Discussion: View Thread

Hi David,

What your colleagues and students are describing could be a function of self preservation and group preservation.

My dissertation explores the existence of this phenomenon in organizations, and tests the conditions/context under which it's more prevalent. Specifically, my dissertation considers the consequences of demographic (dis)similarity and interpersonal competitive dynamics--the Crabs in the Barrel Syndrome (CBS), which I think has broader considerations and implications than the Queen Bee effect. I define CBS as the mentality and behaviors of socially identical individuals whose group status may be lower in a given environment, who engage in social undermining or competitive positioning with a peer, supervisor, or subordinate, with the intent of self or group preservation. CBS is a competitive and conflictual social interaction that violates group norms for respect, helping, and support. I conceptualize CBS within an integrative framework of social identity theory, social comparison theory, and status characteristics theory. Using qualitative methods (blogs & interviews) and quantitative methods (multi-source survey design) I have found that in certain organizational cultures and climates, demographic similarity for underprivileged minorities (also tested the effect for male tokens) can link to competitive and conflictual interactions with ingroup members, which has lingering negative effects on other outcomes. I am happy to share drafts of the working papers if you're interested.

Also, the literature on the Black Sheep effect speaks to negative ingroup bias. 

Thanks for bringing attention to this topic. 

Best,

Carliss

Carliss D. Miller

Ph.D. Candidate in International Management Studies

Specialization: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

University of Texas at Dallas | Naveen Jindal School of Management

Organizations, Strategy, and International Management (OSIM)

cxc107620@utdallas.edu

C. C. Miller

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dr. Sam Paustian-Underdahl <spaustia@fiu.edu> wrote:

Hi David,

I am working on a project related to this right now. In 2 studies that draw from literature on the 'queen bee' effect, the 'crabs in the barrel' mentality, and social identity-based theory, we aim to answer a call in the literature to reconcile previous discrepancies regarding when and how the demographic composition of supervisor-subordinate dyads relates to perceived supervisor support. We argue that supporting members of the higher status group while distancing oneself from the lower status group is a contextually induced way female and racial minority employees (or any historically low status group member) may cope with identity threat in the workplace. Our results supported the hypotheses, indicating that this self-distancing effect only emerges in settings where gender or racial identities may be considered threatened (in organizations with higher perceived gender discrimination; Study 1, or more adverse diversity climates; Study 2). Such results are particularly important and timely given the recent ample attention in popular media and academic outlets regarding the 'queen bee' effect, the 'crabs in the barrel' mentality, and diversity-valuing behavior of leaders. The current research suggests that such behaviors are not generalizable to all female or minority employees; rather, this effect seems to be context-driven.

Perhaps if most settings are seen as threatening for religious minority group members and LGBTQ individuals, then this self-distancing effect may be more prevalent.

Best,

Sam

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, David A. Kravitz <dkravitz@gmu.edu> wrote:

Friends,

A practitioner colleague has observed a possible consistency in behavior, whereby supervisors who belong to a specific small religious minority group tend to treat their co-religionist subordinates more harshly than subordinates who do not share the same religion. GLB students in my diversity class have reported similar workplace experiences. There is an ongoing belief in (though, as I understand it, mixed research support for) the "queen bee" syndrome, whereby female executives engage in the same type of behavior. In all cases, supervisors who belong to a non-privileged minority are said to treat subordinates belonging to the same group more harshly than subordinates who belong to other groups.

One could speculate about the reasons for this differential treatment, which is directly opposite to the usual in-group bias, but it seems to me a first step would be to document whether it exists as a general phenomenon. My colleague asked me if I was familiar with any relevant research. I had to confess that I'm not, though I'm aware that work on this issue with regard to female managers exists. I've been given permission to forward this query to these listservs. Does anyone have any information or thoughts to share?

Many thanks,
David

 

David A. Kravitz, PhD
Professor of Management
George Mason University
School of Business
212 Enterprise Hall, MSN 5F5
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA  22030-4444

703-993-1781 (office)
703-424-3703 (cell)
703-993-1870 (fax)
dkravitz@gmu.edu
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dkravitz/

 

--

Samantha (Sam) Paustian-Underdahl, PhD
Assistant Professor of Management 
FIU College of Business, MANGO 475 
Management & International Business

spaustia@fiu.edu 

Just came across this passage and it seems somewhat relevant:

From this great article:

http://amj.aom.org/content/58/3/789.abstract

Best, 

Dave

 David thanks for raising the question.  And thanks to Gary for sharing your work. I look forward to reading it. 
 
Initially I did not have such a positive reaction to the words "queen bee" and how such a position in a hive has been misinterpreted.  Perhaps I spent too much time when I was a little girl watching bees and ants.  It seems like a pejorative descriptor while men who engage in the same behavior are probably called great team builders.   How did the queen bee get such a bad rap? 

 I responded to the concept literally:  The ability to have a group of drones and workers who do the work of the hive.  But to check on the real world I searched for information about what a queen bee does and have gained new respect.  See the link below:

www.dummies.com/how.../how-to-identify-the-three-castes-of-bees.html

Note that in a hive that the worker bees are female and the drones are males.  Should we address what the real fear is of having a queen bee around?   I hope that you all have a sense of humor.  But why pick on the queen bee when she lives in a hive and does what she is supposed to do?  She lives in an ecosystem. 

In the social world of humans though I do understand what is meant by the term.  It is hard work to develop meaningful terminology.    I hadn't heard of the use of this term in my current professional circles and so I did another quick google search to see how it is being applied.  Unfortunately it is a term that has been popularized in the context of social media and reality tv (e.g., mean girls).    And if it is out there I guess we have to live with it---and educate as we move along our professional paths.   And the idea has been around since Staines, Jayaratne & Tavris coined it in 1973.  So why haven't I run into it?   Or paid attention to it?  Could it be that I don't think that this explains how the workplace operates in terms of how power and influence is earned or distributed?   It doesn't seem to be a powerful enough concept to explain why women find it more stressful to work for women managers.  But what is the nature of the real stress?  Is it because it is perceived that drones do not work like worker bees and still get rewarded? 

Thus, when a woman is in a position of authority what really happens to co-workers and to subordinates?  I can tell you stories and point to data.   There is an interesting lab experiment in process:  The Presidential election process.  How will Hillary 's use of power and influence be viewed?  I hope that we do not get intellectually lazy.
 
To add more fuel to the discussion see the attached study done by Dezso, Ross & Uribe (2013 draft).  They used 20 years of panel data on the top management teams of S&P 1,500 firms.  One has to be careful to interpret the results--as other factors related  to negative spillover effects for women in top level positions could be in play---such as the workplace climate itself as top male managers might be oriented toward active resistance if there is a concentration of women because of competition for resources.  Women senior leaders may pay attention to these signals.  The discussion section in the attached article makes some good points about other factors at play.   
 

BUT overall, I hope that we all understand that the reason women are not getting into C-Suite positions or placed on boards is not because of other women.    Lot's of work ahead for sure.
 
Anna Duran
Avatar Research Institute

https://www.linkedin.com/.../20140826160043-2528400-presiden...

***************************************************************************

Cultivating the art of thinking together and strengthening the innovation ecosystem

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:51:53 -0600
From: david.hekman@COLORADO.EDU
Subject: Re: Negative in-group bias in leader-subordinate relationships?
To: GDO-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

 David thanks for raising the question.  And thanks to Gary for sharing your work. I look forward to reading it. 
 
Initially I did not have such a positive reaction to the words "queen bee" and how such a position in a hive has been misinterpreted.  Perhaps I spent too much time when I was a little girl watching bees and ants.  It seems like a pejorative descriptor while men who engage in the same behavior are probably called great team builders.   How did the queen bee get such a bad rap? 

 I responded to the concept literally:  The ability to have a group of drones and workers who do the work of the hive.  But to check on the real world I searched for information about what a queen bee does and have gained new respect.  See the link below:

www.dummies.com/how.../how-to-identify-the-three-castes-of-bees.html

Note that in a hive that the worker bees are female and the drones are males.  Should we address what the real fear is of having a queen bee around?   I hope that you all have a sense of humor.  But why pick on the queen bee when she lives in a hive and does what she is supposed to do?  She lives in an ecosystem. 

In the social world of humans though I do understand what is meant by the term.  It is hard work to develop meaningful terminology.    I hadn't heard of the use of this term in my current professional circles and so I did another quick google search to see how it is being applied.  Unfortunately it is a term that has been popularized in the context of social media and reality tv (e.g., mean girls).    And if it is out there I guess we have to live with it---and educate as we move along our professional paths.   And the idea has been around since Staines, Jayaratne & Tavris coined it in 1973.  So why haven't I run into it?   Or paid attention to it?  Could it be that I don't think that this explains how the workplace operates in terms of how power and influence is earned or distributed?   It doesn't seem to be a powerful enough concept to explain why women find it more stressful to work for women managers.  But what is the nature of the real stress?  Is it because it is perceived that drones do not work like worker bees and still get rewarded? 

Thus, when a woman is in a position of authority what really happens to co-workers and to subordinates?  I can tell you stories and point to data.   There is an interesting lab experiment in process:  The Presidential election process.  How will Hillary 's use of power and influence be viewed?  I hope that we do not get intellectually lazy.
 
To add more fuel to the discussion see the attached study done by Dezso, Ross & Uribe (2013 draft).  They used 20 years of panel data on the top management teams of S&P 1,500 firms.  One has to be careful to interpret the results--as other factors related  to negative spillover effects for women in top level positions could be in play---such as the workplace climate itself as top male managers might be oriented toward active resistance if there is a concentration of women because of competition for resources.  Women senior leaders may pay attention to these signals.  The discussion section in the attached article makes some good points about other factors at play.   
 

BUT overall, I hope that we all understand that the reason women are not getting into C-Suite positions or placed on boards is not because of other women.    Lot's of work ahead for sure.
 
Anna Duran
Avatar Research Institute

https://www.linkedin.com/.../20140826160043-2528400-presiden...

***************************************************************************

Cultivating the art of thinking together and strengthening the innovation ecosystem

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:51:53 -0600
From: david.hekman@COLORADO.EDU
Subject: Re: Negative in-group bias in leader-subordinate relationships?
To: GDO-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU