Henry A. Walker

Gender, Interaction, and Leadership

This article describes research on gender and processes of power and prestige in task groups. We depart from standard analyses and use a measure of opinion change to describe leadership on power and prestige orders. We use data from laboratory studies of single-gender and mixed-gender groups to test gender-role socialization, status characteristic, and legitimation arguments. We find that all-female and all-male groups are equally likely to develop power and prestige orders. Among initially leaderless, mixed-gender groups, males are five times more likely than females to exercise opinion leadership. Gender differences vanish, however, when we make a pretask assignment of leaders to mixed-gender groups. These findings are most consistent with status characteristic and legitimation theories, which correctly predict the outcomes of three out offour studies. Gender-role arguments predict only one outcome out of four. Finally, our analyses of sociometric data provide evidence of gender bias in peer evaluations of female and male members of mixed-gender groups. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for additional work on gender and leadership processes.

Network exchange theory : Recent developments and new directions

The new millennium opens the third decade of work on network exchange theory. During two decades of continuous growth, the program has been tested as intensively and extensively as any in sociology. This article summarizes existing research and describes new directions. First, we describe basic network connections and recently discovered structural power conditions that sharply affect exchange ratios. Then we show how game theory enhances understanding of collective action in exchange networks. Two new research programs link network exchange theory to status characteristics theory: the first demonstrates that power produces status, and the second shows how status value produces power. Finally, we discuss how questions about network dynamics, complexity, and legitimation define paths for future theory growth.

THE LEGITIMACY OF REGIMES

A centuries-long history of theory and research shows that every authority system tries to cultivate a belief in its legitimacy. This paper focuses on the legitimation of regimes – social relationships and the rules that govern them. We use existing theory and research to identify a basic legitimation assumption that includes four conditions necessary to establish legitimacy. We also identify four corollaries of the assumption and use our own published and unpublished laboratory research to show (1) how successful experimental procedures satisfy the assumption’s conditions, and (2) how the failure of experimental procedures to establish legitimacy violate the assumption and its corollaries.

The normative regulation of power

In most theories of authority, normative regulation is the price that power pays for legitimacy. But what are the mechanisms by which norms regulate power and under what conditions do they in fact constrain its use? In an experimental study of a three-level hierarchy of power and authority, we found that the internal constraint of conscience alone was not sufficient to constrain the abuse of power by authority: Where authority had something to gain, one in four Ss abused power out of self-interest; where it had nothing to gain, one in three followed their own conscience rather than the situations norms.But internal constraints are not the only constraints on the exercise of power by authority. The mechanisms of the normative regulation of power depend on the fact that the exercise of authority, at least in organizations, is a collective phenomenon. It is not simply a matter of a superior, A, exercising authority over a subordinate, B, but of multiple actors executing the directives of A in such a way that the behavior of B is in fact directed. The normative regulation of power depends on how norms regulate these other agents of power and how dependence on these other agents, in turn, controls the behavior of A.

Power, influence, and legitimacy in organizations: Implications of three theoretical research programs

Classical and contemporary theorists are at odds over the structure of power relations in organizations and the relationship between power differences and the distribution of control and benefits. The classical arguments of Marx and Weber describe steep hierarchical structures in which those at the top exercise substantial control over subordinates and gain a disproportionate share of the organizations benefits. Contemporary theories are divided on two counts. Some imply that power is organized hierarchically—although not to the extent claimed by classical scholars—while others claim that power is diffuse. Similarly, the early exchange arguments separated benefit from control, and claimed that power is directly related to the distribution of control but inversely related to the distribution of benefits. Contemporary exchange theorists connect power to the distribution of control and benefit but most imply that power differences weaken, that is, power relations become less hierarchical, with power use.This paper offers the first simultaneous application of Elementary Theory, Status Characteristics Theory, and Legitimacy Theory to the study of organizational dynamics. Each theory describes the process through which differences on a single factor, e.g., power, influence, or organizations. We claim that most organizational analysts either focus on power processes to the exclusion of influence and legitimacy processes or conflate the three ideas and treat their confluence as power. In either case, the result is misspecification of the distribution of power in organizations and/or an underestimation of its effects on the distribution of control and benefit.We untangle the three ideas and use the three arguments to develop new understandings of the distribution of benefits and control in organizations. All three theories describe processes that connect behavior to structural conditions. Elementary Theory infers power differences from exchange structures that permit competitive mobility while Status Characteristic Theory infers influence from status orders. The three theories do not exhaust coverage of power, influence, and legitimacy processes under all conditions. However, when they are applied concurrently, the three describe greater concentrations of power than those implied by conventional organizational theories.Our joint application of Elementary Theory and Status Characteristics Theory offers a new explanation for the commonly described relationship between differences in expertise and the exercise of power. We also explain the relationship between uncertainty and the distribution of benefit and control. As uncertainty increases, the door is opened for subordinates to exercise greater and greater influence over superordinate actors. Our analysis also offers insights into the phenomena of power-at-a-distance and the relation between mobility in hierarchies and domination and obedience. Conditions that block mobility promote power decentralization. Finally, we show how legitimacy processes enhance and/or constrain power and influence processes. The complex interplay of power, influence, and legitimation processes can produce somewhat flatter distributions of benefit and control than separate analyses of the three processes might imply. We end with a cautionary note: some but not all of our applications of the three theories are supported by experimental studies. Especially in that regard, this work is quite preliminary. Our application of structural social psychological theories—and that of our predecessors—to the study of organizational dynamics leaves much work undone.

Equating Characteristics and Status-Organizing Processes

After three decades of research, it remains unclear whether actors use equal status information in status-generalizing processes. In this article we use the graph-theoretic interpretation of status-characteristic theory to examine the question. The analysis suggests that equating information can produce substantial changes in individual expectations for actors differentiated on one or more status characteristics. Sizable changes in expectations, however, produce only very small effects on behavior as measured by the probability of self-responses or P(S). The analysis shows that stable P(S) values are consistent with both the use of equal-status information and the failure to use such information. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research.

Legitimacy and Inequality

This chapter discusses inequality and its legitimation. It describes the multilevel and multidimensional character of inequality. It also offers an extensive treatment of legitimacy, legitimacy processes and the multiple-source, multiple-object legitimacy theory. The processes through which inequality is legitimized are illustrated by applying the theory to contemporary affirmative action procedures. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.

THREE FACES OF EXPLANATION: RETHINKING THE THEORY PROJECT*

Abstract Knowledgeable observers disagree about the state of theory development in sociology. Some critics claim that sociology has not produced general theory and is incapable of doing so. Others take strong exception to this view but admit that theory development in sociology lags behind other sciences. Furthermore, even the defenders cannot agree on how much theory is in the sociological storehouse. More important, individual sociologists claim to have produced more theory than any objective observer is likely to find. This article tries to understand debates about the state of theory development in sociology. It advances a simple thesis: What passes for sociological “theory” consists mainly of discourse that is neither theoretical nor explanatory, and explanations that are not theoretical. The article identifies two commonly used forms of sociological explanation, compares them with theoretical explanations, and suggests how sociologists can exploit the connections among the three forms to enhance theory construction in the field.

Theory Construction and Development in Sociology: An Appropriate Framework

It is possible that Liaos framework has some utility for his thinking about substantive work in sociology. As if often the case, however, when a writer proposes to share a heuristic device which has been personally effective, the resulting statement does not fully communicate its efficacy to others. We contend that Liaos framework fails to contribute either to theory construction or to its cumulative development. Instead we find his presentation obscure, ill-informed on several issues, and incapable of serving as a guide to those who are engaged in serious theoretical work. Although Liao must be held accountable for his pronouncements, the reviewers must bear some responsibility for the publication of ideas that are embryonic at best.

Elementary Theory: 25 Years of Expanding Scope and Increasing Precision☆☆Authors are ordered first by number of sections contributed and then alphabetically. The first author is solely responsible for errors.

Abstract Purpose This exposition explains how Elementary Theory works and how it has been developed over the last two-and-a-half decades. Both increased scope and heightened precision are covered. Methodology/Approach Theoretic methodology is explained. Using that method formal models are constructed analogous to empirical events. Those models predict events, design experiments, and guide applications in the field. Findings There is a widely held belief in sociology that theory becomes more vague and imprecise as its scope broadens. Whereas broader generalizations are more vague than narrower ones, this exposition shows that abstract theory becomes more precise as its scope broadens. Research Limitations/Implications Here implications and limitations are closely connected. Regarding implications, this exposition shows that scientific explanations and predictions are viable today in sociology but only when exact theory is employed. Regarding limitations, the theory and research included in this exposition make clear why the empiricist search for regularities that dominates sociological research is so very limited in its results. Originality/Value of Chapter This exposition demonstrates that theory is the method of all the sciences and in particular the science of sociology.