Debate and well-being in self-managed groups: the moderating role of divergent status perceptions

Abstract

Research suggests that debate, that is, open discussion behavior in work groups, can affect group-level outcomes. Yet, little is known about how debate may affect group member well-being. Drawing from the literature on debate and open conflict norms, we hypothesize that debate and well-being are positively associated because differing views can be shared and discussed openly. Additionally, based on theories on status conflicts and diversity, we expect that this relationship is moderated by the divergence of status perceptions within the group. Specifically, we propose that the positive relationship between group-level debate and well-being is stronger when group members’ perceptions of the hierarchical social status distribution in their group diverge strongly (rather than little) because in this situation debate can help resolve differing status construals. Data for this study came from 163 members of 29 self-organized activist groups that pursued social and/or ecological goals. Group members reported the level of debate within their group, perceived status distribution, and their individual well-being. Results of multilevel modeling showed that debate and well-being were positively related and that divergence of status perceptions moderated this relationship. With our study, we expand research on debate by investigating its relationship with well-being. Our study adds to the literature on status dynamics by showing that not only the distribution of social status, but also the divergent perception of its distribution is an important feature of status dynamics. Finally, we advance the literature by applying constructs from work and organizational psychology to activist well-being.