faced with this low status experience were less willing to invest their individual bonus, should they win, as a way to add points to their group’s proposal (i.e., potentially increasing the chance that the group would win a separate group award). In other words, powerholders who were not granted status not only undermined the statusholder, they also undermined the group as a whole. Study three confirmed these effects and further clarified the key dynamics at play. Taking on a powerholding role tended to increase status motivation; powerholders with low status tended to give more rewards to themselves and less rewards to statusholders; and selfish powerholder behavior was predicted in part by a desire for higher status.

Granted, these are experimental findings that highlight a somewhat extreme scenario where power and status are pitted against one another. But the reality is that people can experience more or less (mis)alignment in their relative experience of power and status. As such, the experimental findings prompt reflection on real-world scenarios where power and status are misaligned. In particular, the findings suggest the potential for a negative behavioural and emotional downward spiral to emerge in situations where power is growing but status is slipping. To counter this potential downward spiral, powerholders with lowered status need to recognise the problem and work to regain the respect and admiration of their group. This recovery process is likely to require significant resilience and an ability to work collaboratively with the group. Given the range of problems we face in society, we need people to take on positions of power and support groups working together, and ideally we want our group leaders to have the status they need to uphold positive group action. How we achieve this together is a complex process, but resilience, adaptability, and solidarity are needed along the way.