RUNNING HEAD: Status conflict in groups Status Conflict in Groups

We introduce status conflicts-defined as attempts to defend or elevate one's own relative status (i.e., prominence or respect)-as a key group process that affects task group performance. Using mixed research methods, we qualitatively identify the characteristics of status conflicts, validate a four-item survey scale that distinctly measures status conflict, and investigate the relationship between status conflict and group performance. We determine that status conflict exerts a significant, negative main effect and moderates the effects of task conflict on group performance. A significant volume of research has analyzed the relationship between various types of conflict and task group performance (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart 2003b). Scholars have distinguished among task conflict, which is disagreement over ideas, viewpoints and opinions pertaining to the group's task, relationship conflict, which is disagreement resulting from interpersonal incompatibilities, including affective components such as feeling tension and process conflict, which is conflict about dividing and delegating responsibilities and deciding how to get work done (Jehn 1997). As we read ethnographies of organizational conflicts, however, we found numerous examples that did not fit one of those three categories. Instead, they seemed to involve conflicts over status, which is the prominence and respect conferred upon an individual by others & Correll 2006). For example, consider the description of " Black Friday " in Roy's (1959) classic Banana Time article. In this example, low status Ike publically insulted high status George. George perceived this as a challenge to his superior status, and responded by giving Ike the " silent treatment " for thirteen days. To the author, George said, " Ike acts like a five-year old, not a man! … He's always fooling around! I'm going to stop that! I'm going to show him his place! " (p. 165, italics added). In the end, the relationship between George and Ike returned to normal only once the status order had been clearly restored. The symbolic power one derives from positions of high status depends on the acceptance and deference of low status group members (Goffman 1967). Given the benefits of status, including greater influence, credit for contributing more to the group than others, rewards such as information and resources that contribute to individuals' performance (Friedkin 1999; Ridgeway & Correll 2006), and more positive evaluations than those with low status in groups (Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch 1980), it Status conflicts in groups 3 seems logical that individuals would compete for status and …