Donald P. Moynihan, Editor

Joe C. Magee Clifford W. Frasier New York University

Status and Power: Th e Principal Inputs Theory to Practice to Infl uence for Public Managers

Th e authors identify status and power as the principal activities of public managers (e.g., Abney and Lauth Joe C. Magee is associate professor of management in the Robert F. Wagner bases of infl uence for public managers and describe how 1982; Miller 1987; Stehr 1997). Notwithstanding this Graduate School of Public Service at New managers can use this conceptual distinction to increase kind of punctuated advance, a cumulative research York University. His primary area of research their infl uence. Status is defi ned as the degree to which agenda on infl uence in public administration has yet is the roles of hierarchy in organizations and society, with secondary interests in one is respected by one’s colleagues, and power is defi ned to take shape (Jensen 2007). On its face, this claim social neuroscience and the social functions as asymmetric control over valued resources. Diff erent might appear unable to bear its own weight. After all, of emotion. He is author of several journal social and relational processes govern (1) how people since the dawn of public administration scholarship, articles and book chapters on these topics published in the fi elds of management and determine who is, and who ought to be, high status versus both researchers and practitioners have pursued lines social psychology. powerful and (2) how status and power aff ect individual of inquiry into why some individuals and organiza- E-mail: [email protected] psychology and behavior. To illustrate key points, the tions are more infl uential than others (e.g., Carpenter authors provide examples of individuals from the public and Krause 2012; Riccucci 1995; Selznick 1957; sector and public service organizations. Th e framework Weber 1922) and how managers induce employees to Clifford W. Frasier is a doctoral student in public administration and management of interpersonal infl uence gives practitioners behavioral cooperate and perform eff ectively (e.g., Barnard 1938; in the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of strategies for increasing their status and power as well as Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Wright, Moynihan, Public Service at New York University. His a way to assess and diagnose interpersonal dimensions of and Pandey 2012). However, as Jensen (2007) notes in research focuses on trust relations among uneasy coalition partners and the involve- their own performance in their jobs and careers. his analysis of infl uence tactics used by policy makers, ment of interest groups in politics. the topic of interpersonal infl uence has been subsumed E-mail: [email protected] hether preparing for the approach of the under the much murkier topics of leadership and next hurricane or turning around failing organizational politics. We argue that this trend has Wschools, public managers must fi nd ways come at the expense of precision in understanding to infl uence others. In such extreme circumstances, what is meant by infl uence and how it comes about. infl uence is not only necessary to develop adequate Like Jensen (2007), we highlight an often-neglected responses but also expected of managers by their aspect of infl uence in public administration by focus- constituents. By virtue of their roles, and others’ ing on its microbehavioral processes. Specifi cally, we expectations of what someone is able to do in those propose that most cases of interpersonal infl uence are roles, managers must make decisions with far-reaching generated from two properties of social relations: social impact. Even under normal, everyday circumstances, status and power. infl uence is required to eff ect administrative outcomes (Falbe and Yukl 1992; Yukl, Seifert, and Chavez Overview of Our Contribution 2008). How, then, do public managers cultivate and We propose that social status (referred to simply as maintain the necessary sway to meet expectations and status hereafter) and power are the most signifi cant achieve organizational goals? determinants of infl uence within organizations. Both status and Th ough infl uence is exercised Both status and power are power are needed for eff ective every day in the public sector, needed for eff ective infl uence infl uence in the long term, and and the consequences for the in the long term, and individu- individuals who occupy admin- sector’s employees and for the als who occupy administrative istrative positions must keep an public more broadly can be positions must keep an eye on eye on developing each one. We high, research on infl uence in developing each one. argue that managers can expand public organizations is surpris- their scope of infl uence by shap- ingly scarce. Th ere are excep- ing the extent to which their Public Administration Review, Vol. 74, Iss. 3, pp. 307–317. © 2014 by tions, of course. For example, one stream of research colleagues perceive them as powerful and of high status The American Society for Public Administration. explores how elected executives exert control over the based on some systematic rules of person perception. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12203.

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 307 Understanding these principles of how people confer status and distinction between status and power, and by locating these phe- power provides insight into how one can increase both bases of infl u- nomena in social interactions and relationships between individuals ence. From this analysis, we off er several recommendations for how rather than between agencies and institutions. public managers can improve their interpersonal infl uence. The Principal Inputs to Infl uence: Power and Status Power has been discussed in relation to infl uence before (e.g., French Defi nitions and Raven 1959; Pfeff er 1992; Yukl, Kim, and Falbe 1996), but rarely Status is defi ned as the degree of respect others have for an individ- in the same breath as status—at least not to highlight, as we do here, ual (Fiske 2010; Magee and Galinsky 2008; Ridgeway and Walker how they are diff erent (but see Blader and Chen 2012; Magee and 1995), and respect is typically accorded to individuals who are Galinsky 2008). As in many areas of the social sciences, scholars of deemed to be both competent and concerned with others’ interests. management and organizations have tended to confl ate the concepts In these terms, status could be considered the interpersonal ana- of status and power, particularly in their analyses of formal hierarchy. logue of organizational reputation. Public agencies’ reputations are Th is has obscured the need for an assessment of their distinct roles determined by their technical competence, level of performance, in processes of infl uence. However, over the past several years, social procedural fairness, and moral treatment of stakeholders (Carpenter psychological studies have demonstrated diff erent eff ects of status and and Krause 2012), and the extent to which these dimensions are power in interpersonal relations. We argue that the cumulative results attributable to the individuals in charge of these agencies goes a long of these studies are relevant to the management of public sector and way toward deciding public managers’ status. Indeed, our recom- public service organizations. mendations for how public managers can maintain and enhance their status, and thereby increase their infl uence, will focus on their Formal hierarchy is a familiar topic of study to public management capacity to demonstrate technical competence in their jobs and to scholars, and power is embedded in formal hierarchical structures behave prosocially toward colleagues and subordinates. (Simon 1946; Wilson 1989); however, the notion of informal hier- archy as a more dynamic engine of infl uence has not yet taken hold. Th eoretically distinct from status, power is defi ned as asymmetric Once one asks how informal infl uence happens in relationships, control over valued resources (Blau 1964; Magee and Galinsky either power or status is likely to emerge as an important piece of 2008; Th ibaut and Kelley 1959), where resources include material, the answer. Of the two, power has received the lion’s share of atten- fi nancial, social, and knowledge-based resources. Although manag- tion, although even it has masqueraded under many diff erent names ers must off er some valuable resource in order to have power, our (Jensen 2007). Th is simultaneous lack of precision about constructs recommendations for how public managers can increase their power, and lack of balance in research attention to power and status makes it and thereby their infl uence, will focus on projecting an image of challenging to assess the accumulation of knowledge about infl uence control by behaving proactively and confi dently. in public organizations. As examples of research on power, we point to analyses of discretion (Wilson 1989), resource control (Stazyk and Our defi nition of power subsumes other common sources of infl u- Goerdel 2011), and authority (Alkadry and Tower 2011). Th e most ence in public service organizations, which the following examples common area of research in public administration that overlaps with make clear. In cases of asymmetric information, the resource central how we will describe status is transformational leadership (Moynihan, to the power dynamic is information valued by both parties; one Pandey, and Wright 2012; Van Wart 2003). Of the four factors of party simply has access to more valuable information than the transformational leadership, “idealized infl uence,” which involves other party. Expertise is also a resource and highlights the nature “actions that earn respect and cultivate pride” (Bass et al. 2003; Grant of dependence in power relations (Emerson 1962), wherein one 2012), adheres most closely to how we defi ne status. party depends on the knowledge of another to accomplish a task or goal. Th e expert (i.e., the power holder) can choose whether to Underlying our conceptual terrain, Long (1949) and Wilson (1989) share his or her expertise. Th is freedom of choice about the alloca- have articulated notions of power that have proven useful to public tion of a resource is part of what it means to have power. After all, administration scholars. Long (1949) calls attention to how mana- if one controls a resource, one also can choose whether and how to gerial power fl uctuates across contexts, depending on the constraints allocate it. Such discretion, as it is often called in research on public imposed and actions taken by multiple actors. Wilson (1989) management and the delivery of public services (Wilson 1989), describes how greater administrative power is associated with agen- requires fi rst that the decision maker has some degree of power. Th at cies that have wider latitude for action and that can reduce more many decision makers with substantial discretion do not have high- uncertainty. On the topic of status, Wilson (1989) notes that gov- ranking formal positions in their organizations’ hierarchies (Lipsky ernment agencies’ reputation, and thus their status, is determined 1980) is part of one of our central claims: formal position can be largely by their past performance. (Long a poor indicator of power. We also note the [1949] does not directly discuss status.) importance of status as a determinant of Individuals with more status are discretion; individuals with more status are We build on these classic analyses of public typically aff orded wider latitude typically aff orded wider latitude for action by bureaucracies by recognizing, as Long and for action by their colleagues. their colleagues. Wilson did, that the most interesting, and arguably the most consequential, stories about Although both power and status are relational infl uence emerge in the spaces and cracks between where power phenomena determined by what is valued by the parties involved, is located formally. Our analysis departs from theirs by emphasiz- our defi nitions direct attention to two important distinctions ing status as much as power, by articulating the importance of the between the concepts. Th e fi rst diff erence is the extent to which they

308 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014 are subjective. One’s status is typically related to one’s attributes, In the public eye, however, the dynamics of individuals’ power but whether others perceive and value those attributes is of greater and status, shifting based on whom they are interacting with, are importance. In our defi nition of power, the value of resources is sometimes on display. Congressional hearings, for example, often subjectively determined; however, it is necessary for one to have reveal how quickly power and status can be lost by high-profi le discretion over how resources are distributed within a social system offi cials and executives. For instance, the chairman and president for power to be present at all. Th us, power is less subjective than of BP America, Lamar McKay, was summoned to testify before the status. Th e second diff erence stems from the fi rst. Because status Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the Deepwater arises from social conferral—a perceptual and judgmental proc- Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (McKay 2010). Within BP, ess—whereas power arises from resource control, subordinates play McKay might have enjoyed both high power and high status; how- a more active role in bestowing status on a manager than in granting ever, these properties so essential to his eff ective management of BP that manager control over resources (Blader and Chen 2012). For were of little value in the face of the Senate’s regulatory power and this reason, a manager’s relationships with employees are integral to public evaluation of the company. Although McKay was adept at his or her level of status within an organization. navigating his way through the Senate’s interrogation of BP’s activi- ties, not all managers have proven so skilled at negotiating their loss Along with these important diff erences, status and power share at of status or power. For example, during another Senate hearing into least two features in common. First and foremost, both status and money laundering within Europe’s largest bank, HSBC’s head of power can be exercised for infl uence, and both properties enable compliance, David Bagley, resigned rather than attempt to survive individuals to pursue and accomplish signifi cant goals (Magee and within a vacuum left by his loss of status and power (Rushe 2012). Galinsky 2008; Yukl, Kim, and Falbe 1996). Second, status and power are context specifi c; one’s relative power or status depends on In these examples, notice that formal titles do not always clearly the set of social relationships that are relevant to a particular situ- signal individuals’ levels of power and status. Th e basic structure of ation. For instance, an individual might possess status in a depart- organizations—a small top management team or single executive, at mental committee, but that status would not necessarily translate least one layer of middle management, and a large number of lower- to a liaison role to another department. Similarly, a commissioner level employees responsible for day-to-day operations (Mintzberg might have a great deal of power within his or her agency but little 1979)—is everlasting in most organizations, but who has infl u- power in commissioner-level meetings with the mayor. ence over whom changes from year to year and from situation to situation. Th e important markers of infl uence are the extent to Public Sector Examples which an individual has discretion over valuable resources at a given U.S. Senate. A set of examples from the U.S. Senate help highlight point in time and whether that individual has the respect of his or the diff erences between power and status. High-status/high-power her colleagues. A deputy director, for example, might have more senators are common—unambiguously current information (i.e., more power) than exemplifi ed by the majority leader. However, Th e important markers of infl u- the director about a problem that needs to be for some senators, status is decoupled from ence are the extent to which an solved, and employees seek his or her counsel power. A low-status/high-power sena- rather than the director’s. Or a team leader’s tor, Roland Burris (D-IL), emerged in the individual has discretion over autocratic style might cause reactive behavior aftermath of the 2008 presidential election. valuable resources at a given from his or her team members, who choose Th e scandal-plagued Illinois governor, Rod point in time and whether that to follow the direction of one of their most Blagojevich, appointed Burris to fi nish Senator individual has the respect of his competent and trustworthy (i.e., high-status) Barack Obama’s term, and from the outset, or her colleagues. peers. Th ese are cases in which lower-ranking this appointment was clouded in controversy. individuals in the formal structure exert more When fi nally seated as a member of the major- infl uence than higher-ranking members, and ity, Burris was critical to reaching the threshold of 60 votes necessary this infl uence stems from the organic development of power or to block fi libusters against health care reform (Herszenhorn 2009). status in their day-to-day relationships with their coworkers. Burris thereby emerged as a high-power actor whose voice became ever more important as the legislation moved nearer to becoming Th ough status and power are dynamic, individuals are also con- reality (Greiner 2009). Nevertheless, Burris suff ered low status, lost strained or enabled by the status and power inherent in their the support of his colleagues in seeking a full term (Kellman 2009), organizational roles (see also Fragale, Overbeck, and Neale 2011). and did not attempt to campaign when the seat was up for election. In table 1, we present a 2 × 2 grid with a number of roles possess- ing either low or high status and low or high power. Th ese roles We fi nd an example of high-status/low-power in the 61st Senate chaplain (1995–2003), the Reverend Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, who Table 1 Selection of Roles Organized by Levels of Status and Power was described as a “one-man Greek Chorus” (West 1999), com- Low Power High Power menting on each day of former President ’s impeach- High Status • Ambassador • Executive director ment trial, and who commanded broad respect from both sides of • Member of advisory board • Head of state the aisle. Described by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) as an “anchor” • Assistant deputy commissioner • Commissioner of city agency during the trial (Harris and Broadway 1999), Ogilvie’s role was of city agency Low Status • Janitor • IRS auditor entirely grounded in status, not power. Finally, individuals with • Municipal bus driver • Prison guard neither power nor status occupy many operational roles in the • Program staff • Passport control offi cer Senate out of the public eye. Note: See Fragale, Overbeck, and Neale (2011) for more examples.

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 309 illustrate the importance of the distinction between power and goal- and action-oriented features resonate with the fi ndings that status for a broad swath of public service organizations. higher-power individuals tend to feel more conviction in their opin- ions and express more confi dence (Briñ ol et al. 2007; Fast, Halevy, When power is combined with status in individuals’ roles, as is the and Galinsky 2012; Magee, Milliken, and Lurie 2010). Other case for heads of state or many city commissioners, they are typi- research suggests that high-power individuals approach risk diff er- cally well positioned to exercise tremendous infl uence. Individuals ently than low-power individuals. Greater power is associated with in largely symbolic positions—members of an advisory board or the anticipation of positive outcomes in risky situations, and high- ambassadors to foreign countries, for example—enjoy high status power individuals make riskier choices than low-power individuals but often lack power. Although they do not have substantial control (Anderson and Berdahl 2002; Anderson and Galinsky 2006; Maner over valuable resources (i.e., power), people in these types of posi- et al. 2007). tions are still able to leverage their status toward productive ends. Power also transforms how individuals think about and treat others. In contrast, individuals who occupy roles as gatekeepers often pos- High-power individuals tend to behave assertively and egocentri- sess high power but low status (Mechanic 1962). For example, pass- cally in social exchanges, such as negotiations and public goods port control offi cers and Internal Revenue Service auditors have a dilemmas (Blader and Chen 2012). Power holders are apt to focus great deal of discretion over the fates of the people with whom they on the features of other people that make them useful to the power interface, but without professional status, their domain of infl uence holder, whereas individuals without power are less infl uenced by is extremely narrow. Th us, power without status provides only a par- their goals in how they perceive others (Gruenfeld et al. 2008). In tial and tenuous advantage. Research on “street-level bureaucracy” one experiment demonstrating the problems this can cause power- takes note of this (Lipsky 1980) and off ers a rich literature of how ful men in the workplace, Gruenfeld et al. (2008) found that men power is used in such positions. Other roles have neither power nor assigned to a high-power condition were more willing to choose an status, and without either base to draw from, infl uence within one’s attractive but only moderately competent female colleague for help organization is diffi cult to exercise in these positions. Countless jobs with a complex task than men assigned to a low-power condition. fall into this category, including the following notable examples: Th is “instrumental perception” among high-power individuals program staff at government agencies and nonprofi ts, janitorial staff , complements the fi nding that power makes people especially goal and municipal bus drivers. oriented (Overbeck and Park 2006); in this case, power holders’ attention enlists other people in the service of their goals. In light of The Distinct Effects of Power and Status these fi ndings, it is not surprising that power also reduces individu- Nothing is more revealing of the diff erences between status and als’ propensity toward perspective taking—the act of considering power than an examination of their distinct psychological eff ects. others’ thoughts and feelings (Galinsky et al. 2006). For example, Th ere has been a dramatic rise in research on the social psychol- Galinsky and colleagues (2006) asked participants under condi- ogy of power and status, and these studies have produced a body tions of high versus low power to draw a capital letter E on their of knowledge about the ways in which power and status transform forehead. Th ey were interested in the proportion of participants in how individuals think and behave. For both status and power, we the two conditions that drew the E so that it appeared backwards next describe their most robust eff ects reported in the literature to from the perspective of an observer. As they predicted, high-power date and illustrate the relevance of these fi ndings to the public sector participants were more likely to draw the E so that it was illegible to through analyses of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina (for power) and others, indicating a lack of perspective taking. Moreover, Georgesen Bernadine Healy’s tenure as president and chief executive offi cer of and Harris (1998, 2000) found that power is associated with failing the (for status). to appreciate subordinates’ contributions to collective goals, often derogating them and their work (see also Fiske 1993; Kipnis,1972). Power Power invigorates individuals, giving them a greater sense of agency, Finally, possessing power causes people to process information more resoluteness in their attitudes, and confi dence that they will achieve abstractly. When observing any object or event in the world, or even their goals. Power holders are more focused on goal-relevant infor- interpreting their own behavior, people can use varying degrees of mation (Guinote 2008; Slabu and Guinote 2010) and oriented abstraction in their mental representation—a phenomenon referred more toward taking action (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee 2003; to as the level of construal, where higher construal levels yield more Magee, Galinsky, and Gruenfeld 2007) than are powerless indi- abstract representations (Trope and Liberman 2010). High-level viduals. In one study, Galinsky and colleagues (2003) presented all construal involves a focus on central features, capturing the essence participants with a fan blowing directly at them, such that it was and meaning of the object or event. Low-level construal involves annoying and undesirable. Th ese authors found that participants attention to peripheral and concrete details. In demonstrations randomly assigned to a high-power condition were more willing that high-level construal can give meaning to ambiguous situa- than participants in a low-power condition to take the initiative in tions, participants in high-power conditions are more likely than shutting off the fan. Th eir interpretation of this result was that all participants in low-power conditions to perceive a Gestalt (i.e., a participants wanted to remove the annoying fan, but only those with complete picture) when only presented with fragments of whole power felt liberated to do so. In other words, power was an enabling pictures (such as a partial image of an airplane) (Huang et al. 2011; force that allowed participants to realize their goal. Magee and Smith and Trope 2006). Construal level also applies to how people colleagues (2007) found that in bargaining contexts, those higher represent behavior and action. When construing behavior at a high in power were more likely to initiate a negotiation and to make the level, individuals focus more on why an action is taken, whereas fi rst off er, which typically translated into superior outcomes. Th ese when construing behavior at a low level, individuals focus more on

310 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014 how to perform the action. For example, when deciding whether to Milliken, and Lurie 2010; Milliken et al. 2012) analyzed what vote in an election, one could be thinking about whether to exercise people said in the aftermath of the disasters as trace evidence of how one’s right as a citizen (high-level construal) or whether to go to the they construed the events as they were unfolding. Th is evidence poll and complete a ballot (low-level construal). As these examples came in the form of quotations attributed to specifi c individuals make clear, people can construe information and think about their in news stories and reports produced by multiple media outlets. behavior at varying levels of abstraction, and power is associated Coding these statements for three dependent variables of inter- with more abstraction. est—abstraction (versus concreteness), positivity (versus negativity), and certainty (versus uncertainty)—revealed whether people with Public sector cases: The role of power in the 9/11 attacks and signifi cant positions of power construed the disasters diff erently Hurricane Katrina. As the effects of power reviewed here have than people who did not have positions of power. Indeed, across been documented primarily using laboratory experiments, one both disasters, people in positions of power were more abstract, might wonder whether the fi ndings are applicable to public positive, and certain in their construal of the disasters. For example, management and how they might help us understand managerial the following quotations depict perspectives characteristic of high- behavior in response to real-world events. To explore these issues, and low-power individuals during the aftermath of 9/11 (Magee, Magee and colleagues (Magee, Milliken, and Lurie 2010; Milliken, and Lurie 2010): Milliken 2012) investigated the effects of power in the aftermath of two high-profi le disasters in the —the terrorist attacks High-power: “Th ese markets are remarkably strong and of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Though these disasters were remarkably resilient. And we are quite confi dent of Pakistan’s different in many respects, both of them prompted crises in the support (to pursue perpetrators), and we’re going to continue public sector and beyond. Leaders and lower-ranking employees in to move forward. We will do whatever it takes to keep these all levels of government, in nonprofi t organizations, and in for- people safe.” profi t organizations reacted to the events and tried to apply their infl uence to help remedy the many problems that arose during the Low-power: “It’s just desperate times. We will try anything crises. Each disaster also deeply affected its powerless victims, and, you can. I don’t know how they’re going to do it. (My with the assistance of frontline aid workers, those who survived tried friend)’s about 6’1,” heavy set, big shoulders, and a big chest.” to deal with the immediate impact and to make sense of how the (p. 365) disruption would change their lives. Th e high-power statement is notable for its positivity (“markets In the various responses documented by multiple media sources, are remarkably strong”), certainty (“we are quite confi dent”), Magee and colleagues investigated what appear to be drastic dif- and abstraction (except for the mention of Pakistan, there is little ferences in how people characterized events in the aftermath of specifi city). Th e low-power statement, by contrast, scores high on these disasters. Th is was no more pronounced than in the days after negativity (“desperate times”), uncertainty (“I don’t know how”), Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. Particularly notable was the and concreteness (“[My friend]’s about 6’1,” heavy set”). psychological distance that powerful individuals—the president and other government leaders, chief executive offi cers of corporations, Th e astute reader might notice that the two quotations are also and even high-ranking offi cials in the military and in police and fi re about diff erent aspects of the disaster and wonder whether it might departments—seemed to have from the experience of many of the not be the construal that but rather the object of attention that victims. Th e language used by these people in positions of authority diff ered between high- and low-power individuals. Not surprisingly, seemed like disconnected, abstract representations of the concrete there were, in fact, systematic diff erences between high- and low- experiences reported by people responding to the disaster “on the power individuals in their most frequent objects of attention, but ground” (e.g., frontline responders, aid providers, and victims). after controlling for this variable and a number of others, an analysis Milliken et al. (2012) noted that these observations paralleled of nearly 1,000 quotations from the aftermath of 9/11 revealed that the laboratory results about the relationship between power and high-power individuals’ construal was more abstract, more positive, construal level reviewed earlier (Huang et al. 2011; Smith and Trope and more certain than low-power individuals’ construal (Magee, 2006) and set out to test the validity of these results in the real Milliken, and Lurie 2010). Th ese eff ects were also replicated in the world. Th ey focused on whether power was associated with abstract context of Hurricane Katrina (Milliken et al. 2012). Magee and construal during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and conducted colleagues argue that these cognitive diff erences in how people inter- a similar analysis of the aftermath of 9/11 in order to broaden the pret events can be the origin of diffi culty for communication and implications of their fi ndings (Magee, Milliken, and Lurie 2010). coordination in response to ordinary and extraordinary events alike. In both cases, these researchers analyzed not only the connection between power and abstraction but also whether power was associ- Status ated with more positivity and more certainty, two additional fi nd- Compared to the profi le of power, status appears to be an unam- ings from the experimental research on power. biguously positive force in organizations. High-status individuals are more likely to administer processes fairly and, during negotiations, Th e destruction wrought by these disasters exposed diff erences in are more likely to reach an agreement that is mutually satisfying how low-power victims and service workers and high-power govern- with their counterparts (Blader and Chen 2012). Th is eff ect of ment offi cials, military personnel, and others with varying levels status on the success of negotiations appears to be partly attribut- of control over outcomes made sense of the chaos. To systemati- able to generalized positive perceptions of high-status members of cally investigate these diff erences, Magee and colleagues (Magee, organizations. Th at is, people who have attained high status benefi t

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 311 from a “halo eff ect” (Nisbett and Wilson 1977) in how others people tend to expect negative exchanges with their powerful col- perceive them on a wide range of favorable attributes. High-status leagues unless those colleagues have worked to earn their respect. individuals tend to be well liked (Hardy and Van Vugt 2006) Th at is, power holders without status are expected to be quarrelsome and are perceived as altruistic and cooperative (Cheng, Tracy, and and uncooperative, but with status, power holders are expected to Henrich 2010). Subordinates tend to give greater latitude to high- be sociable and helpful (Fragale, Overbeck, and Neale 2011). status managers than to low-status managers, allowing them more pathways to exercise infl uence (Bruins, Ellemers, and de Gilder Public sector case: Bernadine Healy at the helm of the Red Cross. 1999). Consistent with these fi ndings, high-status individuals’ social The brief tenure of Dr. Bernadine Healy as president and chief interactions also tend to be positive experiences (at least from their executive offi cer of the American Red Cross provides a well- perspective), as they are typically shown deference in various forms publicized illustration (Sontag 2001) of the importance of status to (Goldhamer and Shils 1939). Th ey are seen as role models, solicited leaders of public service organizations. Healy was recruited in 1999 to for advice, and privileged to receive others’ support when they need the Red Cross’s top position, for which she was eminently qualifi ed it (Fiske 2010; Henrich and Gil-White 2001). given her past experience as head of the National Institutes of Health and of ’s College of Medicine and Public One of the reasons interactions go so well for high-status individu- Health. But within two years, the board forced Healy to resign, als is the process of expectation confi rmation in social interaction. having evaluated her as unconcerned with employees’ points of view. People develop expectations of others from at least two diff erent types of observable “status characteristics” (Berger and Zelditch How could the relationship between a seasoned leader and her 1985). Diff use status characteristics are demographic categories organizational stakeholders have soured so quickly? In previous posi- (e.g., age, gender, or race) about which people hold stereotypes. tions, Healy’s professional competence had been suffi cient for others Stereotypes form the basis of generalized expectations about how to hold her in high regard, but the context for status conferral was sociable, intelligent, and motivated members of demographic groups diff erent at the Red Cross. As an array of hundreds of networked will be across contexts and situations (Fiske et al. 2002). Specifi c local chapters, the Red Cross required its managers to be cooperative status characteristics are demonstrated competencies in domains as well as individually competent. Th e organization’s mission—to that are important for the success of the group (e.g., political skill, care for the suff ering and to model civic participation—also contrib- engineering ability, or policy analysis skill). Once such expectations uted to expectations of cooperation, warmth, and trustworthiness are formed, observers are apt to treat targets in an expectation-con- among its members, and especially among its staff . To be receptive sistent manner, eliciting responses from targets that confi rm their to Healy’s leadership, the Red Cross members’ core values needed initial expectations (Darley and Fazio 1980). In this way, expecta- to match the content of Healy’s messages. After all, when people tions serve as a bridge between initial percep- make persuasive appeals that are at odds with tions and the subsequent maintenance of the values that motivate the audience being status; those who are respected simply because Expectations serve as a bridge persuaded, interpersonal infl uence is unlikely of their privileged position in society, or who between initial perceptions and to occur (Barry and Crant 2000; Clary et al. perform well during important moments early the subsequent maintenance of 1994). Healy was apparently unable to see in their careers, tend to acquire high status status. this. She missed opportunities to convey to (Berger et al. 1977; Ridgeway, Berger, and organizational stakeholders that she was con- Smith 1985). cerned with others’ interests before her own, and she gained a reputation as not giving her employees the benefi t In organizations, job titles or roles are also important sources of of the doubt. In one case, Healy suspended the pay of several staff expectations about competence. Observers tend to presume supervi- members during an investigation into their possible misconduct, sors are more competent than subordinates, even without watching well before a verdict had been reached. Eventually, the employees task interaction between them (Sande, Ellard, and Ross 1986). In an were found to have violated company policy, so the outcome of organizational simulation, Humphrey (1985) assigned participants Healy’s judgment was right. Being right, however, was not what was to manager and clerk roles and found that clerks rated managers as important in the eyes of her employees and volunteer leaders, who more competent than fellow clerks even though they knew the roles lost respect for her because she was unfair in reaching a hasty con- were randomly assigned. Th us, status characteristics provide a dis- clusion. From a series of actions in a similar spirit—competent but tinct advantage to people who possess them, and for those who do not generous or empathic—subordinates began to anticipate and not, deferring to their high-status counterparts is the most typical expect negative interactions, fearful of becoming her next target. response. Th ese dynamics of status illuminate how some employees can ascend to prestigious positions with little contest: assumed to Healy’s actions at the Red Cross were a quintessential example of a be competent based on status characteristics, they are supported by leader exhibiting what we call “status neglect.” She came to power their colleagues and become infl uential well before they are formally at the Red Cross with control over the distribution of valuable promoted to high-ranking positions. resources but failed to gain the respect of her stakeholders. As a result, she steadily lost infl uence over the most critical constitu- Status can serve as a tempering force for those who otherwise would ency at the Red Cross: her board of directors. Upon her resigna- lean too heavily on their power as a source of infl uence. Without tion, Healy wrote to the board: “Maybe you wanted more of a status, high-power individuals are apt to be insecure, causing them Mary Poppins and less of a Jack Welch” (Sontag 2001, 338). We to demean, and even aggress against, others (Fast and Chen 2009; may think of Jack Welch as infl uential during his heyday as chief Fast, Halevy, and Galinsky 2012). Consistent with this behavior, executive offi cer of GE, cut from the same cloth as Robert Moses at

312 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014 the apex of his power, but in the context of the Red Cross, as well Warm as many other settings, status conferral hinges on expressions of warmth and trustworthiness (“Mary Poppins” qualities).

It is also important to point out that Healy’s Mary Poppins versus Patronize Respect Jack Welch metaphor suggests that, as a woman, her assertive style Dismiss Cooperate doubly doomed her at the Red Cross. Scores of studies show that women are expected to be warm and trustworthy, whereas men Incompetent Competent are expected to be competent and assertive (e.g., Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick 2008; Heilman 2002), and when women violate their Scorn Compete gender stereotype, they lose status (Bowles, Babcock, and Lai 2007; Deride Undermine Rudman and Phelan 2008). For example, female senators are less likely than their male counterparts to voice their views on the Senate fl oor, presumably because the fear of backlash inhibits powerful women from speaking up as much as powerful men (Brescoll 2011). Cold Despite the generally constraining nature of gender stereotypes, in Note: Attitudes and behavioral reactions based on these judgments are listed in settings that confer status based on cooperation, warmth, and trust, the diagonals. Based on Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2007). women are likely to excel as leaders (i.e., when the attributes that Figure 1 Core Dimensions of Social Judgment: Warmth people value match the gender stereotypic attributes of the leader) and Competence. (Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani 1995). In fact, Healy’s immediate and infl uential predecessor, , illustrated this fi nd- ing through her behavior, and her success, at the helm of the Red depends both on context and on characteristics of the person being Cross for seven years. Th e director of a local chapter noted the judged. As another example of how the demands for warmth and contrast between Healy’s and Dole’s approaches to the same posi- competence are diff erent for diff erent people, Livingston and Pearce tion: “Elizabeth Dole would notice the pin you were wearing, and (2009) found that the appearance of warmth among black men, Dr. Healy would notice the stain on your jacket . . . Dr. Healy was but not among white men, was associated with success in upper ech- not people-oriented, and the Red Cross is all about people” (Sontag elons of management, presumably because warmth attenuates the 2001, 333). Th e principal lesson to draw from this example is that a stereotype of black men as threatening. manager’s status is determined by the extent to which he or she dis- plays attributes that are expected and valued in the local context by Warmth and competence judgments are apparent in how people per- the people he or she manages (Anderson, Spataro, and Flynn 2008). ceive their partners in personal and professional relationships (e.g., Judd et al. 2005), assessments of politicians and other leaders (e.g., Recommendations: Changing Behavior to Develop Abelson et al. 1982; Chemers 1997), and stereotypes of social groups Infl uence (e.g., Fiske et al. 2002). From the intersection of these dimensions Guided by the distinction we have drawn between power and status, radiate four diff erent attitudinal and behavior reactions (Cuddy, next we off er recommendations for how public managers can build Fiske, and Glick 2007) (see fi gure 1). First, people can be judged and maintain interpersonal infl uence by understanding how power cold and incompetent. Th ese are individuals for whom we have and status are judged. People try to infer their own and others’ contempt and whom we deride and scorn. Interestingly, the number relative power and status in order to assess their challenges and of people in this category is relatively small, as human beings tend to opportunities more eff ectively. Although these judgments are often fi nd something positive in each other. Second, people can be judged implicit, operating at a nonconscious level (Shariff and Tracy 2009), warm but incompetent. Th is category shows the limits of likeabil- they are based in part on some core dimensions of person percep- ity without commensurate skill and ability in organizations. Th ese tion and social judgment. individuals often are dealt with in a patronizing manner, or they are dismissed entirely because of a lack of respect for their knowledge The Core Dimensions of Social Judgment and skills. Th ird, people can be judged cold but competent. Th ese To understand how status is judged, a reasonable place to start individuals evoke competitiveness from their colleagues, and, at would be to look at the core dimensions of social judgment: warmth worst, others try to undermine their eff orts. Many people in this (i.e., trustworthiness and agreeableness) and competence (Fiske et al. category work in professions or have job titles that are respected in 2002). Much of how people judge each other can be reduced to society, but their lack of trustworthiness prevents them from gaining these two dimensions, as this information proves incredibly useful status within their organizations. To achieve high status among one’s in many interactions and relationships. In peers, one must be perceived as both warm forming an impression, we typically want to Warm, competent individuals and competent. Warm, competent individuals are truly respected and engender cooperation know whether someone intends to help or are truly respected and engender harm us (can he or she be trusted?) and the because they have others’ interests in mind and extent to which he or she has the ability to act cooperation because they have are able to help others reach their goals. on those intentions (is he or she competent?) others’ interests in mind and are (Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick 2007). As we saw in able to help others reach their Developing Status the case of Bernadine Healy at the Red Cross, goals. Having established that both warmth and the relative importance of either dimension competence must be conveyed to present an

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 313 airtight case for why one deserves status, the next step is unpacking Port Authority, Borrone helped create professional associations for what cues people use to make their judgments of warmth and com- women’s career advancement. After becoming the port’s director, petence. Th e content of those judgments provides the prescription Borrone continued to fi nd ways to mentor employees. Borrone for how to behave if one wants high status. Some cues are very sub- shared her professional contacts with staff members and supported tle. Smiling communicates warmth, sitting near and leaning toward their participation in external committees and task forces, which others communicates interest, and mimicking a partner’s nonver- expanded their networks further. Her generosity earned her the bal behavior develops rapport (Gonzaga et al. 2001; Lakin and informal, high-status title of “Queen of the Port” among many who Chartrand 2003; Mehrabian 1969). All of these nonverbal behaviors worked with and perceived her infl uence at the port. signal the underlying dimension of warmth, as long as they are per- ceived as genuine; however, one diffi culty with trying to strategically Developing Power communicate warmth is that when behavior is perceived as feigned, To be perceived as powerful, or worthy of a high-power position, it has the opposite eff ect. When forced, smiling might appear stiff it is important to project the sense of being in control in one’s job. and creepy, leaning into a conversation might seem inappropriate, Control involves demonstrating agency—that one is able to do as and trying to copy someone else’s behavior one wishes and that important outcomes might come across as awkward. are determined by one’s actions (Magee To be perceived as powerful, or 2009; Overbeck, Tiedens, and Brion 2006). How, then, can one communicate genuine worthy of a high-power posi- Individuals who freely choose to initiate concern for others’ interests without coming tion, it is important to project action to resolve a perceived problem are seen across as phony? We think that a straight- the sense of being in control in as more powerful than individuals who either forward path is to be open to employees’ one’s job. fail to act or appear to have had no choice but and other colleagues’ ideas and to look for to act (Magee 2009). How else can people opportunities to off er them voluntary assist- project that they are in control? One simple ance in professional tasks (Grant 2013). By seeking colleagues out way is through the expression of confi dence, and expressions of to hear their thoughts and opinions, managers can convey that they confi dence have been linked to perceptions of power. People who are available to listen to colleagues’ ideas, will give those ideas seri- deliberate extensively over decisions are seen as less powerful than ous consideration, and will implement at least some of those ideas. those who decide quickly and focus on implementation (Magee Th ese characteristics of openness are associated with employees 2009). perceiving their manager as trustworthy (Detert and Burris 2007). When one experiences positive outcomes, observers try to detect Individuals who behave generously are more likely to have status whether success was attributable to one’s competence or to luck conferred on them by their colleagues (Flynn 2003). Th e very act of (Kelley 1973). Projecting that one is in control—by taking action, off ering help to someone else communicates warmth, and by deliver- by expressing confi dence in one’s judgments, or by avoiding too ing a service successfully, one has established competence. Such much deliberation—blocks people from attributing one’s suc- volunteerism takes care of the need to demonstrate both warmth and cess to luck and directs people to infer that it was earned. Even competence in one act, and, moreover, it provides two additional when the outcome is negative, the reasons one provides for failure benefi ts. First, by contributing to others’ work, one has a chance to can infl uence inferences of power. Ironically, although making exert direct infl uence over how it gets done, and, second, through the an external attribution for failure can be self-serving in that it norm of reciprocity, the benefi ciary of one’s favor is usually com- defl ects responsibility for a negative event away from the self, pelled to return the off er of assistance down the road (Cialdini 2001; individuals who take responsibility when things go afoul give Gouldner 1960). Th us, prosocial behavior can help build status, an others the impression that they are in control (Lee and Tiedens indirect route to infl uence, and is inherently a direct act of infl uence. 2001). Regardless of the outcome, internal attributions imply that one’s choices and actions were not constrained by other people or Openness and generosity come in a variety of forms. One broad external forces in the situation. Th at is, by taking responsibility strategy involves fi nding ways to develop support systems for for failure, a leader is suggesting that she has the power to address subordinates. Lillian Borrone, director (1988–2000) of port the problem going forward. In summary, whatever the outcome of commerce for the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, exempli- one’s actions, there is always an opportunity to convey a sense of fi es this approach (Schachter 2008). Early in her fi rst job at the control and thus power.

Table 2 Differences between Power and Status: Key Characteristics, Consequences, and Attributes by Which They Are Judged Different Key Characteristics Different Consequences Judged by Different Attributes Status • The degree to which one is • More perspective taking and concern for others’ interests • Competence respected by one’s colleagues • Greater deference from others • Warmth (trustworthiness, agreeableness) • More subjective; socially conferred • Broader path to infl uence • Demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age) Power • Asymmetric control over valued • Less perspective taking • Competence resources • Higher propensity to take action • Confi dence • More objective • Greater confi dence • Assertive action • More instrumental perception (of others as means to one’s goals) • Taking responsibility for outcomes (both • More abstract information processing positive and negative) • Narrower path to infl uence

314 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014 Eileen Claussen, who rose within the Environmental Protection Alkadry, Mohamad G., and Leslie E. Tower. 2011. Covert Pay Discrimination: Agency (EPA) to become director (1987–93) of the Offi ce of How Authority Predicts Pay Diff erences between Women and Men. Public Atmospheric Programs, demonstrated this capacity early in her Administration Review 71(5): 740–50. career (Riccucci 1995). Claussen routinely asked supervisors for Anderson, Cameron, and Jennifer Berdahl. 2002. Th e Experience of Power: additional assignments and tasks, thereby projecting a sense of Examining the Eff ects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies. Journal confi dence in her work. Riccucci (1995) notes that “resoluteness” of Personality and Social Psychology 83(6): 1362–77. became Claussen’s trademark. An industry representative, contrast- Anderson, Cameron, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2006. Power, Optimism, and Risk- ing Claussen with a typical government offi cial, portrayed her as Taking. European Journal of Social Psychology 36(4): 511–36. unusually certain about steps needed to reach the EPA’s goals. After Anderson, Cameron, Sandra E. Spataro, and Francis J. Flynn. 2008. Personality Claussen assumed supervisory responsibilities, one of her subordi- and Organizational Culture as Determinants of Infl uence. Journal of Applied nates noted she was not the sort to mull over decisions “for days and Psychology 93(3): 702–10. days.” Th is profi le is typical of a person acting in a way others deem Barnard, Chester I. 1938. Th e Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard worthy of power. Although she lacked a science degree, Claussen University Press. rose up the ranks of a science-oriented agency and, upon reaching a Barry, Bruce, and J. Michael Crant. 2000. Dyadic Communication Relationships director position, was infl uential enough to corral the White House in Organizations: An Attribution/Expectancy Approach. Organization Science into backing international environmental agreements. 11(6): 648–64. Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berson. 2003. Predicting Summary Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. We summarize the key characteristics of power and status, along Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 207–18. with their antecedents and consequences, in table 2. We summarize Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1977. our central claims here. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. New York: Elsevier. • Th ere are two principal inputs to infl uence: status and power. Berger, Joseph, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1985. Status, Rewards, and Infl uence. San Status is the degree to which one is respected by one’s col- Francisco: Jossey-Bass. leagues. Power is based on the extent to which one controls Blader, Steven L., and Ya-Ru Chen. 2012. Diff erentiating the Eff ects of Status and valuable resources relative to others. Both allow managers to Power: A Justice Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(5): infl uence others’ behavior and thus achieve leaders’ goals. 994–1014. • Although level in the formal organizational hierarchy is related Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. to infl uence, a careful analysis of positions based on status and Bowles, Hannah R., Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai. 2007. Social Incentives for power often reveals that formal position and infl uence are only Gender Diff erences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes loosely coupled. Some low-level jobs can have surprisingly high It Does Hurt to Ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes power in some situations, and some high-profi le jobs can have 103(1): 84–103. surprisingly low power. Brescoll, Victoria L. 2011. Who Takes the Floor and Why: Gender, Power, and • Individuals’ capacity to infl uence is not determined exclusively Volubility in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 56(4): 622–41. by their role in the organization. Status and power also develop Briñol, Pablo, Richard E. Petty, Carmen Valle, Derek D. Rucker, and Alberto informally in interpersonal interactions. Th is helps explain why Becerra. 2007. Th e Eff ects of Message Recipients’ Power Before and After some managers are more eff ective than others despite holding Persuasion: A Self-Validation Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology identical positions. 93(6): 1040–53. • Constituent groups routinely judge whether an administrator Bruins, Jan, Naomi Ellemers, and Dick de Gilder. 1999. Power Use and Diff erential is deserving of status and power, even if they are not con- Competence as Determinants of Subordinates’ Evaluative and Behavioral Responses sciously aware of it. Without attention to the social dynamics in Simulated Organizations. European Journal of Social Psychology 29(7): 843–70. of status, infl uence based on power is not likely to last for long. Carpenter, Daniel P., and George A. Krause. 2012. Reputation and Public Th is “status neglect” helps explain why some formal leaders Administration. Public Administration Review 72(1): 26–32. have short tenures in their positions. Chemers, Martin. 1997. An Integrative Th eory of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence • To gain infl uence, one can increase power or status (or, ideally, Erlbaum. both) based on a sophisticated understanding of how cowork- Cheng, Joey T., Jessica L. Tracy, and Joseph Henrich. 2010. Pride, Personality, and ers and colleagues determine others’ status and power. the Evolutionary Foundations of Human Social Status. Evolution and Human • Judgments of status are based primarily on warmth and Behavior 31(5): 334–47. competence, and judgments of power are based primarily on Cialdini, Robert B. 2001. Harnessing the Science of Persuasion. Harvard Business confi dence, assertive action, and the appearance of being in Review 79(9): 72–79. control. Public managers can alter their behavior to project Clary, E. Gil, Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, Peter K. Miene, and Julie A. Haugen. these attributes and thus increase their infl uence over time. 1994. Matching Messages to Motives in Persuasion: A Functional Approach to Promoting Volunteerism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24(13): 1129–46. References Cuddy, Amy J. C., Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick. 2007. Th e BIAS Map: Behaviors Abelson, Robert P., Donald R. Kinder, Mark D. Peters, and Susan T. Fiske. 1982. from Intergroup Aff ect and Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Aff ective and Semantic Components in Political Person Perception. Journal of Psychology 92(4): 631–48. Personality and Social Psychology 42(4): 619–30. ———. 2008. Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Abney, Glenn, and Th omas P. Lauth. 1982. Infl uence of the Chief Executive on City Perception: Th e Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. Advances in Line Agencies. Public Administration Review 42(2): 135–43. Experimental Social Psychology 40: 61–149.

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 315 Darley, John M., and Russell H. Fazio. 1980. Expectancy Confi rmation Processes Greiner, Andrew. 2009. Burris’ Health Care Demands Grow Louder: Burris Loves Arising in the Social Interaction Sequence. American Psychologist 35(10): the Spotlight. NBC Chicago, December 16. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/ 867–81. local/Burriss-Health-Care-Demands-Grow-Louder-79410477.html [accessed Detert, James R., and Ethan R. Burris. 2007. Leadership Behavior and Employee March 7, 2014]. Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 869–84. Gruenfeld, Deborah H., M. Ena Inesi, Joe C. Magee, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2008. Eagly, Alice H., Steven J. Karau, and Mona G. Makhijani. 1995. Gender and the Power and the Objectifi cation of Social Targets. Journal of Personality and Social Eff ectiveness of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 117(1): 125–45. Psychology 95(1): 111–27. Emerson, Richard M. 1962. Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Guinote, Ana. 2008. Power and Aff ordances: When the Situation Has More Power Review 27(1): 31–41. over Powerful than Powerless Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Falbe, Cecilia M., and Gary Yukl. 1992. Consequences for Managers of Using Single Psychology 95(2): 237–52. Infl uence Tactics and Combinations of Tactics. Academy of Management Journal Hardy, Charlie, and Mark Van Vugt. 2006. Nice Guys Finish First: Th e Competitive 35(3): 638–52. Altruism Hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(10): Fast, Nathaniel J., and Serena Chen. 2009. When the Boss Feels Inadequate: Power, 1402–13. Incompetence, and Aggression. Psychological Science 20(11): 1406–13. Harris, Hamil R., and Bill Broadway. 1999. Senate Is Chaplain’s Congregation. Fast, Nathaniel J., Nir Halevy, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2012. Th e Destructive Washington Post, January 30. Nature of Power without Status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1): Heilman, Madeline E. 2002. Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes 391–94. Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of Social Issues Fiske, Susan T. 1993. Controlling Other People: Th e Impact of Power on 57(4): 657–74. Stereotyping. American Psychologist 48(6): 621–28. Henrich, Joseph, and Francisco J. Gil-White. 2001. Th e Evolution of Prestige: Freely ———. 2010. Interpersonal Stratifi cation: Status, Power, and Subordination. In Conferred Deference as a Mechanism for Enhancing the Benefi ts of Cultural Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th ed., edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3): 165–96. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 941–82. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Herszenhorn, David. 2009. A Fill-In with a Full Vote: When Every Vote Counts. Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 2007. Universal Dimensions of New York Times, October 10. Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2): Huang, Li, Adam D. Galinsky, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Lucia E. Guillory. 2011. 77–83. Powerful Postures versus Powerful Roles. Psychological Science 22(1): 95–102. Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 2002. A Model of (Often Humphrey, Ronald. 1985. How Work Roles Infl uence Perception: Structural- Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Cognitive Processes and Organizational Behavior. American Sociological Review Perceived Status and Competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2): 242–52. 82(6): 878–902. Jensen, Jason L. 2007. Getting One’s Way in Policy Debates: Infl uence Tactics Flynn, Francis J. 2003. How Much Should I Give and How Often? Th e Eff ects of Used in Group Decision-Making Settings. Public Administration Review 67(2): Generosity and Frequency of Favor Exchange on Social Status and Productivity. 216–27. Academy of Management Journal 46(5): 539–53. Judd, Charles M., Laurie James-Hawkins, Vincent Yzerbyt, and Yoshihisa Kashima. Fragale, Alison R., Jennifer R. Overbeck, and Margaret A. Neale. 2011. Resources 2005. Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the versus Respect: Social Judgments Based on Targets’ Power and Status Positions. Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth. Journal of Personality Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 47(4): 767–75. and Social Psychology 89(6): 899–913. French, J. R. P., and Bertram Raven. 1959. Th e Bases of Power. In Studies in Social Kelley, Harold H. 1973. Th e Processes of Causal Attribution. American Psychologist Power, edited by Dorwin Cartwright, 150–67. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social 28(2): 107–28. Research, University of Michigan. Kellman, Laurie. 2009. Roland Burris Plants Himself at Center of Health Care Fight. Galinsky, Adam D., Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Joe C. Magee. 2003. From Power to Huffi ngton Post, October 19. http://www.huffi ngtonpost.com/2009/10/19/ Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(3): 453–66. roland-burris-plants-hims_n_325889.html# [accessed March 7, 2014]. Galinsky, Adam D., Joe C. Magee, M. Ena Inesi, and Deborah H. Gruenfeld. 2006. Kipnis, David. 1972. Does Power Corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Power and Perspectives Not Taken. Psychological Science 17(2): 1068–74. Psychology 24(1): 33–41. Georgesen, John C., and Monica J. Harris. 1998. Why’s My Boss Always Holding Lakin, Jessica L., and Tanya L. Chartrand. 2003. Using Nonconscious Behavioral Me Down? A Meta-Analysis of Power Eff ects on Performance Evaluations. Mimicry to Create Affi liation and Rapport. Psychological Science 14(4): 334–39. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2(3): 184–95. Lee, Fiona, and Larissa Z. Tiedens. 2001. Who’s Being Served? “Self-Serving” ———. 2000. Th e Balance of Power: Interpersonal Consequences of Diff erential Attributions in Social Hierarchies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Power and Expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(10): Processes 84(2): 254–87. 1239–57. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Goldhamer, Herbert, and Edward A. Shils. 1939. Types of Power and Status. Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. American Journal of Sociology 45(2): 171–82. Livingston, Robert W., and Nicholas A. Pearce. 2009. Th e Teddy-Bear Eff ect: Does Gonzaga, Gian C., Dacher Keltner, Esme A. Londahl, and Michael D. Smith. 2001. Having a Baby Face Benefi t Black Chief Executive Offi cers? Psychological Science Love and the Commitment Problem in Romantic Relations and Friends. Journal 20(10): 1229–36. of Personality and Social Psychology 81(2): 247–62. Long, Norton E. 1949. Power and Administration. Public Administration Review Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. Th e Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. 9(4): 257–64. American Sociological Review 25(2): 161–78. Magee, Joe C. 2009. Seeing Power in Action: Th e Roles of Deliberation, Grant, Adam M. 2012. Leading with Meaning: Benefi ciary Contact, Prosocial Implementation, and Action Orientation in Inferences of Power. Journal of Impact, and the Performance Eff ects of Transformational Leadership. Academy of Experimental Social Psychology 45(1): 1–14. Management Journal 55(2): 458–76. Magee, Joe C., and Adam D. Galinsky. 2008. Social Hierarchy: Th e Self-Reinforcing ———. 2013. Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. New York: Viking. Nature of Power and Status. Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 351–98.

316 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014 Magee, Joe C., Adam D. Galinsky, and Deborah H. Gruenfeld. 2007. Power, Rudman, Laurie A., and Julie E. Phelan. 2008. Backlash Eff ects for Disconfi rming Propensity to Negotiate, and Moving First in Competitive Interactions. Gender Stereotypes in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(2): 200–212. 61–79. Magee, Joe C., Frances J. Milliken, and Adam R. Lurie. 2010. Power Diff erences in Rushe, Dominic. 2012. HSBC “Sorry” for Aiding Mexican Drugs Lords, Rogue the Construal of a Crisis: Th e Immediate Aftermath of September 11, 2001. States and Terrorists. Th e Guardian (London), July 17. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3): 354–70. Sande, Gerald N., John H. Ellard, and Michael Ross. 1986. Eff ect of Arbitrarily Maner, Jon K., Matthew T. Gailliot, David A. Butz, and B. Michelle Peruche. Assigned Status Labels on Self-Perceptions and Social Perceptions: Th e Mere 2007. Power, Risk, and the Status Quo: Does Power Promote Riskier or More Position Eff ect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(4): 684–89. Conservative Decision Making? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(4): Schachter, Hindy L. 2008. Lillian Borrone: Weaving a Web to Revitalize Port 451–62. Commerce in New York and New Jersey. Public Administration Review 68(1): McKay, Lamar. 2010. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural 61–67. Resources Committee, May 11. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/ Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_ Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. homepage/other/oral_testimony_lamar_mckay_may_11_2010.pdf [accessed Shariff , Azim F., and Jessica L. Tracy. 2009. Knowing Who’s Boss: Implicit Perceptions March 7, 2014]. of Status from the Nonverbal Expression of Pride. Emotion 9(5): 631–39. Mechanic, David. 1962. Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Simon, Herbert A. 1946. Th e Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 7(3): 349–64. Review 6(1): 53–67. Mehrabian, Albert. 1969. Signifi cance of Posture and Position in the Slabu, Letitia, and Ana Guinote. 2010. Getting What You Want: Power Increases Communication of Attitude and Status Relationships. Psychological Bulletin the Accessibility of Active Goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46(2): 71(5): 359–72. 344–49. Miller, Cheryl M. 1987. State Administrator Perceptions of the Policy Infl uence of Smith, Pamela K., and Yaacov Trope. 2006. You Focus on the Forest When You’re Other Actors: Is Less Better? Public Administration Review 47(3): 239–45. in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming and Abstract Information Processing. Milliken, Francis, Joseph C. Magee, Nancy Lam, and Daniel F. Menezes. 2012. Th e Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4): 578–96. Lens and Language of Power: Sense-Making Diff erences in the Aftermath of Sontag, Deborah. 2001. Who Brought Bernadine Healy Down? In Public Hurricane Katrina. Unpublished manuscript. Administration: Concepts and Cases, 9th ed., edited by Richard J. Stillman II, Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. Th e Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. 331–40. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stazyk, Edmund C., and Holly T. Goerdel. 2011. Th e Benefi ts of Bureaucracy: Public Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. 2012. Setting the Managers’ Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity, and Organizational Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Eff ectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21(4): Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 22(1): 143–64. 645–72. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. Th e Halo Eff ect: Evidence for Stehr, Steven D. 1997. Top Bureaucrats and the Distribution of Infl uence in Reagan’s Unconscious Alteration of Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Executive Branch. Public Administration Review 57(1): 75–82. 35(4): 250–56. Th ibaut, John W., and Harold H. Kelley. 1959. Th e Social Psychology of Groups. New Overbeck, Jennifer R., and Bernadette Park. 2006. Powerful Perceivers, Powerless York: Wiley. Objects: Flexibility of Powerholders’ Social Attention. Organizational Behavior Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman. 2010. Construal-Level Th eory of Psychological and Human Decision Processes 99(2): 227–43. Distance. Psychological Review 117(2): 440–63. Overbeck, Jennifer R., Larissa Z. Tiedens, and Sebastien Brion. 2006. Th e Powerful Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Public-Sector Leadership Th eory: An Assessment. Want To, the Powerless Have To: Perceived Constraint Moderates Causal Public Administration Review 63(2): 214–28. Attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology 36(4): 479–96. Review 23:214–28.Weber, Max. 1922. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Pfeff er, Jeff rey. 1992. Managing with Power: Politics and Infl uence in Organizations. Sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. New York: Harper & Row. West, Paul. 1999. Solemn Vote Ends “Year of Agony, Th en, Near-Giddiness as Senate Riccucci, Norma M. 1995. Unsung Heroes: Federal Execucrats Making a Diff erence. Adjourns the Impeachment Verdict. Baltimore Sun, February 13. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why Th ey Do Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Joseph Berger, and LeRoy Smith. 1985. Nonverbal Cues and It. New York: Basic Books. Status: An Expectation States Approach. American Journal of Sociology: 90(5): Wright, Bradley E., Donald P Moynihan, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Pulling the 955–78. Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Henry A. Walker. 1995. Status Structures. In Sociological Valence. Public Administration Review 72(2): 206–15. Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and Yukl, Gary, Helen Kim, and Cecilia M. Falbe. 1996. Antecedents of Infl uence James S. House, 281–310. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3): 309–17. Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and William John Dickson. 1939. Management and the Yukl, Gary, Charles F. Seifert, and Carolyn Chavez. 2008. Validation of the Extended Worker. Cambridge, MA: Press. Infl uence Behavior Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly 19(5): 609–21.

Status and Power: The Principal Inputs to Infl uence for Public Managers 317 Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.