Status-based discrimination (part 2 of 2)

(continued from part 1 of 2)
Here are some questions for my further exploration:

Additional mechanisms:
In the workplace, could the status-based discrimination occur in additional ways than proposed in the current paper to explain motherhood penalty (at the point of hire, in subsequent group interactions, crucial junctures like promotion, etc.)?

Status-based discrimination (part 1 of 2)

Here are some notes from the article "Getting A Job: Is There A Motherhood Penalty" by Correll and colleagues (2007).

Summary
Employed mothers suffer wage penalty, and the pay gap between mothers and nonmothers is larger than the pay gap between men and women.

Mothers are also perceived as less competent, less committed, less dependable, less authoritative and more irrational.

Explanation for motherhood penalty can be classified into:

• Worker explanations (differences in traits, skills and behaviors between mothers and nonmothers)
• Discrimination explanation (differential preference for or treatment of mothers and nonmothers)

Are high-status actors opportunistic or fair?

Two of the recent research - one, an article by Graffin & Colleagues (2013) and another by Blader and Chen (2012) - seem to offer contradicting propositions on the relationship between status and fairness perceptions.

In the former, the authors examining the 2009 British Member of Parliament(MP) scandal, hypothesized that high-status is associated with a sense of invulnerability and feelings of entitlement, and thereby with more opportunistic behaviors that further self-interests. Though no evidence was found for the proposed "elite opportunism," the article nevertheless outlines the reasons for absence of such a relationship in their study, and contends that such a self-serving behavior is plausible.

Learning to experiment

Though I have been fascinated by the potential of controlled experiments since the first time I learnt about Milgram and Stanford prison experiments, it is only in last few days that I have begun to get initiaited into this methodology. Incidentally most of the research on power and status in the recent past have used lab experiments to establish causal effects. With a scope for greater creativity, experiments somehow seem more exciting than the typical field survey method. Of course a study that best combines experimental design with "reality check" (as in the Motherhood Penalty study) or a quasi-experimental design (as the famous blind auditions for symphony orchestra) seem to be even more interesting.

Conflict-power-status perspectives of group

The recent research apprenticing under Prof. Ruchi Sinha, various brainstorming sessions and purposive readings have made me realize that my prime fascination is with the social influence processes, i.e. power and status, dynamics of social hierarchies, resource inequalities, intragroup struggles, and challenges confronting the agents and targets of downward, lateral and upward influence. Here are a few areas that I am particularly keen to explore in the coming times:

Status in organizational literature: A JOM review

From my limited knowledge, the recent paper by Piazza and Castellucci (2014) is one of the few articles that reviews the phenomenon of status as it appears in the organizational literature. The authors have reviewed the extant literature (from 1993 to 2012) on the status at the macro, meso and micro levels. The review also classifies the literature based on how the scholars see the role the status in organizations - signal, intangible asset or mobile resource.

Variance on power dimensions

Below is a list of dimensions related to power on which I think the group members might vary -

High/low status group members

Some questions that occurred while reading papers by Earley (1999), Aquino and Douglas (2003), and Tyler and Blader (2002).

Is ‘power struggle’ different from ‘status conflict’?

The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines struggle as either a competition or a conflict. If we agree that struggle is a broader concept, then the distinction between struggle and conflict, essentially boils down to the nuanced distinction between competition and conflict.

What happens to status when new member joins a group?

(Few questions parked for future delving)

Consider a new member joining an existing group -
In a such a scenario,how is the new member’s status and hence his/her position within existing hierarchy consensually arrived at? Do high-status group members determine the new member’s status, which is unquestioned by low-status group members? Could the new member’s status alter the very basis (or bases) of existing status hierarchy? If so, when is it likely to occur?

Benefits/detriments of conflict

Reference paper:

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282.

Is it better to keep a low-profile?

Some thoughts that came across while trying to understand the status characteristics and expectation-states theories -

Work Life Interference

Reference paper:

Keeney, J., Boyd, E. M., Sinha, R., Westring, A. J., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). From “Work-family” to “Work-life”: Broadening Our Conceptualization and Measurement. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Affective underpinnings of voice effectiveness

Based on the a paper on dual tuning effects of positive and negative emotion on creativity by Jennifer M. George and Jing Zhou, here are some initial thoughts on how to me affect seems to influence employee voice effectiveness.

What influences voice effectiveness?

Based on inputs by my research guide and mentor, I began looking at the question of when is employee voice effective. Here are some of my initial thoughts -

Workflow centrality and Voice

Reference paper:

Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 582–591. doi:10.1037/a0018315

Reactions to unfair events

Reference paper:

Tangirala, S., & Alge, B. J. (2006). Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 100(1), 1–20.

Deciding to voice

Voice behavior, which is defined as discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning (Morrison, 2011), is considered potentially risky (Liu et al, 2010).

To envisage

Great leaders across centuries and across institutions - political, social and economic - have astutely used the "power of imagery" in stirring a group of people. The power of envisaging an inspiring future and energizing the constituents towards realizing it seems indisputable. In an organizational context too, the implications of a "shared vision" has received considerable attention both on theoretical and practical fronts.

Leadership effectiveness

A cursory glance at the academic literature shows that the phenomenon of leadership has intrigued scholars across domains, particularly those from social psychological and organization behavioral disciplines. In fact, a Google Scholar search for the word "leadership" in the title of the article yields more than 150,000 results.