{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012345679012345678, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.387878787878788, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Status Deconstruction Theory: Status Conflict's Destabilization of Group Status Hierarchies

Despite strong evidence that task group status hierarchy instability is dysfunctional, little research has considered the processes that lead to hierarchy instability. In this paper, we examine the destabilizing effects of dissent about the hierarchy that is expressed as status conflict in the contexts of groups with varying levels of consensus about the status hierarchy. We find that group hierarchies are least stable when there is both a high level of status conflict and low consensus about the status hierarchy. We interpret this to mean that when status conflicts are expressed in groups with high levels of consensus, other group members are motivated to defend the hierarchy to restore normative order to the group. When status conflicts occur in groups with low underlying consensus, however, the conflicts surface latent dissensus and encourage revision of the status hierarchy. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice.