Dysfunction and Power

Team power structures which foster power sensitivity

We propose that in teams that have at least one high power member, such as in high power teams and teams with high power dispersion, teams will be collectively more sensitive to power. With power sensitivity, we posit that members are excessively perceptive of, affected by, and responsive to resources in the team. This could mean that members categorize themselves and others in the team on the basis of resource possession, define themselves in terms of their power roles, and are vigilant for changes in resource control within the team which could affect their own power levels. For example, when teams are power-sensitized by the presence of at least one high-power member, intra-team tensions may easily arise when one member gets promoted to a more senior role on a project or even when a member gets a new laptop or other new equipment.

We theorize that members of high power teams and high power dispersed teams are power sensitive because when at least one member in the team has high power, the inherent benefits of possessing power (and the disadvantages of not possessing power) become salient to all members of the team. As mentioned, possessing high power provides members with both material and psychological benefits, such as greater decision-making authority, higher salary, promotion, prestige, recognition, control, agency, independence, and well-being. Therefore, in teams with structures that signal these benefits (by having at least one high power member, i.e., high power teams and high power dispersed teams), all members are sensitive to power. Those members who have power value their powerful position and are thus afraid to lose it. And, any other members that do not have power feel vulnerable in their powerless position and are thus eager to obtain power.

We draw on social comparison theory and its derivatives, such as competition theory, to explain how the members of both high power-level and high power-dispersed teams develop power sensitivity. Social comparison theory postulates that people have the tendency to self-evaluate by comparing themselves to others on the dimensions that are important to them. Based on such social comparisons, people consequently become concerned with achieving and maintaining a superior position on such dimensions. We argue that especially in teams where at least one member has power, power becomes an important comparison dimension for members, thereby fostering members to continuously compare their power position in the team with that of other members. These social comparison processes around power in turn, are expected to make members very sensitive to the intra-team distribution of resources more generally, and their own power position within the team more specifically.

We now discuss how each individual power role within both high power-level and high power-dispersed teams can lead to team-level power sensitivities via social comparison. First, in high power-level teams, all members have high power, and therefore greatly value power and are highly vigilant in seeking to retain their power. When the other members in the team also have high-power, this can be threatening for high-power members, as other high-power members can be expected to be power-hungry (as well) and quick to lash out. This can lead members to be paranoid - a common occurrence in organizations, where members experience a heightened and exaggerated state of distrust and suspicion. Indeed, paranoia is most likely to emerge in situations with high social uncertainty. Such uncertainty exists when multiple high-power members interact, as other members worry about their standing vis-à-vis their high-power teammates, who value power as much as themselves and are likely to act to protect and promote their own individual power positions. This can lead members of high-power teams to be highly sensitive, or reactive, to any mention of power in the team. Indeed, Spataro, Petit, Sauer, and Lount found that high-power peers are extremely sensitive to each other's behavior.

In high power-dispersed teams, teams are also likely to be sensitive to power, albeit for slightly different reasons. In high-power teams, two key power roles exist - high power individuals and low(er) power individuals. High power individuals working with low power individuals may not have the same level of paranoia as those working with other high power individuals, but they will still exhibit the hallmark tendencies of powerful individuals. This means that high power individuals working in teams with low power individuals (i.e., high power members in high power dispersed teams) call the shots in the team, and are therefore in a very privileged position. They receive, for instance, higher decision-making authority, and more control and recognition. Although high power individuals make pleasurable downward social comparisons in their teams (as they hold the more favorable position), the downside is that such favorable comparisons amplify the perception of one's valued position, and makes one even more afraid to lose it. Indeed, an abundance of research shows that high power individuals are easily threatened in their position. Therefore, high power individuals tend to be cautious of lower power individuals, and try to keep them at a distance. This makes high power individuals in power-dispersed teams quite sensitive to power and quick to react on any potential perceived power dynamics in their teams.

Low(er) power individuals working in teams with high power individuals (i.e., low power individuals in high power dispersed teams) have little to no decision authority within the team, and are therefore in an underprivileged and vulnerable position. While researchers have argued that low power individuals tend to justify the power dispersed system that they are part of, and as such do not necessarily rebel against it, this does not mean that low power individuals are unaware of or happy with their deprived position in the team. Indeed, low power individuals do socially compare their power position with that of other members, which can result in painful upward social comparisons, that reminds them of all the benefits they lack and the vulnerable position they are in. Indeed, low power individuals are dependent on high power individuals for their rewards and punishments, and high-power individuals may decide to use this power to their own advantage, thereby neglecting or even mistreating low power individuals. As a result, low power individuals in power-dispersed teams are likely to make upward social comparisons, due to the benefits they see that high power individuals have in the team, making them very cognizant of the inequity of their team's power structure and their vulnerability within it. Therefore, in power-dispersed teams, all members – the lone high-power member or the other low power members – are sensitive to power, albeit for different reasons, and this leads the team as a whole to have a high level of power sensitivity.

Accordingly, we propose that in team structures where at least one member has power (thus teams with high-power level or high-power dispersion), teams become sensitized to the topic of power via a process of social comparison:

Proposition 1

Team power structures which have at least one high power member (i.e. high-power teams, where all members have high power, or teams with high power-dispersion, where the person at the top holds high power) will have increased intra-team power sensitivity compared to teams without high-power members (i.e. egalitarian and/or low-power teams).