annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259
TRANSCRIPT
Perspectives on Power inOrganizationsCameron Anderson1 and Sebastien Brion2
1Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;email: [email protected] Business School, University of Navarra, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014.1:67–97
First published online as a Review in Advance onJanuary 10, 2014
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychologyand Organizational Behavior is online atorgpsych.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091259
Copyright © 2014 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved
Keywords
power, hierarchy, politics, status, person–perception, groups
Abstract
Power is a critical resource for organizational actors. Given the pro-found importance of power to individual functioning, it is essentialto understand how some individuals acquire power when others donot, why some individuals retain their power once they have attainedit, andwhy others fall from their lofty positions in spite of the politicaladvantages power provides. In this review, we conceptualize power asa process that unfolds over time and review research that speaks tothree distinct but related dynamics: the acquisition, maintenance,and loss of power. We address and attempt to reconcile a burgeoningset of findings that appear to conflict with each other, especially find-ings vis-à-vis the maintenance and loss of power. We conclude byaddressing overlooked topics and areas for future research.
67
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
INTRODUCTION
Power is vitally important to the organizational actor. Possessing power means stronger job se-curity and better financial rewards, as well as being able to influence others more easily andperformone’s job more effectively (Magee&Galinsky 2008). Lacking power, by contrast, meanslacking autonomy and control in one’s job, being susceptible to unfair treatment, and experiencinglower job satisfaction andmorale (Keltner et al. 2003).Given theprofound importance of power toindividual functioning, it is critical to understand how some individuals acquire power whenothers do not, why some individuals retain their power once they have attained it, and why othersfall from their lofty positions in spite of the political advantages power provides.
The beginning of the twenty-first century has seen an eruption of empirical research on thepsychology of power. Hundreds of empirical studies and several theoretical lenses have providedthe field with a nuanced and complex understanding of how power affects individual psychologyin organizational settings. This relatively recent work has complemented longer traditions of re-search, stemming primarily from organizational behavior and sociology, which have focused onthe ways in which power is allocated in groups and organizations.
Our aim in this review is to leverage both of these streams of power research to understand howpower unfolds as a process. That is, we conceptualize power as a process that unfolds over timeand review research that speaks to three distinct but related dynamics: the acquisition, mainte-nance, and loss of power (see Figure 1). First, we highlight the antecedents of power—the factorsthat help individuals attain power—and explore why they impact power attainment. Second, weexamine how individuals retain their power once they acquire it—that is, the factors that con-tribute to powermaintenance. Third, we examine how individuals lose power—that is, the factorsthat lead to power holders’ downfalls. Our focus is specifically on the psychological and social-psychological factors that lead to power acquisition, maintenance, and loss. Other factors that
MODERATORS
Personal characteristics• Personal drive for power
• Dispositional factors
Responses to threat• Stability
• Legitimacy
• Status
LOSS
Exogenous factors• Environmental competition
• Intragroup characteristics
• Individual characteristics
Endogenous factors• Ethical transgressions
• Decision-making biases
• Biased interpersonal perception
MAINTENANCE
Exogenous factors• System justification
• Attributions
Endogenous factors• Affect and physiology
• Cognition
• Behavior
POWER
ANTECEDENTS
Competence• Task-related skills
• Interpersonal skills
Structural position• Centrality
• Bridging structural holes
Demographics andmorphologyPersonality
• Motives
• Traits
• Interpersonal style
Figure 1
The acquisition, maintenance, and loss of power.
68 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
sometimes play a role in the formation and flux of power, such as global economic downturns, arebeyond the scope of our discussion.
Our review is organized as follows: We start by providing definitional clarity on the constructof power as well as a brief historical review of theoretical developments within the power field.Then in three parts, we reviewwork on power acquisition, maintenance, and loss.We address andattempt to reconcile findings that appear to conflict with each other, especially findings vis-à-visthe maintenance and loss of power. Finally, we close by identifying areas for future research. Ourapproach addresses overlooked topics in the study of power and also highlights practicalimplications relevant for scholars and practitioners.
What Is Power?
There can be no paradigm development within a field without considerable agreement on defi-nitional issues and methodological techniques (Guinote & Vescio 2010, Kuhn 1996). Thoughperhaps short of achieving the status of a paradigm, the study of power does not lack agreement ondefinitions and methods. Indeed, the recent growth of research on the psychology of power is atleast partly attributable to the emergent consensus regarding howpower should be conceptualizedand defined as well as examined.
Power is broadly defined as asymmetric control over valued resources (Emerson 1962, Fiske2010, Keltner et al. 2003, Magee & Galinsky 2008, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978). Power, as mostcommonly defined, is therefore inherently relational, in that power exists only in relation to others,whereby low-power parties depend on high-power parties to obtain rewards and avoid pun-ishments (Emerson 1962, Thibaut & Kelley 1959).
Recent research has further specified the boundaries of the construct by more clearly dis-tinguishing power from other related concepts. Power, for instance, is distinct from influence,which involves behaviors intended to obtain compliance with a request (Cialdini & Goldstein2004). Power thus represents a source of potential influence that may or may not be realizedthrough compliance from others. Power is also distinct from status. Whereas power entailsa structural position in which individuals have control over resources, status is a social-perceptualconstruct in which individuals have high relative respect and admiration in the eyes of others(Fiske & Berdahl 2007, Fragale et al. 2011). Leadership and power have also been distinguishedfrom each other: “Leadership involves persuading other people to set aside for a period of timetheir individual concerns and to pursue a common goal that is important for the responsibilitiesandwelfare of a group” (Hogan et al. 1994, p. 493). Thus, leadership is defined by numerous tasksand responsibilities that are not part of the definition of power, such as planning and organizing,problem solving, supporting others, motivating others, and so on (Yukl et al. 1990). In thissense, powerful individuals do not always serve as leaders.
The conceptual differences between power and the above constructs notwithstanding, em-pirically these variables are often correlatedwith each other. For example, individualswho controlvalued resources tend to use their power to influence others (Kipnis 1972). Power and status alsotend to be associated, in that individuals with power are more respected and admired (Davis &Moore 1945) and those who are respected tend to be given control over valued resources (Parsons1940). Leaders also tend to have more power than followers, because groups give them controlover important decisions, information, andgroupprocesses (VanVugt 2006). Therefore, althoughwe acknowledge the important conceptual differences between power and influence, status, andleadership, we also draw from research on those constructs in our review when appropriate.
Extensive agreement on methods has also emerged, with consensus on the study designs andmeasures that are used in the study of power. Studies that examine the acquisition of power tend to
69www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
assesswhether individuals are perceivedbyothers as powerful (e.g., Berger et al. 1980, Krackhardt1990),whether they have attained positions of formal authority (e.g., Brass 1984), orwhether theyoccupy a position of power in a social network (e.g., Burt 1992). Studies that examine thepsychological consequences of power have used three primary methods: power primes (e.g.,Galinsky et al. 2003, Smith&Galinsky 2010), which involve, for example, asking participants torecall a time in which they possessed or lacked power or to complete word scramble tasks thatinclude power words (e.g., authority, control); role power manipulations (Anderson & Berdahl2002), which involve randomly assigning participants to a high- or low-power role in a dyadic orgroup interaction; and the personal sense of power scale (Anderson et al. 2012b), which asksparticipants in eight survey questions howmuchpower they have in their relationshipswith others.The ability to manipulate and measure power in laboratory settings has greatly contributed to thegrowth of the field. We discuss potential drawbacks to these methods in the final section.
Historical Review: The Antecedents of Power
Three distinct streams of research are relevant to the study of power acquisition. First, the ex-tensive organizational literature on power has identified a diverse set of antecedents of power,including bureaucratic structures (Crozier 1964, Gouldner 1954, Weber 1968), political coali-tions and alliances within organizations (Cyert & March 1963, Thompson 1967), resourcedependencies (Salancik & Pfeffer 1978), and social networks (Brass 2002, Burt 1992). Thesediverse theoretical and empirical perspectives address a broad range of formal and informalmechanisms that determine power, from the formal organizational structure and hierarchy to theinformal social structure embedded in relationships. Although conceptually distinct, theoriesemanating from the organizational literature onpower have largely relied on structure (formal andinformal) as a determinant of power (Brass 1984, Pfeffer 1981).
Second, a long tradition of research that has examined power dynamics in smaller group set-tings has complemented the organizational literature on power. For example, Bales et al. (1951),Blau (1964), Thibaut & Kelley (1959), and scholars working in the status characteristics theorytradition (Berger et al. 1972, Ridgeway 1982) have provided a rich understanding of the ante-cedents of power in small groups and organizational departments. Much of this work demon-strated that power is given to individuals because of their perceived superior individual char-acteristics—even if such a perception is inaccurate (e.g., Berger et al. 1980). For example, indi-viduals who are perceived to be the most competent are conferred more power because theircompetence is viewed as a valuable resource that only they control (e.g., Blau & Scott 1962).
Third, some subfields within the wide literature on leadership are relevant as well, given thatleaders tend to be afforded control over valued resources to accomplish their goals (Hogan et al.1994). Stogdill’s (1948) and Mann’s (1959) reviews of the work on emergent leadership focusedon the personal characteristics that predict which individuals will emerge as leaders in groups.Those reviews have been inaccurately characterized as demonstrating that characteristics such aspersonality traits do not predict leadership (Bass 2008), when in fact appropriate analysis of theirdata shows consistent effects of individual characteristics (Lord et al. 1986). Since then, scholarshave found that characteristics such as task competence, social skills, general intelligence, andpersonality traits predict leadership emergence (for a review, see Bass 2008).
Historical Review: The Psychological Consequences of Power
Although power has been a focus of attention in the social sciences for decades [Russell 2004(1938), Weber 1947], if not centuries [Hobbes 1968 (1651), Locke 1998 (1689)], empirical
70 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
research on the psychological consequences of power began in earnest in the latter half of thetwentieth century. This work initially examined the dark side of power, with a particularemphasis on the extent towhich power leads to antisocial, unethical, or immoral behavior. Forexample, power was shown to promote stereotyping, devaluing others, selfishness, and ag-gression (Kipnis 1972, Milgram 1963, Zimbardo 1973). This research lent credence to LordActon’s view that power tends to corrupt, though it showed that power had deleteriousintrapsychic and behavioral consequences for both those who possessed and those wholacked power.
Following several decades of empirical research on power, Keltner and colleagues (2003)provided one of the first overarching theoretical formulations of power’s affective, cognitive, andbehavioral effects. They argued that power activates the behavioral approach system (Gray 1994),in that power leads to approach behaviors that pursue rewards, whereas a lack of power activatesthe behavioral inhibition system, leading to behavioral inhibition and avoidance of threats. Theactivation of the approach system manifests in power holders’ propensity to experience morepositive affect (Watson&Clark 1997), take action more readily (Galinsky et al. 2003), and focuson rewards and opportunities in the environment (Inesi 2010). Keltner et al.’s (2003) power-approach theory has received strong direct empirical support in both laboratory (Anderson &Galinsky 2006, Boksem et al. 2012,Gruenfeld et al. 2008, Smith&Bargh 2008, Smith et al. 2008)and field settings (Lammers et al. 2010b).
Subsequent theories on power have addressed gaps left by the power-approach theoryor addressed contradictory findings in the empirical research. Guinote (2007a,b, 2010) andWillis & Guinote (2011), for instance, argued that whereas the power-approach theory ofpower suggests that power should lead to increased use of heuristic, automatic social cognition,evidence suggests that powerful individuals respondmore flexibly to their environments, usingautomatic or controlled cognition depending on the situation. Guinote’s situated focus theoryof power therefore explored the impact of power on goal pursuit, arguing that power affectsmotivation, cognition, and behavior in ways that facilitate goal pursuit. Power, for instance, leadsindividuals to focus on goal-relevant aspects of a situation (Galinsky et al. 2008, Guinote 2008,Slabu&Guinote 2010, Smith et al. 2008), ignore impediments to goal attainment (Whitson et al.2013), and minimize the size of constraints—even underestimating the physical size of others(Yap et al. 2013a).
More recently, Magee & Smith (2013) proposed the social distance theory of power, whichargues that power’s cognitive and interpersonal effects can be accounted for by the construct ofsocial distance. Specifically, asymmetric control over resources leads to differences in the psy-chological experience of social distance (Lammers et al. 2012, Lee & Tiedens 2001), with high-power individuals feeling greater subjective distance from lower-power individuals than vice versa.The social distance experienced by power holders may thus account for decreases in empathicaccuracy, susceptibility to social influence, and assumed similarity, for example. Furthermore,social distance among power holders leads to greater use of abstract mental representation, in-cluding the use of higher-level construals (Magee et al. 2010, 2011). Such high-level construalsmay contribute to stereotyping, subjective certainty, and the facilitation of goal pursuit.
Overall, although the power-approach theory (Keltner et al. 2003) remains the focal theory inthe field, additional theoretical lenses have begun to account for new and incongruous evidence.The imageof the power holder as a goal-driven, lazy, and egocentric being has become significantlymore nuanced as additional research adds to our understanding of the psychological effects ofpower. This accumulating research on the effects of power informs us about the process of power,the focus of the current review—namely, it highlights the mechanisms by which individuals withpower either maintain or lose their power over time.
71www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
POWER GAIN
How do individuals gain power? As previously stated, power is based on the control of valuedresources (e.g., Emerson 1962). Resources is a broad term that can refer to anything of value onwhich others depend, such as money, information, access to important people, or decisions. It canalso apply to personal characteristics. That is, individuals can be construed as controlling a valuedresource if they possess personal skills, knowledge, or expertise that others need.
Based on this conceptualization of power, people can therefore gain power in a number ofways. First, of course they can obtain control over valued resources. For example, individuals candevelop relationships with important people, thereby serving as a gatekeeper between those im-portant people and others in the organization. Second, they can increase the value of the resourcesthey already possess. For example, they can transform their underperforming and fragmentedteam into a tight-knit, highly productive unit, thereby providing valuable output to the organi-zation. Third, people can enhance the impression in others’ eyes that they possess control overvalued resources. For example, individuals can communicate to their supervisors that they possessknowledge useful for an important project.
Prior research related to the psychological or social-psychological antecedents of power hasfocused primarily on factors such as personal competence, social network position, physicalcharacteristics (e.g., sex), and personality. Below we review research on each of these ante-cedents, describing how they contribute to power acquisition through one or more of the pro-cesses outlined above.
Competence
Much evidence has shown that groups accord higher rank to individuals believed to possess su-perior competence, intelligence, and expertise (for reviews, see, e.g., Bass 2008, Driskell &Mullen 1990, Judge et al. 2004, Van Vugt 2006). In fact, perceived competence might be themost consistent predictor of rankwithin social groups, and the effects of perceived competencecan be quite large. For example, Anderson and colleagues have found peer-rated competencein groups to predict within-group rank with correlations between .6 and .8 (Anderson et al.2012b, Anderson & Kilduff 2009).
Within the broad umbrella of competence, both task-related abilities and social skills can beimportant (with the relative importance depending on what the group needs; Bass 2008). Task-related abilities include characteristics that relate to one’s ability to contribute to the technicalproblems faced by the group or organization; for example, general intelligence, quantitative skills,and specific expertise and experience within a task domain can all feed into a person’s rank in thegroup (Driskell & Mullen 1990, Van Vugt 2006). Social skills can include abilities related toleadership, verbal acuity, empathy, or emotional intelligence (Bass 2008)—abilities that allowa person to coordinate group activity, motivate others, resolve conflicts, and communicate criticalinformation. Both task and social skills are important resources because they tend to be highlyvaluable for collective success; fellow groupmembers or coworkers come to depend on individualswith these competencies over time.
Structural Position
One critical determinant of competence in organizational settings is the ability to access andcontrol the information that enables individuals and groups to accomplish their goals. Indeed,a long stream of research employing social networks methodologies has demonstrated that one’snetwork position impacts one’s ability to obtain information, and consequently to obtain power
72 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
(for a review, see Brass & Krackhardt 2012). Brass (1984), for instance, examined the relativepositions of employeeswithin networks in their organizations and found that network centrality ispositively related to perceptions of power and likelihood of promotions for individuals. Similarly,Burt (1992, 2000) demonstrated that bridging structural holes (connecting two otherwise dis-connected individuals) provides control over the flow of information between others and confersadvantages in negotiations (e.g., playing individuals off of each other). Other research has alsodemonstrated that dependingon the situation, power canbederived from the acquisitionof diverseinformation obtained from weak ties (Granovetter 1973) or the richer transfer of informationobtained from trusting and strong ties (Coleman 1990, Uzzi 1996). Broadly speaking, research onsocial networks has demonstrated that the ability to control information, a valuable resource inorganizations, contributes to power acquisition.
Demographics and Morphology
In addition to competence and social network position, individuals’ demographic and physicalcharacteristics can contribute to their attainment of power. Empirical research consistent withstatus characteristics theory (Berger et al. 1972, Berger & Zelditch 1985, Bunderson 2003), forinstance, has consistently shown that characteristics such as age, sex, and race impact powerascriptions, which contribute to the development of power–prestige orders, in groups. In line withstatus characteristics theory, Eagly’s (1987) social role theory posits that power is ascribed moreoften to certain demographic groups. Consistent with this theory, men emerge as leaders in smallgroups more often than women do (Eagly &Karau 1991) and are consistently overrepresented inthe upper echelons of organizations (Catalyst 2013).
Even physical characteristics such as height and weight have been found to correlate withperceptions of power, leadership emergence, and income (Judge & Cable 2004, Vartanian &Silverstein 2013). More recently, research has examined less consciously observable morpho-logical characteristics related to power ascription. For instance, a number of facial characteristicshave been shown to predict the perception of dominance and power in both nonhuman primates(Khan et al. 2011) and humans (Haselhuhn&Wong 2012, Roberts 2012, Rule&Ambady 2008,Wong et al. 2011).
Why would characteristics such as sex, race, height, and facial features have any impact onpower attainment, evenwhen those characteristicsmay have absolutely no relation to control overresources? Research suggests they contribute to the external perception of resource control—specifically to the perception of possessing higher levels of competence. For example, people oftenbelieve someone to be more competent when the person is older or male (Berger et al. 1980),possesses a competent-looking face (Todorov et al. 2008), or is taller and stronger (Lukaszewski2013). With regard to the latter effect of physical size, people specifically believe that individualswho are strong can better coordinate and manage group activity and deal with other groups moreeffectively (Lukaszewski 2013).
Personality
Personality characteristics have also been shown to predict individual power attainment. In thissection, we review relevant research related to personality, breaking up the discussion into in-dividual differences in motives, traits, and interpersonal, or communication, style.
Motives. One of the critical factors determining who acquires power is a desire or need for power(Jackson 1974,Winter & Stewart 1983). Although often seen as a universal need, recent research
73www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
suggests that the drive for power may not be as universal as once thought. Individuals appear tovary not only in their ability to act in ways that enable them to obtain power, but also in theirdesire to obtain power in the first place (Mintzberg 1983, Van Doesum et al. 2013). Indeed,some individuals actively avoid power (e.g., Winter & Stewart 1983), and some individualsprefer low power positions over high power positions, at least in hypothetical scenarios (SchmidMast et al. 2010). The need for power also appears to vary across the life span, peaking atmidlife(Antonucci & Akiyama 1997, Eaton et al. 2009).
Why would individuals with a stronger desire for power be more likely to attain it? The desirefor power is not necessarily a valued resource, after all. Research suggests that individuals whodesire power are more proactive in their attempts to acquire it. For example, they seek out posi-tions of authority that will provide them with control over resources; increase their visibility ingroup settings,which helps highlight any valued competence or skills theymight possess; andbuildalliances strategically (e.g., Winter & Stewart 1983).
Traits. Stable personality traits, which reflect enduring patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior,also predict which individuals acquire power and which do not. For example, individuals withhigher levels of narcissism (Brunell et al. 2008), trait dominance (Anderson & Kilduff 2009), andself-monitoring (Kilduff & Day 1994, Sasovova et al. 2010) are more likely to obtain power. Ina meta-analysis of Big Five correlates of leadership emergence, Judge et al. (2002) found thatextraversion was the most consistent predictor of leadership emergence (see also Anderson et al.2001). Again, the question is why these personality traits contribute to power attainment.Why forexample, would someone with a high level of self-monitoring attain power more than someonewith a lower level of self-monitoring?
First, these personality traits can be associated with stronger social skills. For example, self-monitoring is related to the ability to read social networks (Flynn et al. 2006), and extraver-sion is related to better communication, stronger persuasiveness, and the ability to decode others’emotions (Akert & Panter 1988, Riggio 1986). Dominance is associated with task initiation andleadership (Anderson&Kilduff 2009, Bass 2008). Second, some of these traits, such as narcissism(Raskin & Terry 1988), self-monitoring (Flynn et al. 2006), and dominance (Jackson 1974), arealso associated with the desire for higher social standing and power. Accordingly, they predicta range of behaviors that relate to obtaining control over valued resources. For example, high self-monitors tend to occupy central positions in social networks (Mehra et al. 2001), and extravertstend to be sociable and talkative and seek out social environments where they can develop andmanage interpersonal alliances (John & Srivastava 1999).
Moreover, individuals with these traits behave in ways that enhance their reputations forpossessing valued resources. Take trait dominance as an example. Anderson & Kilduff (2009)found that dominant individuals were perceived by teammates asmore competent, which led themto achieve higher rank and influence. Strikingly, this occurred even though dominant individualswere actually nomore competent than others on average.Howdid their ascension occur?Dominantindividuals exhibited more outward signals of competence, such as volunteering answers andproviding problem-relevant information. They behaved as though they had competence, eventhough they did not.
Interpersonal style. Interpersonal style (or communication style) refers to the way in whichindividuals communicate with others, be it verbally, nonverbally through body language, orparaverbally through vocal tone and speaking style. Verbal behaviors such as volume, voice pitch,and vocal frequency appear to impact perceptions of power (Hall et al. 2005, Puts et al. 2007) andevenCEOpay (Mayewet al. 2013).Nonverbal behaviors also contribute to power ascription;Hall
74 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis identified a number of nonverbal behaviors associated with power,including less smiling, more gazing, more other touching, more gesturing, and more interruptions.Finally, nonverbal expressions of pride (Shariff et al. 2012, Williams & DeSteno 2009) and ex-pansive body postures (Carney et al. 2010, Huang et al. 2011, Tiedens & Fragale 2003) have alsobeen shown to impact perceptions of power. These behaviors contribute to ascriptions of power inpart because they signal thepossessionofvalued resources; basedonanappearanceofpower, othersoftenbelieve the individual to actually have power (Anderson&Spataro 2005).Moreover,manyofthese behaviors lead to inferences of competence. Anderson et al. (2012a) found that individualswere perceived as competent when they simply spoke more, spoke in a more confident and factualvocal tone, exhibited an expanded posture, and interacted with a calm and relaxed demeanor.
Summary
Howdo individuals gain power? Prior research has identified a range of factors that predict powerattainment: personal competence; social network position; demographic and physical charac-teristics; and personality traits such as the need for power, self-monitoring, and dominance. Ouranalysis suggests these characteristics are important because they highlight the individual’s controlover valued resources. Competence leads to power because competence itself is a valued resource;a strategic position in a social network leads to power because it gives the individual access toinformation and control over access to people; having a competent-looking face contributes topower because it gives the impression that the individual possesses special skills or abilities; andpersonality traits such as dominance contribute to power because they are associated with socialand leadership skills, as well as the enactment of behaviors that heighten the individual’s repu-tation for competence.
POWER MAINTENANCE
Once organizational actors acquire power, the next question is how they maintain it. In thissection, we review research on the psychological and social-psychological factors that contributeto the maintenance of power. We begin by discussing the influence of exogenous factors—that is,factors operating outside the individual with power—including the perceptions and attributionsthat others make that contribute to the maintenance of power. We then move to endogenousfactors—thosewithin the individual power holder—such as the affect, cognition, and behaviors inwhich he or she engages.
Exogenous Factors
System justification. System justification theory (Jost & Banaji 1994, Jost et al. 2004) providesone exogenous account of power maintenance. Jost & Banaji (1994) have argued that the systemjustification motive leads individuals to defend and justify the status quo, which includes thehierarchical systems in which they function. This basic psychological motive to defend, legitimate,andbolster social systemsmanifests itself in the desire to see hierarchies as legitimate.Critically, thetendency to engage in system justifying beliefs exists not only among powerful, advantaged groupswho may be motivated to preserve their relative advantage. Indeed, low-power individuals havebeen found not only to engage in system justifying beliefs, but also to be more prone to justifyingpower differences and their consequences than high-power individuals are (Kay et al. 2010;Van der Toorn et al. 2011, 2013). These system justifying beliefs further manifest themselves inrestricted behavioral consequences, reducing the willingness of low-power individuals to protest
75www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
against in-group disadvantage or to engage in challenges to social hierarchy (Jost et al. 2012,Sweetman et al. 2013). Byprotecting the hierarchy, both low- andhigh-power individuals contributeto the maintenance of power.
Attributions. System justifying beliefs not only legitimate social systems, they also impact attri-butions made toward the individuals who control and shape these systems. For example, onceindividuals attain power in a group, others begin to perceive themmore positively than is justifiedby their actual behavior or contributions (Lee & Ofshe 1981). Research on implicit leadershiptheory similarly has shown that after watching a group work together, outside observers recalledthat the leaders exhibited more leaderlike behaviors than they actually did (Rush et al. 1981). Thework of Fiske and colleagues also shows that people tend to stereotype those withmore status andpower as being more competent (Fiske et al. 2002). These findings are consistent with research onthe halo effect and the romance of leadership, which suggests that by virtue of their positions,power holders are often perceived positively (Eastwick et al. 2013,Meindl& Ehrlich 1987, Sandeet al. 1986, Thorndike 1920). By attributing positive characteristics to power holders, observersfurther entrench the position of power holders.
Endogenous Factors
Power, once acquired, transforms how individuals perceive and act. The psychological con-sequences of being powerful often enable power holders to reinforce and maintain their advan-tageous positions. Specifically, power impacts three aspects of behavior that enable them tomaintain their power: affect, cognition, and action. We discuss recent research that highlights therole of each of these mechanisms in enabling power holders to maintain their power.
Affect andphysiology. In their power-approach theory,Keltner et al. (2003) predicted that powerholders experience and express more positive affect, whereas reduced power increases negativeaffect. This prediction has largely been supported in subsequent research, with power leading toincreased positive affect (Langner et al. 2012, Langner &Keltner 2008) and subjective well-being(Anderson et al. 2012c, Kifer et al. 2013). Such affective consequences of powermay contribute tothe ability of power holders tomaintain their power. For instance, power appears to act as a bufferagainst stress. Power holders have been found to have higher tolerances for pain (Bohns &Wiltermuth 2012) and lower heart rates following stress-inducing tasks (Schmid & SchmidMast2013). Power has also been shown to buffer stress-related responses in physiological ways, in-cluding decreases in stress hormones, such as cortisol and glucocorticoid, and increases in tes-tosterone levels (Arlet et al. 2011,Carney et al. 2010,Gesquiere et al. 2011). Power also appears toprovide a number of health benefits to individuals. Rivers & Josephs (2010) documented themyriad ways in which power (and social rank) increases neural, cardiovascular, immunological,reproductive, and mental health in human and nonhuman primates (see also Akinola &Mendes2013, Scheepers et al. 2012)
In addition to physiological and health benefits, power also appears to decrease stress in socialsituations,whichmay lead to increasedperformance in task-based situations. For instance, Schmid&SchmidMast (2013) found that power increasesperformanceona social evaluation task; individualsprimed with power were evaluated more positively by third-party observers, and these effects weremediated by decreases in the power holders’ fear of negative evaluations. Similarly, individualsprimed with power have also been shown to improve interview performance, as rated by inter-viewers (Lammers et al. 2013).Although theydidnotmeasure interviewee stress, the authorspositedthat power can buffer a sense of insecurity that can undermine interview performance.
76 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Accumulating evidence suggests that elevated social power may enable power holders tomaintain their power as a function of the psychological and physiological buffers to social stressorsthat power affords individuals. Power contributes to more positive and less negative affect, enablingindividuals to perform better (performance being a valued resource) and persist in challenging anddifficult environments—thereby outworking individuals with lower levels of power.
Cognition. In addition to the affective consequences of power, power also appears to enhancecognitive performance on a number of domains including goal setting and pursuit, abstractthinking, and executive functioning. Power holders are better able to set and achieve goals in partbecause they are able to focus their attention and efforts on relevant goals as well as goal-relevantaspects of situations (Galinsky et al. 2008, Guinote 2007a, Slabu & Guinote 2010, Willis &Guinote 2011). Power enables individuals to set and initiate goals (Guinote 2007a) and effectivelyprioritize amongmanygoals (Guinote 2010).Moreover, the powerful overlook constraints to goalattainment (Smith & Bargh 2008, Whitson et al. 2013), minimize the size of constraints—evenunderestimating the physical size of others (Yap et al. 2013a), and persist in the face of obstacles(DeWall et al. 2011). Finally, power benefits goal pursuit by leading individuals to engage in moreanalytical (Miyamoto& Ji 2011) and abstract thinking (Magee et al. 2010, Smith&Trope 2006).
The consequences of these goal-relevant cognitions are diverse. Goal-relevant cognition maycontribute to increased optimism (Anderson&Galinsky 2006) and perceptions of confidence andcontrol among power holders (Briñol et al. 2007, Fast et al. 2012b). More directly, the ability ofpower holders to focus on obtaining goal-relevant outcomes has improved performance on bothcomplex cognitive tasks (Smith et al. 2008) and motor tasks such as golf putting and throwingdarts (Burgmer & Englich 2013). Power has also been shown to decrease temporal discounting—for example, powermay facilitate long-termplanning because power holders feel less disconnectedfrom their future selves (Joshi & Fast 2013). Finally, power holders have also been shown toengage in more creativity (Galinsky et al. 2008), especially when creativity facilitates contextualgoals (Gervais et al. 2013). Therefore, through cognitive aswell as affective processes, power givesindividuals advantages over others competing for their positions.
Behavior. In addition to facilitating goal pursuit, power also impacts the ways in which powerholders interactwith their environments.Keltner et al.’s (2003) power-approach theory posits thatpowerful individuals behave in disinhibited, action-oriented ways. Indeed, a number of studieshave replicated the tendency of power holders to engage in approach-oriented behavior, including,for example, moving a desk fan blowing directly onto them (Galinsky et al. 2003) and seekingproximity to threatening others (Mead & Maner 2012). By addressing annoyances in theirenvironments and engaging potential threats to their power, power holders may facilitate themaintenance of their power.
Power holders also demonstrate an approach orientation by engaging in less conformity andmore frequently violating norms (Galinsky et al. 2008). Subsequent research has demonstratedthat norm violators are ascribed more power (Bowles & Gelfand 2010, Van Kleef et al. 2012),a process that further enables power holders to maintain their power. This disregard for socialnorms may account for why power holders are also more likely to initiate negotiations and makefirst offers (Magee et al. 2007). Power holders’ strategies subsequently make themmore successfulnegotiators (Galinsky & Mussweiler 2001, Overbeck et al. 2010, Small et al. 2007), furtherentrenching their power. Finally, Overbeck et al. (2010) showed that power holders who claimmore value may also do so while fostering greater value creation. Indeed, related research hasshown that power holders can be generous in their pursuit of power, increasing their contributionsto collective efforts (Willer 2009, Willer et al. 2012) and subsequently increasing their status.
77www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Power also facilitates political behaviors in organizational settings. Ferris et al. (2007) high-lighted a number of principal political skills deemed necessary to be effective in organizations, suchas interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity. Power appears to reinforcemost of the political skills identified by Ferris and colleagues. Power holders appear to have moreinterpersonal influence in a number of ways, including being more resistant to others’ socialinfluence (Anderson & Berdahl 2002, Berdahl & Martorana 2006) and being more persuasive,for instance, in interviews (Lammers et al. 2013) and dyadic tasks (Anderson & Berdahl 2002).Moreover, power holders have long been thought to hold advantages in coalition formation(Cyert&March1963, Pfeffer&Salancik 1978).More recent research suggests that power holderstend to build coalitions and organizations that are homophilous and thereby self-reinforcing(Pfeffer & Fong 2005). Finally, power holders are more skilled at impression management(Westphal&Deephouse 2011) and are often perceived as having stronger political skills by others(Brouer et al. 2011, Stern & Westphal 2010).
At a broader level, power holders may also facilitate the maintenance of their power bychanging social dynamics to entrench themselves. Although the discussion of system justifi-cation theory above suggests that the powerless are often both prisoner and guard to their lowpower positions, power holders also pursue goals and engage in behaviors that maintain theirpositions (Willis & Guinote 2011). By virtue of controlling resources, power holders often setagendas and determine which issues will be salient or discussed (Bachrach & Baratz 1962).Indeed, the concentration of one’s power in groups and organizations has been shown topredict both performance and subsequent power in a number of empirical investigations(Boeker 1992, Greer et al. 2011, Greve & Mitsuhashi 2007, Ronay et al. 2012, Shen &Cannella 2002, Zyphur et al. 2009). Similarly, Boyer & Ortiz-Molina (2008) found that theextent to which senior executives own stock in their firms also predicts the likelihood that theywill be selected for promotions; managers with larger ownership stakes in the firms increasetheir chances of being selected as CEOs. By extending their control over resources, powerholders thus often change both the social and economic environment to entrench and extendtheir grasps over power.
Summary
Power results in many advantages that enable individuals to maintain power. Power providesa diverse set of affective, cognitive, and behavioral advantages that reinforce the status quo,afford affective and physiological buffers against stress, facilitate goal-directed thoughts andcognitions, and promote approach-oriented behaviors that contribute to the maintenance ofpower among the powerful. Although power may facilitate a number of power-perpetuatingconsequences and power is largely a static force, it is not immutable. We turn next to thedeterminants of power loss.
POWER LOSS
Although power is often self-reinforcing, individuals frequently lose power. Identifying the factorsthat contribute to power loss is one of the most overlooked factors in the psychological and or-ganizational literatures on power.We draw from the organizational and psychological literaturesthat suggest mechanisms by which power may be lost, but recognize that very little research hasdirectly and empirically addressed power loss. Here we break the extant research into four con-tributors to power loss: exogenous factors and three forms of endogenous factors (i.e., ethicaltransgressions, decision-making biases, and interpersonal deficits challenges).
78 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Exogenous Factors
Although power holders can act in ways that reinforce and increase their power, contextual issuesoutside of the control of individuals often contribute to a loss of power. Power may reduce situ-ational constraints on actors (Galinsky et al. 2008), but many situational constraints lead to thedecline of power among power holders.
Competition. One of the primary situational constraints faced by power holders is the existence ofrivals who compete for access to the valuable resources held by power holders. Indeed, the ability ofpower holders to maintain control over resources is in part a function of the scarcity of the resourcesavailable to individuals (Bacharach & Lawler 1980, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978). Power holders inresource-rich environments hold onto their power longer (De Waal & Harcourt 1992). Moreover,those not in power may compete for resources by withholding important information from powerholders or actively engaging in sabotage to usurp an individual’s power (Fleming & Spicer 2008). Inpart because of the competitive nature of access to resources, power holders are also under greaterscrutiny than those not in power. Power holders, for instance, receive greater social attention (Kramer2000,Sutton&Galunic1996), andalthough theymayreceiveunduecredit forpositiveoutcomes, theyalso are unfairly blamed for failures truly attributed to exogenous factors in groups and organizations(Meindl et al. 1985).With others competingwith them for resources andmisplacing blame for failureson them, power holders face challenging environments in which to hold onto their power.
Intragroup characteristics. Characteristics of the groups in which power holders wield power alsoimpact the likelihood that they will lose power. For instance,Menon& Phillips (2011) showed thateven-sized groups experienced less certainty and cohesion than odd-sized groups. Power holders insuch unstable even-sized groups may be in more precarious positions in which small changes inopinions may overturn existing coalitional and power hierarchies. Moreover, although extensiveresearchhas shown that individuals innumericalmajorities often exert greater influence than those innumerical minorities (Horcajo et al. 2010, Wood et al. 1994), members of majority groups exhibitlower levels of integrative complexity (Gruenfeld & Preston 2000), and power holders who haveascended to unstable majority control positions have also been shown to abuse their power byengaging in in-group favoritismandout-grouphostility (Prislin et al. 2011). Powerholders inmajoritycontrol positions engage in behaviors that may contribute to power loss. Finally, high-power teamstend to experience higher levels of performance-reducing process conflict, which may ultimatelyincrease the likelihood of power holders’ loss of power in high-power teams (Greer et al. 2011).
Individual characteristics. Demographic characteristics such as race and sex have also beenshown to contribute to power loss, with women (Koenig et al. 2011) and minorities (Sauer et al.2010) especially likely to lose power. One reason this may occur, at least for women, is that evenwhen positional power is held constant, female leaders are perceived as having less interpersonalpower than their male counterparts (Eagly & Karau 2002). Moreover, the power of minorities isparticularly precarious at higher echelons of organizations (Cook & Glass 2013, Elliott & Smith2004). The biases of others appear to contribute to power loss among individuals with certaincharacteristics.
Endogenous Factors
Ethics. Much has been said about the corruptive influence of power (Kipnis 1972), and muchresearch suggests that once in positions of power, power holders act in unethical ways that cancontribute topower loss (Hirsh et al. 2011). Broadly, power has been shown to reduce sensitivity to
79www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
social disapproval (Galinsky et al. 2008, Van Kleef et al. 2012), which may otherwise reduce thepropensity to engage in unethical behavior. Similarly, power has been shown to reduce empathyand compassion for the suffering of others (Van Kleef et al. 2008), to increase objectification anddehumanizationof others (Gruenfeld et al. 2008,Gwinn et al. 2013, Lammers&Stapel 2011), andto decrease fairness and justice concerns (Begley et al. 2006, Blader &Chen 2012, Schminke et al.2002), all of which may contribute to the likelihood of engaging in unethical behaviors.
Much recent research has shown that power holders tend to act in aggressive and assertiveways(Ames & Flynn 2007, Faris & Felmlee 2011), especially when they feel incompetent (Cho & Fast2012, Fast et al. 2009) or have low status (Fast et al. 2012a). Within organizations, research haslinked power with abusive supervision (Mawritz et al. 2012, Tepper 2007), particularly whenpower holders are in the numerical majority (Prislin et al. 2011). Likewise, power holders havebeen shown to perceive sexual interest from others when it is not actually there (Bargh &Alvarez2001, Kunstman & Maner 2011), which may contribute to sexual harassment in the workplace(McLaughlin et al. 2012). All of these ethical transgressions can lead to power holders’ downfalls.
In addition to treating others in more abusive ways, power holders often also engage in moreself-serving behavior (DeCelles et al. 2012), for instance, taking more from commons dilemmas(Galinsky et al. 2003) and engaging in more deception and cheating (Lammers et al. 2010a,Olekalns et al. 2013,Yapet al. 2013b) and infidelity andopportunism in relationships (Lammers&Stapel 2011, Malhotra & Gino 2011). Such self-serving behavior appears to promote unethicalbehaviors that may contribute to power loss.
Decision-making biases. In addition to increasing manifestly unethical behavior, elevatedpower also increases the propensity with which individuals engage in a number of cognitive anddecision-making biases that jeopardize their holds on power. Whereas Guinote’s (2007a) sit-uated focus theory (described above) suggests that power may benefit goal pursuit by leadingindividuals to engage in more goal-directed, analytical (Miyamoto & Ji 2011) and abstractthinking (Magee et al. 2010, Smith&Trope 2006), other streams of research suggest that powermay bias decision making by focusing attention on decision-consistent information (Fischeret al. 2011) and on easily retrieved,momentary subjective experiences (Weick&Guinote 2008).Moreover, power holders have been found to be overconfident and hold illusions of control (Fastet al. 2009, Fast et al. 2012b, Pfeffer et al. 1998). For instance, they overestimate their ownheight(Duguid&Goncalo 2012) and tend to underestimate the time it takes to complete tasks (Weick&Guinote 2010). Such overconfidence contributes to a number of decision-making biases, such asexcessive risk taking (Anderson & Galinsky 2006, Inesi 2010, Lewellyn & Muller-Kahle 2012),reluctance to accept useful advice from others (See et al. 2011, Tost et al. 2012), and inhibition ofsubordinate voice (Ferguson et al. 2010, Locke & Anderson 2010, Tost et al. 2013). Powertherefore may lead to biases in decision making that reduce power holders’ performance, sub-sequently leading to losses of power.
Interpersonal perception. Finally, although accumulating evidence suggests that power holdersattend selectively to goal-relevant interpersonal information (Gruenfeld et al. 2008, Magee &Smith 2013, Overbeck & Park 2006), much research still suggests that power holders overlookinterpersonal information that is relevant to maintaining power, unless directly instructed toattend to it (Overbeck&Park 2001, 2006). For instance, they tend to disregard social comparisoninformation (Johnson & Lammers 2012) and frequently rely on stereotypes that may lead todiscrimination by power holders (Fiske 1993, 2010; Rudman et al. 2012). Recent evidence hasdemonstrated that this bias is implicit (Guinote et al. 2010, Smith & Galinsky 2010). Perhaps asa result of this bias, power holders choose to surround themselveswith homophilous and flattering
80 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
others (Park et al. 2011, Pfeffer & Fong 2005), which may contribute to inaccurate networkperceptions being made by power holders (Simpson et al. 2011).
The lack of interpersonal sensitivity on the part of power holders has downstream con-sequences. For instance, Schmid Mast et al. (2012) found that subordinates expected theirsupervisors to be interpersonally sensitive and were less satisfied with insensitive leaders, sug-gesting a potential mechanism for power loss. Subsequent research has demonstrated that powerholders often receive ingratiating and opinion-conforming information from subordinates (Parket al. 2011) and overestimate the extent to which others are allied with them (Brion & Anderson2013). Brion & Anderson (2013) demonstrated that power holders lost power when theyoverestimated how much others felt allied to them.
Summary
Although power provides a number of advantages that may contribute to the ability of powerholders to maintain their power, much evidence also suggests that power holders may think andact in ways that jeopardize their grasps on power. The cognitive and behavioral ramifications ofpower are especially pernicious given that those in positions of power are subject to the aspirationsof others who wish to obtain access to the resources controlled by power holders. The questionthen remains, when does power lead individuals to maintain their power versus lose their power?We turn to this question in the following section.
RECONCILING POWER MAINTENANCE AND LOSS
As the empirical investigations into power maintenance and loss accumulate, so too do theapparent contradictions in findings. Power appears to provide individuals with a diverse set ofaffective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences that not only enable power holders tomaintain their power, but also contribute to their downfalls. Power holders appear to be si-multaneously astute and aloof, prosocial and antisocial, self-assured and overconfident.What then determines whether power holders act in ways that entrench their power versusleading to its demise?
One critical determinant of whether power holders maintain or lose power is the extent towhich they engage in self-serving versus group-serving behaviors. Although as discussed above,power and leadership are distinct, when individuals attain power, they are often given re-sponsibilities over the fate of others. Power holders who fail to serve their subordinates andgroups are therefore often pressured to step down or are ousted from their lofty positions bycoalitions that form around them. In this section,we draw fromKeltner et al.’s (2008) reciprocalinfluence model of social power, evolutionary models of leadership (Van Vugt 2006), andorganizational research on the pernicious impact of self-interested hubristic CEOs on orga-nizational outcomes (Chatterjee & Hambrick 2007, Malmendier & Tate 2008), which arguethat a key task of power holders and leaders is to facilitate social coordination and cooperationto enhance group success. Self-serving behaviors undermine this goal and therefore jeopardizethe ability of power holders to maintain their power. Collective, group-serving behaviors, bycontrast, strengthen power holders’ power by furthering the interests of the individuals andgroup, rather than the interests of the power holder alone.We therefore focus on themoderatingconditions that lead power holders to engage in self-serving behaviors that undermine theirpower versus collective, group-serving behaviors that strengthen their power. We highlighta number of moderators that account for the diverging consequences of obtaining power, whichimpact whether individuals subsequently maintain or lose their power.
81www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Antecedent Conditions
Personal drive for power. Whether power holders engage in self-serving behaviors or not ispartly a function of what drove them to acquire power in the first place. Consistent withprevious research on powermotivation (McClelland 1985, Winter & Stewart 1983), Magee &Langner (2008) found that individuals with a personalized power motivation, who are drivento have power for self-serving reasons with disregard for others’ interests, engaged in moreantisocial behaviors than did individuals with a socialized powermotivation, who are driven tohave power to make a prosocial impact on others. Similarly, individuals high in dominance,and not prestige, motivation acted in more self-interested ways that jeopardized group goalswhen their positions were unstable (Maner & Mead 2010). Finally, Cheng et al. (2012)demonstrated that although individuals may obtain influence in groups by using both dom-inance (using fear) and prestige (gaining respect) strategies, those using dominance strategieswere not well liked, which may make the positions of such power holders more precarious(Casciaro & Lobo 2008). Consistent with this finding, research has shown that narcissistsmake positive first impressions on others that gradually deteriorate over time (Back et al.2008). Being driven to acquire power for self-serving reasons has, not surprisingly, impli-cations for whether power, once acquired, will lead individuals to emphasize self-interestedgoals at the expense of group goals.
Dispositional moderators. Consistent with the increased disinhibition and enhanced freedomto act in accordance with one’s own goals and motivations, research has shown thatpower leads individuals to act in ways that are consistent with their internal traits and exhibitgreater self-concept consistency across contexts relative to their low-power counterparts(Anderson & Berdahl 2002, Guinote et al. 2012, Kraus et al. 2011, Van Kleef & Côté 2007).Personality characteristics may therefore account for the inconsistent intrapsychic and be-havioral reactions that result from placing individuals in positions of power. For instance,communally or collectively oriented individuals tend to respond to power in socially re-sponsible, and not self-interested, ways (Chen et al. 2001, Galinsky et al. 2008, Howard et al.2007, Van Dijk & De Cremer 2006, Wisse & Rus 2012). DeCelles et al. (2012) found thatindividuals with strong moral identities act in prosocial ways when given power (see alsoJoosten et al. 2013). Moreover, individuals who have prosocial orientations have been foundto bemore empathically accurate when primedwith power (Côté et al. 2011). Power also leadsto an increase in interpersonal sensitivity for those with an empathic, and not egoistic, leadershipstyle (Schmid Mast et al. 2009), which might increase the emphasis placed on group-servingbehaviors.
Finally, the way in which power holders perceive their power may impact the likelihood ofengaging in self-servingversusgroup-servingbehaviors.Lammers et al. (2009) found that personalpower (freedom from other people) increased stereotyping, whereas social power (power overother people) decreased the use of stereotyping. Social power requires responsibility over othersthat leads to careful attention of individuating information. Power construed as responsibilityrather than opportunity has also been seen as less attractive (Sassenberg et al. 2012), suggestingthat when power is seen as responsibility, power holders may be less inclined to engage inhierarchy-reinforcing self-serving behaviors.
Overall, whether power leads individuals to engage in prosocial behaviors that entrench theirpower or self-interested behaviors that jeopardize it (Keltner et al. 2008) is in part a function ofdispositional factors that impact themotives that drove them to acquire power in the first place andthe ways they perceive their power.
82 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Responses to Threat
The way in which power holders respond to threats also critically determines whether theyengage in self-serving versus group-serving behaviors. As discussed above, although poweroften buffers individuals from stress in psychological and physiological ways (Akinola &Mendes 2013, Scheepers et al. 2012), other evidence demonstrates that power holders oftenengage in ineffective reactions to threats and changes in power (Bendersky & Hays 2010,Garcia-Retamero et al. 2012, Jordan et al. 2011, Kamans et al. 2011, Sapolsky 2005).For instance, they react to threats to their competence in self-interested, abusive, and riskyways (Cho & Fast 2012, Costello & Hodson 2011, Fast & Chen 2009). Situational demandsmay contribute to a lack of effective self-regulation among power holders that leads todetriments in impulse control (Ent et al. 2012) and increases in unethical behaviors (Joostenet al. 2013). Three primary factors appear to threaten power and impact power holders’propensity to engage in self-serving behaviors: stability, legitimacy, and status. We discuss eachin turn.
The stability of power holders’ positions appears to impact the behavior of power holders.Unstable power holders, for instance, have been shown to experience more stress (Sapolsky2005) and engage in more risk taking in organization decision-making scenarios (Jordan et al.2011). Similarly, Pettit et al. (2010) demonstrated that individuals who risked losing statusallocated more resources toward personal status concerns and away from group interests (seealso Bendersky& Shah 2012,Maner&Mead 2010). Conversely, stability in power hierarchiestends to promote group-serving behaviors. For instance, power increased the willingnessto forgive others, but only when the relationship was stable (Karremans & Smith 2010).Therefore, instability, which already places power holders in precarious positions of power,seems to exacerbate instability in as much as it leads power holders to engage in ineffectivebehavioral responses.
The extent to which individuals have obtained their power in legitimate ways also impactstheir behavior. Power holders appear to respond to illegitimacy in ways that lead them toengage in antisocial behaviors that may contribute to power loss. In the absence of legitimacy,power holders often rely on influencing followers through force rather than acquiescence(Lenski 1966, Raven 2008). However, illegitimate power does not always breed self-servingbehavior. Lammers et al. (2012) found that when power is seen as illegitimate, it does notincrease social distance, whichmay account for why power holders act in self-interested ways.Nevertheless, illegitimacy does appear to impact the reactions of followers, whichmay furthercontribute to power loss. For instance, powerless individuals in illegitimate power hierarchieshave been found to engage in approach-related behaviors that facilitated goal-directedbehaviors aimed at redressing their unfavorable positions (Lammers et al. 2008, Williset al. 2010) and that decreased helping behavior (Lammers et al. 2012).
Finally, the status of the power holder also appears to be an important moderator ofboth the threats power holders face and their likely behavioral responses to the threats. Forinstance, low-status power holders are especially likely to engage in abusive behaviors to-ward others in positions of lowpower (Fast et al. 2012a). Along similar lines, as noted above,Cheng et al. (2012) demonstrated that although individuals may obtain influence in groupsby using both dominance (using fear) and prestige (gaining respect) strategies, those usingdominance strategies were not well liked, which may make their positions more precarious.Finally, individuals high in power but low in status are perceived by others as dominantand cold, and others expect to have negative interactions with these individuals (Fragaleet al. 2011).
83www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Summary
Overall, to the extent that power is based on an“individual’s ability to engage in, and advance, theinterests of other group members,” power is more readily maintained when power holders pri-oritize collective, group-interested goals rather than personal, self-interested goals (Keltner et al.2008, p. 155). The literature reviewed above suggests there are two key mechanisms at play thatdetermine whether the behavior of power holders will lead them to maintain or lose their power:(a) antecedent conditions, that is, dispositional characteristics that determine the drive, perception,and use of power, and (b) managing threat, that is, creating stable hierarchies, enhancing perceivedlegitimacy, and affording status to power holders. Individuals driven to obtain power for prosocialreasons, whose personalities promote prosocial behaviors, and who engage in situations char-acterized by high stability, high legitimacy, and high status tend to engage in group-servingbehaviors that promote the maintenance of their power.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Aswe lay out above, one critical task is to addresswhen powerwill lead to self-serving versus group-oriented behaviors. We also highlight three areas that we believe require additional attention.
Culture
Although research has begun to address the impact of culture on power gain, maintenance, andloss (Menon et al. 2010, Torelli & Shavitt 2010, Zhong et al. 2006), the field still largely omitsculture from its conceptual and theoretical formulations. Particularly as the field moves towardexamining the effects of embodied cognition and physiological antecedents and consequences ofpower, the universality of these findings should be examined. Indeed, the impact of expansivebody posture has recently been shown to be contingent upon culture, with Americans, but notEast Asians, experiencing greater power activation and action orientation in an “expansive-feet-on-desk”pose (Park et al. 2013).Culture also appears to impact a host of power-related cognitions(Kopelman 2009, Miyamoto & Wilken 2010, Oyserman 2011, Torelli & Shavitt 2011) andindividual differences, such as social dominance orientation (Fischer et al. 2012, Sibley & Liu2010) and a desire for personal control versus harmony and group control (Fiske 2004). Given thegrowing evidence that the psychological consequences of power differ across cultures, the like-lihood of acquiring, maintaining, and losing power may be culturally determined.
Sex
A burgeoning literature within research on leadership has shown consistent effects of gender stereo-types on the acquisition andmaintenance of power (Koenig et al. 2011, Vescio et al. 2010). Researchsuggests that as a result of stereotypes andprescriptive gendernorms,menmaybemoreable toacquireandmaintain power than women are. For instance, although evidence suggests that men and womenhave similar needs for power (McClelland 1985,Winter& Stewart 1983), womenwho are perceivedas power seeking incur a backlash for failing to conform to communal prescriptive gender norms(Okimoto & Brescoll 2010). Men also have higher social dominance orientation than women do(Pratto et al. 1997), and they attend to power-related cues more than women do (Mason et al. 2010).Finally, andrelevant toadvancinganunderstandingofwhetherpowerholdersmaintainor losepower,sex appears to moderate the use of self-serving versus other-serving behaviors by power holders;women are lesswilling to compromise ethical values for social status andmonetary gains (Kennedy&Kray 2014), which may account in part for why they are underrepresented in business.
84 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Organizational Complexity
Althoughwe know exponentiallymore today about the psychology of power thanwe did 20 yearsago, our knowledge is still largely removed from the complexities and confounds of behavior inorganizational settings. To more fully address the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of power,future research will need to address the multiple coexisting roles that individuals play in organi-zations. Although in the laboratory we can cleanly manipulate low and high power and therebypredict and find main effects, such clean instantiations of power are rarely the case in organi-zations. A given manager is high in power in that he has asymmetrical control over his sub-ordinates but is also low in power in that themanager’s boss has asymmetrical control over him. Inorganizational life, individuals always simultaneously occupy low- and high-power roles (evenCEOs answer to a board of directors, shareholders, and their spouses). Main effects found inlaboratories following clean manipulations of power may therefore fail to capture the affective,cognitive, and behavioral complexities resulting from the multiple power roles individuals play inorganizations. The concern, then, is to better understand how individuals navigate their multipleroles and relationships and how the diversity of power relations by individuals impacts thelikelihood that they will maintain or lose power.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
What are the managerial implications of this research?What can managers take away from thisresearch in order to acquire more power and maintain their power once acquired? Recall thatpower is based on one’s control over valued resources. Therefore, managers can acquire powerby achieving control over valued resources or by enhancing the perception that they controlvalued resources. As an example, in many organizations, knowledge and expertise are par-ticularly critical resources.Managers can gain power by developing knowledge or expertise thatis important to others; they can also highlight to others the knowledge they already have that isuseful and important. In addition to task-related abilities that may enable managers to controlresources, managers can also gain power by developing social skills, such as the ability tocommunicate both verbally and nonverbally.Managers can develop these skills through classesor training programs. By reflecting on their personal style as leaders, managers may learn toaddress task-related and interpersonal skills that contribute to their ability to achieve controlover valued resources.
In addition to achieving control over valued resources, building their social networks by de-veloping relationships with individuals from across their organizations is an effective strategy formanagers to acquire power. This can be accomplished through engaging in shared activities, suchas joining cross-functional teams, playing on the company softball teams, or taking part inrecruiting activities—anything that brings them into contact with individuals from other parts ofthe organization. By establishing these ties with others around their companies, they becomegatekeepers, in that they now have more access to people and knowledge and also can bridgedifferent coworkers when needed.
Once acquired, managers can also learn to behave in ways that maintain their power. Theresearch discussed here suggests that one critical way individuals maintain power is by inter-nalizing their power. By internalizing their power, managers benefit from psychological processesthat enable them to think, feel, and act in powerful ways. By believing they are competent,powerful, and in control, managers signal to themselves and others that they are worthy of thepositions they have obtained. Nevertheless, managers should also be cautioned to be vigilantabout their behavior and social environments. Extensive evidence from both empirical researchand commonanecdotes suggests that power contributes to ethical transgressions, decision-making
85www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
biases, and biased perceptions of others. Those in power are especially challenged to accuratelyassess the impact their behavior has on others, and therefore should be especially mindful oftheir behavior.
Finally, one critical factor inmaintaining power is recognizing that power is based primarily onamanager’s ability to engage in and advance the interests of his or her colleagues and subordinates.Power ismore readily lostwhen power holders prioritize personal, self-interested goals rather thancollective, group-interested goals. Although managers may be tempted to gain power by makingdecisions that cast them in the best light or by scapegoating others when things go wrong, suchstrategies may be detrimental to their ability to maintain their power in the long run. Managersmay therefore benefit from engaging in behaviors that clearly demonstrate their commitment toothers, such as coaching andmentoring, empowering others tomake decisions, and rewarding thecollective, group-oriented behaviors of others.
CONCLUSION
In our review of the psychological and organizational literatures on power, we have highlightedrecent research that addresses three critical dimensions of power: the acquisition, maintenance,and loss of power. We have emphasized the importance of power to the organizational actorand examined the psychological and organizational determinants of when individuals gain,maintain, and lose power. Although a burgeoning science of power has begun to explicate themyriad ways in which individuals succeed or fail in the competition for power, much workremains to be done. We have pointed to several new questions for future research that mayexpand our understanding of how and when individuals gain, maintain, and lose power.Specifically, in light of the ever-expanding list of abuses of power by CEOs whose self-servingbehaviors have contributed not only to their own downfalls but also to the downfalls of theirorganizations, it is critical to understand when power holders will engage in self-servingversus group-oriented behaviors, as the former damage not only power holders’ power butalso the livelihoods of those they hold power over.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Reconciling group-serving versus self-serving behaviors: Power has been shown to leadboth to collective, group-serving behaviors and to personal, self-serving behaviors.Future research should examine the conditions that lead power holders to engage ineither behavior, and the resulting impact on the likelihood of power holders to acquire,maintain, and lose power.
2. Culture: Although power is a universal construct that likely impacts behavior acrosscultures, future research should more closely examine the moderating impact of cultureon the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of power.
3. Sex: Although the acquisition, maintenance, or loss of power is often treated asequivalent across men and women, research on power should begin to address sex,as is increasingly being done in the leadership literature, as a critical moderator of one’slikelihood of acquiring, maintaining, and losing power.
4. Organizational complexity: Future research should address themultiple coexisting rolesthat individuals play in organizations; for example, a manager is high in power in thatshe has power over her subordinates, but she is also low in power in that her boss haspower over her. Future research should better understand how individuals navigate their
86 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
multiple roles and relationships and how the diversity of power relations held byindividuals impacts the likelihood that they will acquire, maintain, or lose power.
5. Longitudinal assessments: The research reviewed focused on one slice of the process ofpower, such as the attainment of power or the loss of power. Future research shouldexamine individuals over time and longitudinally study these processes as they unfoldover years and over the course of careers.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Akert RM, Panter AT. 1988. Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication. Personal.Individ. Differ. 9:965–72
Akinola M, Mendes WB. 2013. It’s good to be the king: neurobiological benefits of higher social standing.Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. In press. doi: 10.1177/1948550613485604
AmesDR, Flynn FJ. 2007.What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92:307–24
Anderson C, Berdahl JL. 2002. The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach andinhibition tendencies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:1362–77
Anderson C, Brion S, Moore D, Kennedy J. 2012a. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 103:718–35
Anderson C, Galinsky AD. 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:511–36Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D. 2012b. The personal sense of power. J. Personal. 80:313–44Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and
physical attractiveness in social groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:116–32Anderson C, Kilduff GJ. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The
competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:491–503Anderson C, Kraus MW, Galinsky AD, Keltner D. 2012c. The local-ladder effect: social status and subjective
well-being. Psychol. Sci. 23:764–71Anderson C, Spataro SE. 2005. Misperceiving your place: humility and hubris in social hierarchies. Res.
Manag. Groups Teams 7:69–92Antonucci TC, Akiyama H. 1997. Concern with others at midlife: care, comfort, or compromise? InMultiple
Paths of Midlife Development, ed. ME Lachman, JB James, pp. 147–69. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressArlet ME, Kaasik A, Molleman F, Isbell L, Carey JR, Mänd R. 2011. Social factors increase fecal tes-
tosterone levels in wild male gray-cheeked mangabeys (Lophocebus albigena). Horm. Behav.59:605–11
Bacharach SB, Lawler EJ. 1980. Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-BassBachrach P, Baratz MS. 1962. Two faces of power. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 56:947–52Back MD, Schmukle SC, Egloff B. 2008. Becoming friends by chance. Psychol. Sci. 19:439–40Bales RF, Strodtbeck FL, Mills TM, Roseborough ME. 1951. Channels of communication in small groups.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 16:461–68Bargh J, Alvarez J. 2001. The road to hell: good intentions in the face of nonconscious tendencies to misuse
power. InTheUseandMisuseofPower:MultiplePerspectiveson theCausesofCorruption, ed.AYLee-Chai,JA Bargh, pp. 41–55. Philadelphia: Psychol. Press
87www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Bass BM. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications.New York: Free Press
Begley TM, Lee C, Hui C. 2006. Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship between justiceperceptions and work-related reactions. J. Organ. Behav. 27:705–21
Bendersky C, Hays NA. 2010. Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23:323–40Bendersky C, Shah NP. 2012. The cost of status enhancement: performance effects of individuals’ status
mobility in task groups. Organ. Sci. 23:308–22Berdahl JL, Martorana P. 2006. Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group
discussion. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:497–509Berger J, Cohen BP, Zelditch M. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. Am. Sociol. Rev.
37:241–55Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6:479–508Berger J, Zelditch M. 1985. Status, Rewards, and Influence. San Francisco: Jossey-BassBlader SL, Chen Y-R. 2012. Differentiating the effects of status and power: a justice perspective. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 102:944–1014Blau PM. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: WileyBlau PM, Scott WR. 1962. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
PressBoeker W. 1992. Power and managerial dismissal: scapegoating at the top. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:400–21BohnsVK,WiltermuthSS. 2012. It hurtswhen I do this (or youdo that): posture andpain tolerance. J.Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 48:341–45BoksemMAS, Smolders R, Cremer DD. 2012. Social power and approach-related neural activity. Soc. Cogn.
Affect. Neurosci. 7:516–20Bowles HR, Gelfand M. 2010. Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance. Psychol. Sci.
21:49–54Boyer MM, Ortiz-Molina H. 2008. Career concerns of top executives, managerial ownership and CEO
succession. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 16:178–93Brass DJ. 1984. Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Adm.
Sci. Q. 29:518–39Brass DJ. 2002. Intraorganizational power and dependence. In The Blackwell Companion to Organizations,
ed. JAC Baum, pp. 138–57. Oxford, UK: BlackwellBrass DJ, Krackhardt DM. 2012. Power, politics, and social networks in organizations. In Politics in
Organizations: Theory andResearchConsiderations, ed.GRFerris,DCTreadway, pp. 355–75.NewYork:Routledge
Briñol P, Petty RE, Valle C, Rucker DD, Becerra A. 2007. The effects of message recipients’ power before andafter persuasion: a self-validation analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:1040–53
Brion S, AndersonC. 2013. The loss of power: how illusions of alliance contribute to powerholders’ downfall.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 121:129–39
Brouer RL, Harris KJ, Kacmar KM. 2011. The moderating effects of political skill on the perceived politics–outcome relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 32:869–85
Brunell AB, Gentry WA, Campbell WK, Hoffman BJ, Kuhnert KW, DeMarree KG. 2008. Leader emergence:the case of the narcissistic leader. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:1663–76
Bunderson JS. 2003. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: a status characteristics perspective.Adm. Sci. Q. 48:557–91
Burgmer P, Englich B. 2013. Bullseye! How power improves motor performance. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.4:224–32
Burt RS. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.313 pp.
Burt RS. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423Carney DR, Cuddy AJC, Yap AJ. 2010. Power posing: brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels
and risk tolerance. Psychol. Sci. 21:1363–68
88 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Casciaro T, LoboMS. 2008.When competence is irrelevant: the role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties.Adm. Sci. Q. 53:655–84
Catalyst. 2013. Catalyst Pyramid: U.S. Women in Business. New York: CatalystChatterjee A, Hambrick DC. 2007. It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on
company strategy and performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:351–86Chen S, Lee-Chai AY, Bargh JA. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social
power. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:173–87Cheng JT, Tracy JL, FoulshamT,KingstoneA,Henrich J. 2012. Twoways to the top: evidence that dominance
and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.104:103–25
Cho Y, Fast NJ. 2012. Power, defensive denigration, and the assuaging effect of gratitude expression. J. Exp.Soc. Psychol. 48:778–82
Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. 2004. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol.55:591–621
Coleman JS. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressCook A, Glass C. 2013. Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to
CEO? Strateg. Manag. J. In press. doi: 10.1002/smj.2161Costello K, Hodson G. 2011. Social dominance-based threat reactions to immigrants in need of assistance.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41:220–31Côté S, Kraus MW, Cheng BH, Oveis C, Van der Löwe I, et al. 2011. Social power facilitates the effect of
prosocial orientation on empathic accuracy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101:217–32Crozier M. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressCyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. New York: Prentice HallDavis K, Moore WE. 1945. Some principles of stratification. Am. Sociol. Rev. 10:242–49De Waal FBM, Harcourt AH. 1992. Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals. Oxford,
UK: Oxford Univ. PressDeCellesKA,DeRueDS,Margolis JD,CeranicTL. 2012.Doespower corruptor enable?Whenandwhypower
facilitates self-interested behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:681–89DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL, Vohs KD. 2011. How leaders self-regulate their task performance:
evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100:47–65Driskell JE, Mullen B. 1990. Status, expectations, and behavior: a meta-analytic review and test of the theory.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 16:541–53Duguid MM, Goncalo JA. 2012. Living large: the powerful overestimate their own height. Psychol. Sci.
23:36–40Eagly AH. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumEagly AH, Karau SJ. 1991. Gender and the emergence of leaders: a meta-analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
60:685–710Eagly AH, Karau SJ. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev.
109(3):573–98Eastwick PW,Wilkey BM, Finkel EJ, Lambert NM, Fitzsimons GM, et al. 2013. Act with authority: romantic
desire at the nexus of power possessed and power perceived. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:267–71Eaton AA, Visser PS, Krosnick JA, Anand S. 2009. Social power and attitude strength over the life course.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:1646–60Elliott JR, Smith RA. 2004. Race, gender, and workplace power. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:365–86Emerson RM. 1962. Power dependence relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 27:30–41Ent MR, Baumeister RF, Vonasch AJ. 2012. Power, leadership, and self-regulation. Soc. Personal. Psychol.
Compass 6:619–30FarisR, FelmleeD. 2011. Status struggles: network centrality andgender segregation in same- and cross-gender
aggression. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76:48–73Fast NJ, Chen S. 2009. When the boss feels inadequate: power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychol. Sci.
20:1406–13
89www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
FastNJ, GruenfeldDH, SivanathanN,GalinskyAD. 2009. Illusory control: a generative force behind power’sfar-reaching effects. Psychol. Sci. 20:502–8
Fast NJ, HalevyN, Galinsky AD. 2012a. The destructive nature of power without status. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48:391–94
Fast NJ, Sivanathan N, Mayer ND, Galinsky AD. 2012b. Power and overconfident decision-making.Organ.Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117:249–60
FergusonAJ,OrmistonME,MoonH. 2010. Fromapproach to inhibition: the influence of power on responsesto poor performers. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:305–20
Ferris GR, Treadway DC, Perrewe PL, Brouer RL, Douglas C, Lux S. 2007. Political skill in organizations.J. Manag. 33:290–320
Fischer J, Fischer P, Englich B, AydinN, Frey D. 2011. Empowermy decisions: the effects of power gestures onconfirmatory information processing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:1146–54
FischerR,HankeK, SibleyCG. 2012.Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation:a cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Polit. Psychol. 33:437–67
Fiske ST. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. Am. Psychol. 48:621–28Fiske ST. 2004. Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology. New York: WileyFiske ST. 2010. Interpersonal stratification: status, power, and subordination. In Handbook of Social Psy-
chology, ed. ST Fiske, DT Gilbert, G Lindzey, pp. 941–82. New York: Wiley. 5th ed.Fiske ST, Berdahl JL. 2007. Social power. In Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. AW
Kruglanski, ET Higgins, pp. 678–92. New York: GuilfordFiske ST,CuddyAJ,Glick P,Xu J. 2002.Amodel of (oftenmixed) stereotype content: competence andwarmth
respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:878–902Fleming P, Spicer A. 2008. Beyond power and resistance: new approaches to organizational politics.Manag.
Commun. Q. 21:301–9Flynn FJ, Reagans R, Amanatullah ET, Ames DR. 2006. Helping one’s way to the top: self-monitors achieve
status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:1123–37Fragale AR, Overbeck JR, Neale MA. 2011. Resources versus respect: social judgments based on targets’
power and status positions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:767–75Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Magee JC. 2003. From power to action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:453–66Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Whitson JA. 2008. Power reduces the press of the situation:
implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:1450–66Galinsky AD,Mussweiler T. 2001. First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:657–69Garcia-Retamero R, Müller SM, Rousseau DL. 2012. The impact of value similarity and power on the
perception of threat. Polit. Psychol. 33:179–93Gervais SJ, Guinote A, Allen J, Slabu L. 2013. Power increases situated creativity. Soc. Influ. 8:294–311Gesquiere LR, Learn NH, SimaoMCM,Onyango PO, Alberts SC, Altmann J. 2011. Life at the top: rank and
stress in wild male baboons. Science 333:357–60Gouldner AW. 1954. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free PressGranovetter M. 1973. Strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:1360–80Gray JA. 1994. Three fundamental emotion systems. In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions, ed.
P Ekman, RJ Davidson, pp. 243–47. New York: Oxford Univ. PressGreer LL, Caruso HM, Jehn KA. 2011. The bigger they are, the harder they fall: linking team power, team
conflict, and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:116–28GreveHR,MitsuhashiH. 2007. Power and glory: concentrated power in topmanagement teams.Organ. Stud.
28:1197–221Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, Galinsky AD. 2008. Power and the objectification of social targets.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:111–27Gruenfeld DH, Preston J. 2000. Upending the status quo: cognitive complexity in US Supreme Court justices
who overturn legal precedent. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:1013–22Guinote A. 2007a. Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol.
18:256–95
90 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Guinote A. 2007b. Power and goal pursuit. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:1076–87Guinote A. 2008. Power and affordances: when the situation has more power over powerful than powerless
individuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 95:237–52Guinote A. 2010. The situated focus theory of power. See Guinote & Vescio 2010, pp. 141–73Guinote A, Vescio TK. 2010. The Social Psychology of Power. New York: GuilfordGuinote A, Weick M, Cai A. 2012. Does power magnify the expression of dispositions? Psychol. Sci.
23:475–82Guinote A, Willis GB, Martellotta C. 2010. Social power increases implicit prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
46:299–307Gwinn JD, JuddCM,ParkB. 2013. Less power¼ less human?Effects of power differentials ondehumanization.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:464–70Hall JA, Coats EJ, LeBeauLS. 2005.Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: ameta-
analysis. Psychol. Bull. 131:898–924HaselhuhnMP,Wong EM. 2012. Bad to the bone: facial structure predicts unethical behaviour. Proc. R. Soc.
B: Biol. Sci. 279:571–76Hirsh JB, Galinsky AD, Zhong C-B. 2011. Drunk, powerful, and in the dark. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
6:415–27Hobbes T. 1968 (1651). Leviathan. Harmondsworth, UK: PenguinHogan R, Curphy GJ, Hogan J. 1994. What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. Am.
Psychol. 49:493–504Horcajo J, Petty RE, Briñol P. 2010. The effects of majority versusminority source status on persuasion: a self-
validation analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99:498–512Howard ES, Gardner WL, Thompson L. 2007. The role of the self-concept and the social context in de-
termining the behavior of power holders: self-construal in intergroup versus dyadic dispute resolutionnegotiations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:614–31
Huang L, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Guillory LE. 2011. Powerful postures versus powerful roles: Which isthe proximate correlate of thought and behavior? Psychol. Sci. 22:95–102
Inesi ME. 2010. Power and loss aversion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:58–69Jackson DN. 1974. Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen, NY: Res. Psychol. PressJohnOP, Srivastava S. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.
In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, ed. LA Pervin, OP John, pp. 102–38. New York:Guilford
Johnson CS, Lammers J. 2012. The powerful disregard social comparison information. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48:329–34
Joosten A, Dijke M, Hiel A, Cremer D. 2013. Being “in control”may make you lose control: the role of self-regulation in unethical leadership behavior. J. Bus. Ethics In press. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1686-2
Jordan J, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD. 2011. Something to lose and nothing to gain: the role of stress in theinteractive effect of power and stability on risk taking. Adm. Sci. Q. 56:530–58
Joshi PD, Fast NJ. 2013. Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychol. Sci. 24:432–38Jost JT, Banaji MR. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false con-
sciousness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:1–27Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of
conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit. Psychol. 25:881–919Jost JT, Chaikalis-Petritsis V, Abrams D, Sidanius J, Van der Toorn J, Bratt C. 2012. Why men (and women)
do and don’t rebel: effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.38:197–208
Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. 2002. Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitativereview. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:765–80
Judge TA, CableDM. 2004. The effect of physical height onworkplace success and income: preliminary test ofa theoretical model. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:428–41
Judge TA, Colbert AE, Ilies R. 2004. Intelligence and leadership: a quantitative review and test of theoreticalpropositions. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:542–52
91www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Kamans E,Otten S, Gordijn EH. 2011. Power and threat in intergroup conflict: how emotional and behavioralresponses depend on amount and content of threat. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14:293–310
Karremans JC, Smith PK. 2010. Having the power to forgive: when the experience of power increases in-terpersonal forgiveness. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:1010–23
Kay AC, Banfield JC, Laurin K. 2010. The system justification motive and the maintenance of social power.See Guinote & Vescio 2010, pp. 313–40
Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev. 110:265–84Keltner D, Van Kleef GA, Chen S, Kraus MW,Mark PZ. 2008. A reciprocal influence model of social power:
emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:151–92Kennedy JA, Kray LJ. 2014. Who is willing to sacrifice ethical values for money and social status? Gender
differences in reactions to ethical compromises. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 5(1):52–59Khan SA, LevineWJ, Dobson SD, Kralik JD. 2011. Red signals dominance in male rhesus macaques. Psychol.
Sci. 22:1001–3Kifer Y,Heller D, PerunovicWQE,GalinskyAD. 2013. The good life of the powerful: the experience of power
and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychol. Sci. 24:280–88Kilduff M, Day DV. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers.
Acad. Manag. J. 37:1047Kipnis D. 1972. Does power corrupt? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 24:33–41Koenig AM, Eagly AH,Mitchell AA, Ristikari T. 2011. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of
three research paradigms. Psychol. Bull. 137:616–42Kopelman S. 2009. The effect of culture and power on cooperation in commons dilemmas: implications for
global resource management. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108:153–63Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations.Adm.
Sci. Q. 35:342–69Kramer RM. 2000. Political paranoia in organizations: antecedents and consequences. Res. Sociol. Organ.
17:47–88Kraus MW, Chen S, Keltner D. 2011. The power to be me: power elevates self-concept consistency and
authenticity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:974–80Kuhn TS. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 212 pp.Kunstman JW,Maner JK. 2011. Sexual overperception: power,matingmotives, and biases in social judgment.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100:282–94Lammers J, Dubois D, RuckerDD, Galinsky AD. 2013. Power gets the job: priming power improves interview
outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:776–79Lammers J,GalinskyAD,Gordijn EH,Otten S. 2008. Illegitimacymoderates the effects of power on approach.
Psychol. Sci. 19:558–64Lammers J, Galinsky AD, Gordijn EH,Otten S. 2012. Power increases social distance. Soc. Psychol. Personal.
Sci. 3:282–90Lammers J, Stapel DA. 2011. Power increases dehumanization. Group Process. Intergroup Relat.
14:113–26Lammers J, Stapel DA, Galinsky AD. 2010a. Power increases hypocrisy. Psychol. Sci. 21:737–44Lammers J, Stoker JI, Stapel DA. 2009. Differentiating social and personal power: opposite effects on stereo-
typing, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychol. Sci. 20:1543–48Lammers J, Stoker JI, Stapel DA. 2010b. Power and behavioral approach orientation in existing power
relations and the mediating effect of income. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:543–51LangnerCA, Epel ES,MatthewsKA,Moskowitz JT, AdlerNE. 2012. Social hierarchy and depression: the role
of emotion suppression. J. Psychol. 146:417–36Langner CA, Keltner D. 2008. Social power and emotional experience: actor and partner effects within dyadic
interactions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:848–56Lee F, Tiedens LZ. 2001. Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders.Res.
Organ. Behav. 23:43–91LeeMT, Ofshe R. 1981. The impact of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: a test of
two competing theories. Soc. Psychol. Q. 44:73–82
92 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Lenski GE. 1966. Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-HillLewellyn KB, Muller-Kahle MI. 2012. CEO power and risk taking: evidence from the subprime lending
industry. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 20:289–307Locke CC, Anderson C. 2010. The downside of looking like a leader: leaders’ powerful demeanor stifles
follower voice in participative decision-making. Presented at Acad. Manag. Annu.Meet., 70th, Aug.6–10, Montreal, Can.
Locke J. 1998 (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: PenguinLord RG, De Vader CL, Alliger GM. 1986. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits
and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures. J. Appl. Psychol.71:402–10
Lukaszewski AW. 2013. Testing an adaptationist theory of trait covariation: relative bargaining power asa common calibrator of an interpersonal syndrome. Eur. J. Personal. 27:328–45
Magee JC,GalinskyAD. 2008. Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing nature of power and status.Acad.Manag.Ann. 2:351–98
Magee JC,GalinskyAD,GruenfeldDH. 2007. Power, propensity to negotiate, andmoving first in competitiveinteractions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:200–12
Magee JC, Kilduff GJ, Heath C. 2011. On the folly of principal’s power: managerial psychology as a cause ofbad incentives. Res. Organ. Behav. 31:25–41
Magee JC, Langner CA. 2008. How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial andprosocial decision-making. J. Res. Personal. 42:1547–59
Magee JC,Milliken FJ, Lurie AR. 2010. Power differences in the construal of a crisis: the immediate aftermathof September 11, 2001. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:354–70
Magee JC, Smith PK. 2013. The social distance theory of power. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:158–86Malhotra D, Gino F. 2011. The pursuit of power corrupts: how investing in outside options motivates
opportunism in relationships. Adm. Sci. Q. 56:559–92Malmendier U, Tate G. 2008. Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction.
J. Financ. Econ. 89:20–43Maner JK,MeadNL. 2010. The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group
goals for the sake of self-interest. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99:482–97MannRD. 1959. A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups.Psychol.
Bull. 56:241–70Mason MF, Zhang S, Dyer RL. 2010. Male susceptibility to attentional capture by power cues. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 46:482–85Mawritz MB, Mayer DM, Hoobler JM, Wayne SJ, Marinova SV. 2012. A trickle-down model of abusive
supervision. Pers. Psychol. 65:325–57Mayew WJ, Parsons CA, Venkatachalam M. 2013. Voice pitch and the labor market success of male chief
executive officers. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34:243–48McClelland DC. 1985. How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Am. Psychol. 40:812–25McLaughlin H, Uggen C, Blackstone A. 2012. Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of
power. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:625–47MeadNL,Maner JK. 2012.Onkeeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power
threats. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 102:576–91Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ. 2001. The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for
workplace performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:121–46Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB. 1987. The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance.
Acad. Manag. J. 30:91–109Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM. 1985. The romance of leadership. Adm. Sci. Q. 30:78–102Menon T, Phillips KW. 2011. Getting even or being at odds? Cohesion in even- and odd-sized small groups.
Organ. Sci. 22:738–53Menon T, Sim J, Fu JH-Y, Chiu C-y, Hong Y-y. 2010. Blazing the trail versus trailing the group: culture and
perceptions of the leader’s position. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 113:51–61Milgram S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 67:371–78
93www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Mintzberg H. 1983. Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallMiyamotoY, Ji L-J. 2011. Power fosters context-independent, analytic cognition.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
37:1449–58Miyamoto Y, Wilken B. 2010. Culturally contingent situated cognition: Influencing other people fosters
analytic perception in the United States but not in Japan. Psychol. Sci. 21:1616–22Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL. 2010. The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:923–36OlekalnsM,HoranC, Smith P. 2013.Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong: structural and social determinants of
deception in negotiation. J. Bus. Ethics In press. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1754-7Overbeck JR, Neale MA, Govan CL. 2010. I feel, therefore you act: intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of
emotion on negotiation as a function of social power.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:126–39Overbeck JR, Park B. 2001.When power does not corrupt: superior individuation processes among powerful
perceivers. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:549–65Overbeck JR, Park B. 2006. Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: flexibility of powerholders’ social at-
tention. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99:227–43Oyserman D. 2011. Culture as situated cognition: cultural mindsets, cultural fluency, and meaning making.
Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 22:164–214Park LE, Streamer L, Huang L, Galinsky AD. 2013. Stand tall, but don’t put your feet up: universal and
culturally-specific effects of expansive postures on power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:965–71Park SH, Westphal JD, Stern I. 2011. Set up for a fall: the insidious effects of flattery and opinion conformity
toward corporate leaders. Adm. Sci. Q. 56:257–302Parsons T. 1940. An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. Am. J. Sociol. 45:841–62Pettit NC, Yong K, Spataro SE. 2010. Holding your place: reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:396–401Pfeffer J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: PitmanPfeffer J, Cialdini RB, Hanna B, Knopoff K. 1998. Faith in supervision and the self-enhancement bias: two
psychological reasons why managers don’t empower workers. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 20:313–21Pfeffer J, Fong CT. 2005. Building organization theory from first principles: the self-enhancement motive and
understanding power and influence. Organ. Sci. 16:372–88Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.
New York: Harper & RowPratto F, Stallworth LM, Sidanius J. 1997. The gender gap: differences in political attitudes and social
dominance orientation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:49–68Prislin R, Sawicki V,WilliamsK. 2011.Newmajorities’ abuse of power: effects of perceived control and social
support. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14:489–504PutsDA,HodgesCR,CárdenasRA,Gaulin SJC. 2007.Men’s voices as dominance signals: Vocal fundamental
and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evol. Hum. Behav. 28:340–44RaskinR,TerryH.1988.Aprincipal-components analysis of theNarcissistic Personality Inventory and further
evidence of its construct validity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:890–902Raven BH. 2008. The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Anal. Soc.
Issues Public Policy 8:1–22Ridgeway CL. 1982. Status in groups: the importance of motivation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:76–88Riggio RE. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51:649–60Rivers JJ, Josephs RA. 2010. Dominance and health. See Guinote & Vescio 2010, pp. 87–112Roberts SC. 2012. Evolution, appearance, and occupational success. Evol. Psychol. 10:782–801Ronay R, Greenaway K, Anicich EM, Galinsky AD. 2012. The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: when
hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychol. Sci. 23:669–77Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Nauts S. 2012. Status incongruity and backlash effects:
defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48:165–79
Rule NO, Ambady N. 2008. The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predictcompany profits. Psychol. Sci. 19:109–11
94 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Rush MC, Phillips JS, Lord RG. 1981. Effects of a temporal delay in rating on leader behavior descriptions:a laboratory investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:442–50
Russell B. 2004 (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. New York: RoutledgeSalancik GR, Pfeffer J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.Adm.
Sci. Q. 23:224–53Sande GN, Ellard JH, Ross M. 1986. Effect of arbitrarily assigned status labels on self-perceptions and social
perceptions: the mere position effect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:684–89Sapolsky RM. 2005. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science 308:648–52Sasovova Z, Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Schippers MC. 2010. Network churn: the effects of self-monitoring
personality on brokerage dynamics. Adm. Sci. Q. 55:639–70Sassenberg K, Ellemers N, Scheepers D. 2012. The attraction of social power: the influence of construing
power as opportunity versus responsibility. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:550–55Sauer SJ, Thomas-Hunt MC, Morris PA. 2010. Too good to be true? The unintended signaling effects of
educational prestige on external expectations of team performance. Organ. Sci. 21:1108–20Scheepers D, de Wit F, Ellemers N, Sassenberg K. 2012. Social power makes the heart work more efficiently:
evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:371–74Schmid PC, SchmidMastM. 2013. Power increases performance in a social evaluation situation as a result of
decreased stress responses. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43:201–11Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Schmid PC. 2010. Wanting to be boss and wanting to be subordinate: effects on
performance motivation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40:458–72Schmid Mast M, Jonas K, Cronauer CK, Darioly A. 2012. On the importance of the superior’s interpersonal
sensitivity for good leadership. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42:1043–68SchmidMastM, JonasK,Hall JA. 2009.Give a person power and he or shewill show interpersonal sensitivity:
the phenomenon and its why and when. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97:835–50SchminkeM,CropanzanoR,RuppDE.2002.Organization structure and fairness perceptions: themoderating
effects of organizational level. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89:881–905See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, Soll JB. 2011. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice
taking, and accuracy. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:272–85Shariff AF, Tracy JL, Markusoff JL. 2012. (Implicitly) judging a book by its cover: the power of pride and
shame expressions in shaping judgments of social status. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:1178–93Shen W, Cannella AA. 2002. Power dynamics within top management and their impacts on CEO dismissal
followed by inside succession. Acad. Manag. J. 45:1195–206SibleyCG, Liu JH. 2010. Social dominance orientation: testing a global individual difference perspective.Polit.
Psychol. 31:175–207Simpson B, Markovsky B, Steketee M. 2011. Power and the perception of social networks. Soc. Netw.
33:166–71Slabu L, Guinote A. 2010.Gettingwhat youwant: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 46:344–49SmallDA,GelfandM,BabcockL,GettmanH.2007.Whogoes to thebargaining table?The influenceof gender
and framing on the initiation of negotiation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:600–13Smith PK, Bargh JA. 2008. Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Soc.
Cogn. 26:1–24Smith PK, Galinsky AD. 2010. The nonconscious nature of power: cues and consequences. 4:918–38Smith PK, Jostmann NB, Galinsky AD, van Dijk WW. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions.
Psychol. Sci. 19:441–47Smith PK, Trope Y. 2006. You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: power priming and
abstract information processing. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90:578–96Stern I, Westphal JD. 2010. Stealthy footsteps to the boardroom: executives’ backgrounds, sophisticated
interpersonal influence behavior, and board appointments. Adm. Sci. Q. 55:278–319Stogdill RM. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. J. Psychol.
25:35–71
95www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
SuttonRI,GalunicDC. 1996.Consequences of public scrutiny for leaders and their organizations.Res.Organ.Behav. 18:201–50
Sweetman J, Spears R, Livingstone AG, Manstead ASR. 2013. Admiration regulates social hierarchy:antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:534–42
TepperBJ. 2007.Abusive supervision inworkorganizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. J.Manag.33:261–89
Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: WileyThompson JD. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administration. New York:
McGraw-HillThorndike EL. 1920. A constant error in psychological ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 4:25–29Tiedens LZ, Fragale AR. 2003. Power moves: complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal be-
havior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:558–68TodorovA, SaidCP, EngellAD,OosterhofNN.2008.Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions.
Trends Cogn. Sci. 12:455–60Torelli CJ, Shavitt S. 2010. Culture and concepts of power. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99:703–23Torelli CJ, Shavitt S. 2011. The impact of power on information processing depends on cultural orientation.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:959–67Tost L, Gino F, Larrick R. 2012. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: why the powerful don’t listen.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117:53–65Tost L, Gino F, Larrick R. 2013.When powermakes others speechless: the negative impact of leader power on
team performance. Acad. Manag. J. 56(5):1465–86Uzzi B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:
the network effect. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:674–98Van der Toorn J, Feinberg M, Jost JT, Kay AC, Tyler TR, et al. 2013. A sense of powerlessness fosters system
justification: on the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Polit. Psychol. In pressVan der Toorn J, Tyler TR, Jost JT. 2011. More than fair: outcome dependence, system justification, and the
perceived legitimacy of authority figures. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:127–38VanDijkE,DeCremerD. 2006. Self-benefiting in the allocationof scarce resources: leader-follower effects and
the moderating effect of social value orientations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32:1352–61Van Doesum NJ, Van Lange DAW, Van Lange PAM. 2013. Social mindfulness: skill and will to navigate the
social world. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105:86–103Van Kleef GA, Côté S. 2007. Expressing anger in conflict: when it helps and when it hurts. J. Appl. Psychol.
92:1557–69Van Kleef GA, Homan AC, Finkenauer C, Blaker NM, Heerdink MW. 2012. Prosocial norm violations fuel
power affordance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:937–42Van Kleef GA, Oveis C, Van der Löwe I, LuoKogan A, Goetz J, Keltner D. 2008. Power, distress, and
compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychol. Sci. 19:1315–22Van Vugt M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
10:354–71Vartanian LR, Silverstein KM. 2013. Obesity as a status cue: perceived social status and the stereotypes of
obese individuals. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43:E319–28Vescio TK, Schlenker KA, Lenes JG. 2010. Power and sexism. See Guinote & Vescio 2010, pp. 363–80Watson D, Clark LA. 1997. Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Handbook of Personality
Psychology, ed. R Hogan, JA Johnson, pp. 767–93. San Diego, CA: AcademicWeber M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free PressWeber M. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: BedminsterWeick M, Guinote A. 2008. When subjective experiences matter: Power increases reliance on the ease of
retrieval. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:956–70Weick M, Guinote A. 2010. How long will it take? Power biases time predictions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
46:595–604
96 Anderson � Brion
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Westphal JD, Deephouse DL. 2011. Avoiding bad press: interpersonal influence in relations between CEOsand journalists and the consequences for press reporting about firms and their leadership. Organ. Sci.22:1061–86
Whitson JA, Liljenquist KA, Galinsky AD, Magee JC, Gruenfeld DH, Cadena B. 2013. The blind leading:power reduces awareness of constraints. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:579–82
Willer R. 2009. A status theory of collective action. Adv. Group Process. 26:133–63Willer R, Youngreen R, Troyer L, Lovaglia MJ. 2012. How do the powerful attain status? The roots of
legitimate power inequalities. Manag. Decis. Econ. 33:355–67Williams LA, DeSteno D. 2009. Pride: adaptive social emotion or seventh sin? Psychol. Sci. 20:284–88WillisGB,GuinoteA. 2011.The effects of social powerongoal content andgoal striving: a situatedperspective.
Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 5:706–19Willis GB, Guinote A, Rodríguez-Bailón R. 2010. Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:416–19Winter DG, Stewart AJ. 1983. The power motive. In Dimensions of Personality, ed. H London, JE Exner,
pp. 391–447. New York: WileyWisse B, Rus D. 2012. Leader self-concept and self-interested behavior. J. Pers. Psychol. 11:40–48Wong EM,OrmistonME,HaselhuhnMP. 2011. A face only an investor could love. Psychol. Sci. 22:1478–83WoodW,LundgrenS,Ouellette JA,BuscemeS, BlackstoneT. 1994.Minority influence: ameta-analytic review
of social influence processes. Psychol. Bull. 115:323–45YapAJ,MasonMF,AmesDR. 2013a. Thepowerful size others down: the linkbetweenpower and estimates of
others’ size. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49:591–94Yap AJ,Wazlawek AS, Lucas BJ, Cuddy AJC, Carney DR. 2013b. The ergonomics of dishonesty: the effect of
incidental expansive posture on stealing, cheating, and traffic violations. Psychol. Sci. 24:2281–89Yukl G, Wall S, Lepsinger R. 1990. Preliminary report on validation of the Managerial Practices Survey. In
Measures of Leadership, ed. KE Clark, MB Clark, pp. 223–38. West Orange, NJ: Leadersh. Lib. Am.Zhong C-B, Magee JC, Maddux WW, Galinsky AD. 2006. Power, culture, and action: considerations in the
expression and enactment of power in EastAsian andWestern societies. InResearchonManagingGroupsand Teams, ed. EA Mannix, M Neale, Y Chen, pp. 53–73. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier
Zimbardo PG. 1973. On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: with special reference tothe Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition 2:243–56
Zyphur MJ, Narayanan J, Koh G, Koh D. 2009. Testosterone–status mismatch lowers collective efficacy ingroups: evidence from a slope-as-predictor multilevel structural equation model. Organ. Behav. Hum.Decis. Process. 110:70–79
97www.annualreviews.org � Perspectives on Power in Organizations
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Annual Review of
Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational Behavior
Volume 1, 2014 Contents
What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OBLyman W. Porter and Benjamin Schneider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of anInterpersonal ConstructAmy C. Edmondson and Zhike Lei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of EffectivePerformance at WorkNeal Schmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Perspectives on Power in OrganizationsCameron Anderson and Sebastien Brion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Work–Family Boundary DynamicsTammy D. Allen, Eunae Cho, and Laurenz L. Meier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker DeviantBehavior upon Individual EmployeesSandra L. Robinson, Wei Wang, and Christian Kiewitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy andCompetitive AdvantageRobert E. Ployhart and Donald Hale, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Employee Voice and SilenceElizabeth W. Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job EmbeddednessThomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, and Terence R. Mitchell . . . . . . . . 199
Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining theIntersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century TeamsCristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman,and Debra L. Shapiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
viii
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
Learning in the Twenty-First-Century WorkplaceRaymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, and Howard J. Klein . . . . . . . . . . 245
Compassion at WorkJane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, and Ashley E. Hardin . . . . . . . . . 277
Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical ChallengesPeter Cappelli and JR Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and RedirectionJing Zhou and Inga J. Hoever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home PerspectiveJeffrey H. Greenhaus and Ellen Ernst Kossek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R ApproachArnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel . . . 389
The Psychology of EntrepreneurshipMichael Frese and Michael M. Gielnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital inOrganizational SocializationTalya N. Bauer and Berrin Erdogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Emotional Intelligence in OrganizationsStéphane Côté . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Intercultural CompetenceKwok Leung, Soon Ang, and Mei Ling Tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Pay DispersionJason D. Shaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Constructively Managing Conflicts in OrganizationsDean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, and Nancy Yi Feng Chen . . . . . . . . . . 545
An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: ImprovingResearch Quality Before Data CollectionHerman Aguinis and Robert J. Vandenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology andOrganizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/orgpsych.
Contents ix
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
AnnuAl Reviewsit’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.
AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our expertsTel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]
New From Annual Reviews:
Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org
Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAssociate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of ChicagoThe Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.
Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015. table of contents:•What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg•A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan
•The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk
•Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman•Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp•Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein•Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,
Matthias Katzfuss•Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert•Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal•Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent
Variable Models, David M. Blei•Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright
•High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
•Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
•Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
•Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding•StatisticalEvaluationofForensicDNAProfileEvidence,
Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding•Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein•Statistical Ecology, Ruth King•Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh•Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
Susan A. Murphy•Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
Hong Qian, S.C. Kou•Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert
Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.
Ann
u. R
ev. O
rgan
. Psy
chol
. Org
an. B
ehav
. 201
4.1:
67-9
7. D
ownl
oade
d fr
om w
ww
.ann
ualr
evie
ws.
org
by U
nive
rsid
ad N
acio
nal M
ayor
de
San
Mar
cos
on 0
5/14
/14.
For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.