Status and Contrastatus

Author(s): Frank Harary

Source: Sociometry, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1959), pp. 23-43
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2785610 .
Accessed: 19/09/2013 08:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Status and Contrastatus

FRANK HARARY,1 Universityof Michigan

INTRODUCTION

Our object is to proposea formulato measurea positionalaspect of the

statusof a personin an organization or a group,and investigatesome of its
ramifications."Status" is a word with multipleconnotations.We do not
attemptto handle here questionsinvolvingstatus due to salary,material
wealth,education,fame,age, or similarattributesbut are only concerned
withstructural or positionalstatus.Examplesand terminology are frequently
drawnfromformalorganizationtheoryand conceptsforprecision,but this
is not necessary.The status formulations of this paper are intendedto be
applicableto all relationsinvolvinga groupof persons,includingforexample
informalsociometric choice,familyrelations,love, respect,and communica-
tion as well as power or authority.We realize that our formulais only
approximateand discussits limitations in the last section.
Perhaps the most importantconceptto be presentedis that of "contra-
status,"whichcan be describedintuitively as the amountof statusweighing
downon an individualfromhis superordinates. In fact,we shall see that in
certainsituationsthe contrastatusof a personis of greatersignificance in
determining relativeimportancethan the status.
We wereoriginallymotivatedby the approachof (1): "An official wants
to multiplysubordinates,not rivals." The organizationchart describedin
(1) replacesofficialA by the subgroupconsistingof A, two subordinates
called C and D, and two subordinatesfor each of them (therebygetting
seven employeesto do the workof one). This will be called a "standard
organization"with3 levels.
We also wish to avoid the "popularitycontest" type of status index,
mentioned and also avoidedin (9), whichwoulddefinethestatusof a person
in an organization as the totalnumberof his subordinates regardlessof their
levels.Further,we subscribeto theviewpointof theopeningsentenceof (2):
Recent developmentsin the study of leadershiphave been dominatedby a concernfor the
"interactional"and "situational" factorswhich may definethe leader's role and determine
the leader's effectiveness.

1 The author wishes to thank Dorwin Cartwright,Morton Deutsch, and Ian Ross for
helpful and stimulatingconversations.This articlewas writtenwhile the author (now at
The Institutefor Advanced Study and PrincetonUniversityon leave of absence fromthe
Universityof Michigan) was on leave at the CommunicationsSocial Science Research
Department of Bell Telephone Laboratories.
23

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 SOCIOMETRY

That paper then goes on to reportthe resultsof a study on laissez-faire,

democratic,and autocraticleadership.These constitutethe topic of a later
section,whichalso considersthe conceptof contraleadership.
Definition:The status s (A) of a personA in an organization? is the
numberof his immediatesubordinates plus twicethe numberof theirimme-
diate subordinates(who are not immediatesubordinatesof A) plus three
timesthe numberof theirimmediatesubordinates(not already included),
etc.
This definition
has theeffectthatthestatusof a personis maximizedwhen
he not onlyhas as manysubordinates as possible,but whentheseare as far
below him as possible.In the nextsectionwe obtain an expressionfor the
statusof a personin termsof the statusnumbersof each of his immediate
subordinates, whenthe organizationis a "tree." We also explore,using the
approachof directionalduality(4), the organizationobtained from( by
reversingthe directionsof all the directedlines and call this the contra-
organizationto ?, denoted?'. Then by the contrastatuss' (A), of A in
? we mean the statusof A in ('. The sum of the statusnumbersof all the
membersof ?, called the grossstatusof (, and the pair of numbers(s(A),
s' (A)) are studied.Peer groupsare then taken up, and the last section
discussesvariousproblems.

RECURSION FORMULA FOR TREES

To derivethe recursionformulawhichexpressesthe statusof a personin

a "tree-organization" in termsof the status numbersof his immediatesub-
ordinates,we requirethe followingconcepts.A directedgraph or digraph
(see (6) or (4) ) consistsof a set of pointsA, B, C, D, . . . and a prescribed
set of (directed)lines writtenA>B, D>A, etc. We note that betweenany
two points,both the directedlines A+B and B-A may occur.A (directed)
path fromA to E is a collectionof (directed)lines of the formA-B, B>C,
.. ., D1-E wherethe pointsA, B, C,. . . , D, E are distinct. The lengthof
a path is the numberof lines in it. The distancefrompointP to point Q,
writtend (P, Q), is the lengthof any shortestpath fromP to Q.
We nowdefinethestructure of an organizationas thedigraphwhosepoints
are coordinatedto thepersonsin theorganization and whoselinescorrespond
to the directedlines in the organizationchart.For example,the digraphof
Figure 1 illustratesa standardorganizationchartwith fourlevels and two
branchesper member.
For any personA in an organization, we say thatP is a subordinateof A
if thereexistsat least one path fromA to P (in the digraphof the organiza-
tion). We call P an immediatesubordinateof A if d (A, P) = 1. For the sake
of generality in thelaterdiscussion,we deliberately do not excludethe possi-

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 25

D
FIGURE 1

bilitythat two personsmay be subordinatesof each other.An organization

in whichthispossibility A treeis a hierarchy
is excludedis called a hierarchy.
in whichtheredo not exist two different paths fromone point to another.
Note that not all hierarchiesare trees,forexample,the three-person group
whoselines are A+B, B->C, and A->C; see Figure 3. A subhierarchy of an
organizationis a subgroupwhichis a hierarchy.For any personA in an
organization, the subhierarchyof A consistsof A togetherwithall subordi-
nates of A and all shortestpaths along whichA can exerciseauthorityover
thesesubordinates. The superhierarchy of A is definedsimilarly.
Let m be the maximumdistancefromA to any of his subordinates.For
k - 1 2, . . . m, we call P a k-subordinateof A if d(A, P) = k. Thus a
1-subordinate is an immediatesubordinate.Let ak be the numberof k-sub-
ordinates of A. Then the m-tuple (a,, a2, . . . , am) is called the status vector
of A, and we denoteit by v(A). We are nowreadyto expressthestatusof A
in an organization operationally
by theequation
m
(1) s(A) S=.kake
k =1
Note thatthestatusvectorv(A) of A completely determinesthestatusof A.
It is clear thatto everytheoremor formulaon statustherecorresponds a
directionally theorem
dual statementon contrastatus.If the corresponding
is the same as the originaltheorem,it is self-dual.We denotethe dual of
Theorem1 belowby Theorem1', the dual of equation (2) by equation (2'),
etc. For completenesswe definethe distanced(A, A) froma memberto
himselfas zero.
Theorem1: The statusof A can also be writtenin theform:
(2) s(A) =- d(A,P),
whereP rangesoverall thesubordinates of A.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 SOCIOMETRY

Proof: By equation (1),

s(A) = a, + 2a2+ 3a3 +... + mat.
But a,, the numberof immediatesubordinates of A, is the same as the sum
of the distancesfromA to each of his 1-subordinates. Similarly,2a2 is the
sum of the distancesfromA to each of his 2-subordinates, etc.
Fromdualityconsiderations we have withoutfurther proof:
Theorem1': The contrastatus of A is givenby
(2') s'(A) - d(P, A),
whereP rangesover all the membersof ? havingA as a subordinate.
There is a connectionbetweenformula(2) forstatus and the matrixof
distancesof a digraphtreatedin (14). Let A1,A2, . .. , An be the members
of an organization0. Let D be the matrix(djj) in whichthe i, j entrydij is
the distanced(Aj, Aj). Then D is called the matrixof distancesof 0.
Corollary:The statusof memberAi is the sum of the elementsin the ith
row of the matrixof distancesD; the contrastatus of Ai is the sum of the
entriesin theith column.
In (14), an algorithm is providedforcomputingthe matrixD, giventhe
structure of theorganization ?, howevercomplex.By meansof thiscorollary,
the numberss(As) and s'(As) can also be rapidlycomputed.
In orderto state the next theoremconciselywe requirethe conceptof a
subtreeof a personin an organization.By definition, an organizationis a
treeif thereis exactlyone path froma personto each of his subordinates. A
subtreeof an organization is a subsetof the pointsand lineswhichis a tree.
A subtreeof A is any subtreeT of 0 containingA and all his subordinates
such thatthedistancefromA to each of his subordinates is the same in T as
it is in 0. Note that a personA need not have a unique subtree.For if his
hierarchyis as shownin Figure 2a, then each of Figures 2b and 2c is a
subtreeof A.

A A A

CC B C BeC

D D D
(a) (b) (c)
FIGURE 2

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 27

Theorem2: The statusof a personA is the sum of the numberof his sub-
ordinatesand the status in any subtreeof A of each of his immediate
subordinates.
Proof: Symbolically,let B1, B2, . . ., Bq (whereq = a,) be theimmediate
of A, let n(A) be thetotalnumberof subordinates
subordinates of A, and let
T be any subtreeof A in 0. Then we derivethe result
q
(3) s(A) = n(A) + YST (Bj)
i =1
whereST(Bj) is the statusof Be in T. Clearlys(A) and sT(A) are equal, by
equation(1). In equation(1), we separatethe firsttermfromthe remaining
termsto get
m m
s(A) = . k ak= a, +? Y kak.
k =1 k= 2
We then use the fact that k = (k-1) + 1 to write
m
s(A) =a? + [ (k-i) + 1 ] ak.
k =2
Then combiningthe terma, withthe last sum,we obtain
m m
(4) s(A) = > ak + Y- (k -1) ak,
k=1 k=2
wherethe firsttermof the right-hand memberis n(A).
We now workwiththe second sum in equation (3). By definition, ak is
the numberof k-subordinates of A. But in any subtreeof A, the collection
of all k-subordinates of A is identicalwiththeset of all the (k - 1) -subordi-
nates of each of the 1-subordinates of A. Further,sincewe are considering a
subtreeof A, the sets of (k - 1)-subordinatesof any pair B. and By of
1-subordinates of A are mutuallyexclusive.Let v(Be), the statusvectorof
Bj, be denotedby (bil, bi2, bu, . . .). Then we have
m m q
> (k - ) ak = (k-i) Y bi,k-.,
k=2 k =2 i =1
whenceby interchanging the orderof summation,
m q m
(5) >, (ok -1) ak 31 >, (k -1) be, kelp
k 2 i=1 k=2
Now forconveniencewe replacein (5) the index of summationk by the
new index j such that k - j + 1 or, equivalently,k- 1 j. Then (5)
becomes:
m q fm-1
k (k-1 ak \
|jbij
k =2 _ 1 ,,

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 SOCIOMETRY

memberis pre-
in whichthe summationin parenthesesin the right-hand
cisely ST (B.) by (1). Therefore,
m q
16) Y4 ( - I) ak
s(Bj)
ST
k =2 i=1
and substituting(6) into (4), we obtaintherecursiveresultof equation(3).
We now illustratebothequations(1) and (3) usingFigure1 (whichis a
tree). Equation (1) gives
s(A) = (1) (2) + (2) (4) + (3) (8) = 34,
while from(3)
s(A) = 14 + s(B1) + s(B2) = 14 + 10 + 10 = 34.
Corollary:If ? is a tree,thenequation(3), withsT(Bj) replacedby s(Bt),
holds in ?.
Proof:When? is a tree,thesubhierarchy of A is the uniquesubtreeof A.
We nowdemonstrate withFigure3 thereasonfortheconditionof Theorem
2 that the statusof the immediatesubordinatesof A be restricted
to a sub-
treeof A.
A

C
FIGURE 3

Here s(A) = 2, s(B) = 1, s(C) - 0 and n(A) = 2. If we substitute

these numbers into equation (3), we obtain the false statement2 = 2 +
(1 + 0). By definitionof a subtreeof A, the onlysubtreeof A in Figure3
consistsof thelinesAOB and A-C. For thissubtree,equation (3) obviously
holds.
STANDARD ORGANIZATIONS

Probablythe most frequentlyoccurringkind of organizationchart is a

"standardorganization"whichwe now describeprecisely.These occur not

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 29

only in the contextof organizationtheory,but also in probabilitytheory,

combinatorial analysis,logic, and switchingtheory.Every standardorgan-
izationis a tree.Figure1 showsa standardtwo-branching organization with
fourlevels.
A standardorganizationconsistsof a leader A who has b immediatesub-
ordinates,each of whomalso has b immediatesubordinates, and so on as in
Figure1, forb 2. If themaximumdistancefromA to any otherpersonis
m, thenwe say thatwe have a standardorganization withm + 1 levels.We
furthersay thatA is at levelm,each ofhis 1-subordinates B is at level n - i,
and each 1-subordinate of B is at level m-2, and so on, withlevel 0 being
thelowestlevel.We derivea formulaforSb, k, the statusof a personat level
k in a standardorganizationOb in whicheach person above level 0 has
exactlyb immediatesubordinates. Then the values k = 0 1, 2, . .. , m give
thestatusof all thepersonsin ?b. We notethatthisformuladoes notdepend
on the totalnumberof levelsin ?b.
By equation (1),
(7) sb,k b+2b2+3b3+...+kbk.
Hence the recurrence
relationsforstatusin a standardorganizationare:

(8) Sb, ? ?
Sb, k = Sb, k-l + kbk.
Using elementarycalculus, the series in equation (7) can be summedto
obtain Sb, kin closed form:

(9) Sbk
(b 1) 2 [1 (k + 1) b+ kb ].
For the special case b = 2, thisbecomes
(10) S2,ck= 2 [1 (k + 1) 2k 2k+I1;

fromwhichthefollowing
tableis calculated:
k 0 1 2 3 4 5 6...
S2,k 0 2 10 34 98 258 642...
Similarly,forb -3 we find:
k 0 1 2 3 4 5....
S3,k | 0 3 21 102 426 1641...
The standardthree-branching
organization
withm - 2 is shownin Figure
4.
Figure 5 shows a variationof a standardtwo-branching
organizationin
whichneighboringmembersin the charthave mutualinfluence.A diagram

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 30 SOCIOMETRY

FIGURE 4

similarto thisis givenas "Exhibit3" in Likert(12). In thisfigure,

a double-
arrowedline betweena pair of pointsrepresentstwo directedlines,one in
each direction.

FIGURE 5

Let tk be the status of each personat level k in such an organization.

Clearlythestatusdifferential betweenthe top twolevelsis smallerherethan
in a standardorganization. This factis illustratedin the followingtable for
m 4, in whicht
- s2,4 =98.
-

k | 0 1 2 3 4.
tk 1 7 27 83 98
In this sense, Figure 5 representsa "more democratic"organizationthan
the standardand may be moreefficient in the performance
of certaintasks.
We note that even level-Omembershave positivestatus here.

MAXIMAL AND MINIMAL STATUS ARRANGEMENTS

If we are giventhe auxiliaryconditionthat a personA is to have a fixed

numbern n(A) of subordinates, how can we arrangethesen people under
A so thatthestatusof A is minimizedor maximized(respectively) ? It turns
out that thereis a to
unique answer each question, whichwe firstillustrate
forn 4, in Figure6, and thenproveforany value of n.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 31

A B
C

94le
~~~D

(a) (b)
FIGURE6

Figure6a depictsan organizationin whichs (A) = 4, the minimalstatusof

a personwith4 subordinates,
whileFigure6b showss (A) 10, themaximal -

status of A withn(A) =4.

Theorem3: Let s(n, min) and s(n, max) be the minimaland maximal
statusof a personwithexactlyn subordinates.Then we have
(11) s(n, min) =n,
(12) s(n,max) =n(n + 1)/2.
Further,the organizationalstructurewhichminimizesthe statusof A is that
in which A has n immediatesubordinates(as in Figure 6a), while the
maximalstatusof A is attainedin an organizationconsistingof exactlyone
path initiatingat A (as in Figure 6b). For any personB with exactlyn
subordinates, n - s(B) ? n(n + 1)72.
Proof: We firstconsiderequation (11). It followsat once fromequation
(3) that s (n, mink) n. On the otherhand an organizationin the formof
Figure 6a has s(A) =n. Hence s(n, min) ?n. Since s(n, min) O n and
t n, we see that equation (11) is valid.
In orderto proveequation (12), we call the n subordinatesP1, P2, . . ..
Pn. Then by equation (2) we have
n
s(A) d (A,
j Pj)=1

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 32 SOCIOMETRY

Clearly,thestatusvector(bl, b2, .. ., bin) of any personB has theproperty

thatif a component bj = 0, thenall latercomponents bk, withk > j, are also
zero.Hence we see thatthe uniquestatusvectorgivingmaximalstatusis of
the form(1, 1, 1, . . ., 1) and is of lengthn. This is preciselythe formof
Figure 6b. Using equation (1), we therefore find
s(n, max)= 1 + 2 + 3 + ...+ n
=n(n+ 1)72
whichprovesequation (12).
The last sentenceof the theoremis an immediatecorollaryof equations
(11) and (12).

THE GROSS STATUS OF AN ORGANIZATION

Let A1, A2, ... , A. be the n membersof organization

?. Then s(?), the
grossstatusof i, is definedby:
s(?) = s(Al) + s(A2)+ ? * + s(An).
The grosscontrastatus
of ? is analogouslygivenby
s'(o)= s'(Al) + s'(A2) + . .. + s'(An).
Theorem4: The gross status of any organizationis equal to its gross
contrastatus,
i.e.,
(13) s(?) =s'(?).
Proof: By the corollaryto Theorem1, s(?) and s'(?) are both equal to
the sum of all the elementsin the matrixof distances.
The following questionis of a sortoftenencountered in switchingtheory
underthe name of "synthesisproblem,"namely,givena certainset of con-
findthenetworkwhichis best.Giventhat? is to have
ditionsto be satisfied,
n members,what is the structureof ? if s(?) is to be (a) minimal,(b)
maximal?The minimalstructure is givenby the digraph,called totallydis-
connected,withn pointsand no lines,forwhichobviouslys(?) = 0. In the
languageof groups,all membersare isolates.
To specifythe maximalstructure, we need the definition
of a cycle,i.e.,
a path fromA to E together withtheline E+A.
Theorem5: Amongall organizations ? withn members, thereis a unique
structureforwhichs(?) is maximal The digraphof this structureconsists
of n pointsand n lines arrangedin a cycle.
Proof: By Theorem3, the maximalstatus of a single individualA is
attainedin an organizationconsistingof exactlyone path fromA. Hence
s(?) is maximalwheneverymemberof ? enjoysthissituation.This results
fromFigure6b, forexample,by adjoiningthe line E>A to forma cycle,as
shownin Figure7.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 33

B E

C D
FIGURE7

THE STATUS PAIR

By the status pair of numbersfor any memberA of 0, we mean the

orderedpair (s(A), s'(A)). In Figures8a and 8b we writethe statuspair
near representativepoints of the standard organizations02,3 and 02, 4
respectively.

02,3 02, 4 ?
A(34, 0) 4,1)
B(lo, 1) 1103)
X 2h ,a(2,3 ) (2,6)

)(O, 6) )b

(a) (b)
FIGURE 8

The dual indicesof statusand contrastatuscan be combinedto give a single

indexwhichis the resultantor net statusof A:
(14) sn(A) = s(A) -s'(A).
Theorem4 showsthat the sum of the net statusnumbersof everymember
of ? is zero, i.e., the net status of everyorganizationis zero. For certain
purposesthe net statusof a personin a groupmay be a bettermeasureof
''prestige"thanthestatus.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 34 SOCIOMETRY

At what level in a standardorganizationis the net status of a member

equal to zero? An examinationof Figure 8 shows that in the organization
02, 3, the net status is zero just slightlyabove level 1, while in 02, 4,
s-(A) = 0 betweenlevels 1 and 2. Continuingthis calculationfor two-
branchingorganizations withoutdrawingtheirdigraphs,we findthe follow-
ing table of statuspairs:
Level 02, 3 02, 4 (2, 5 02, 6
3 (34, 0) (34, 1) (34, 3) (34, 6)
2 (10,1) (10, 3) (10, 6) (10,10)
1 (2,3) (2, 6) (2,10) (2,15)
0 (0,6) (0,10) (0,15) (0, 21)

Thus in )2, 6, the net statusof a memberis zero exactlyat level 2. This is
plausiblebecauseof thelargenumberof personsin levels0 and 1.
intuitively
One interpretation of zero net status mightbe realizedby a foremanwho
has mixedfeelingsregarding management and workers,whereaspositiveand
negativenet statuswouldindicateprimaryloyaltyto management and labor
respectively.
Othercombinations of statusand contrastatusare theirsum s + s', their
productss', and theirquotients/s'. Both the sum and the productare
differentindicatorsof the degree of status-contrastatus interactionof a
memberof an organization.Referringto Figure 8, we see that the sum is
always maximalat the leaderposition,and for?2, 3 and ?2, 4 the productis
maximalfor the immediatesubordinatesof the leader. Further,the leader
is the onlypersonwithinfinitestatusquotient,and the level 0 membersor
contraleaders are theonlyoneswithzero statusquotient.
We illustratehow a particularrole in an organizationis reflectedin these
differentstatus indiceswith an extremebut frequentlyoccurringexample.
ConsiderE, an "expert" or "consultant"who is responsibleonly to the
leader but does not actuallysuperviseany othermember.Since s(E) = 0
and s'(E) = 1, we see thatE has negativenet status,-1, whiles + s' = 1
and ss' = s/s' = 0. His sum and productdemonstrate small status-contra-
status interaction.In spite of his zero status quotient,the prestigeof the
expertis clearlyseen in his verysmall contrastatus. This is a strikingargu-
mentfortheinadequacyof statusalone (withoutcontrastatus)forpurposes
of organizational description.One commenton actual organizational practice
which involvespreservationof level or of contrastatusof a person while
decreasingthe status is that in certainsituationsmembersare transferred
laterally.
How can one comparethe status of people in different organizations?In
a verylargestructure, evensomeoneslightlyabove level 0 may have a fairly

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 35

large status number.Two normalizingfactorssuggestthemselves,namely

s (?) and s (n, max). We definethe relativestatus of A by the equation
(15) sr(A) = s(A)/s(?)).
Then thesumof therelativestatusof all themembers, i.e., the grossrelative
status,is 1. Similarly,dividings (A) by n(n + 1)/2 gives a numberwhich
showstheproportion of statusA has, comparedto the statushe wouldhave
if he were to arrangehis subordinatesas in Figure 6b.

STRUCTURAL DEMOCRACY, AUTOCRACY, LAISSEZ-FAIRE

We note that thereis no pretensebeing made here that any personal

qualitiesof leadershipare takenintoaccountin discussingleadersor democ-
racy,autocracy,and laissez-faire. One can regardthe adjectives"positional"
or "structural"as attachedto thesenounsjust as we considerit as belonging
to the word"status" throughout thispaper.
We propose the followingoperationaldefinitions. If there is a unique
personin ? withmaximalstatus,he is called the leader; if thereis more
thanone such person,each is called a leader.If A is the leader of ?, and B
is a memberof ? whosestatusis second only to s(A), thenthe leadership
statusdifferentialof ? is s(A) - s(B). A completely democraticorganization
is one in whicheach membercan influenceeveryothermember.In a com-
pletelylaissez-faireorganization, no one influencesanyoneelse. A completely
autocraticorganizationis standardone-branching, i.e., each memberabove
level 0 has exactlyone immediatesubordinate, as in Figure6b. An organiza-
tion is somewhatdemocratic,autocratic,or laissez-faireto the extentto
whichit approximates the above extremeorganizationalstructures. Further,
in theseextremestructures, only the autocraticone has a leader,using the
maximalstatusdefinition.
However,one personin a completelydemocraticgroupmay be designated
as havingsomeotherattribute, say expertness,as in the following quotations
(cf.ModernIndustry,Sept. 15, 1950,"How DemocraticCan IndustryBe?").
Whenthegroupmakesthedecisionby generalconsent, withleaderas expert,resultsare
best.In democratic
leadership, The
decisionsare made on the basis of groupdiscussion.
and puts forthits besteffort....
groupacceptsresponsibility
From the same source,we have:
In thelaissez-faire . . . each individualgoes in his own direction;he imposes
situation,
on himselfwhatevercontrolshe thinksbest.The leaderis simplyone of the group.

and
In autocraticcontrolof a group,theleader... givesorders,makesdecisions.... The
groupis told whatit is to feel,think,and do.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 SOCIOMETRY

B D
FIGURE 9

We combinetheseideas to proposethe digraphof Figure 9 as a demo-

cratic organizationwith a leader. Here the leadershipstatus differential
is as smallas it can be and stillbe positive;fors(A) = 3 and s(B) = s(C)
- s(D) = 2. For completeness, Figure lOa shows the totallydisconnected
digraphof fourpointswhichrepresentsthe completelylaissez-faireorgan-
izationwithfourmembers,and Figure lOb showsthe digraphof the com-
pletelydemocraticfour-person group.
The complement of a digraphis thatdigraphwithexactlythe same set of

A B A
*~~~~

D C B D

(a) (b)
FIGURE 10

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 37

pointsin whicha line A->B appearsif and onlyif it does not occurin the
originaldigraph.Thus the two digraphsof Figure 10 are complementary.
Using the languageof existentialduality (4), this means that laissez-faire
is "undemocracy."Similarly,the complementof Figure 9 representsthe
four-persongroupwithlinesBOA, C-A, and D-A. This is a groupin which
B, C, and D are anarchically
related,and A is a "scapegoat"or contraleader.
We showby an examplethat the adjunctionof even one moreline to an
organizationcan alter the status distributionconsiderably.The standard
organizationof Figure 1 contains15 personsat fourdifferentlevels. In this
organization
s(A) =34, s(B) = 10,s(C) =2, ands(D) =0.
Considerthe organization0 obtained by adding line D+A to Figure 1.
Clearly,the only personswhose status is changedby the additionof this
line are B, C, and D. Since theirnewstatusvectorsin ? are
v(D) = (1, 2, 4, 7), v(C) = (2, 1, 2, 3, 6), and v(B) = (2,4, 1, 1,2,4),
we see that their new status membersare s(D) = 45, s(C) = 52, and
s(B) = 51. Thus the personC, whosestatusin Figure 1 is only 2, emerges
as the leaderin ?, withB a veryclose second.Tannenbaum(15) proposes
foursimpleprototypesfor the study of the distribution of controlin an
organization:
1. The democraticmodel-control increasesas one goes down the hierarchy.
2. The autocratic model-control decreases as one goes down the hierarchy.
3. The laissez-fairemodel-control is low for all hierarchicallevels.
4. The polyarchicmodel-control is high for all hierarchicallevels.

We recognizethesefourdistinctionsbut differ
slightlywiththisterminology.
To us, the "polyarchicmodel" is democraticwhile the above "democratic
model" is inverselyautocraticratherthan democratic.

AUTOMORPHIC GROUPS AND PEER GROUPS

Two personsin ? are peers if theyhave equal status. Obviouslyif two

personsin an organizationhave the same status vectors,thenby equation
(1) theyare peers.The converseof thisstatement is not true.This is shown
by the organizationof Figure 11. Here the status vectorsof A and B are
different,for v(A) = (2, 1, 1,0) and v(B) = (1, 3, 0, 0). However, by
equation (1), we see thats(A) and s(B) are both 7, so thatA and B have
equal status.
The organizationof Figure 12 has even fewerpersonsand also has two
personsA, B withdifferent vectors(1, 1,0) and (3, 0, 0) but equal status,3.
It can easily be shownthat thereare no three-person groupswith this
property.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 SOCIOMETRY

C D
FIGURE 11

A peer organizationor peer groupis one in whichall membershave equal

status. Examples of peer groupshave already been given in Figures lOa,
lOb, and 7 wherethe status of each memberis 0, 3, and 10 respectively.
The paper (13) uses exactlythis definitionof peer organizationin making
finedistinction:
the following
controlprocessescan be moresuccessfully
and administrative
It appearsthatlegislative
delegatedto groupscomposedof equal statusmembers thansanctionprocesses.

B C

D
FIGURE 12

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 39

In orderto definean automorphic group,whichis relatedto a peer group,

we requiresome technicalconceptsfromdigraphtheory(6). Two digraphs
are isomorphic if thereis a one-to-onecorrespondence betweentheirsets of
pointswhichpreservesdirectedlines. An automorphism of a digraphis an
isomorphism withitself.Two pointsof a digraphare similarif thereis an
automorphism sendingone point onto the other.We then say that two
personsin an organization? are automorphic if theycorrespondto similar
pointsin thedigraphof ?. We may now definean automorphic groupas one
in whicheverypair of membersare automorphic. Thus an automorphic group
is coordinatedto a digraphin whicheverypair of pointsare similar.Auto-
morphicgroupsare studiedin the contextof social powerin the paper (5).
It can easily be shownthat all membersof an automorphicgrouphave
the same status vector.Thereforeit is clear that everyautomorphicgroup
is a peergroup.The converseof thisassertionis not true.
Theorem6: Not everypeer groupis automorphic.
Proof:The following counterexample due to E. F. Mooreis, in our opinion,
the smallestpeer groupwhichis not automorphic.

FIGURE 13

There is a simplesufficient
conditionfora groupto be automorphic. We call
two numbersA and B of ? neighborsif d(A,B) = 1 or d(B,A) = 1.
Theorem7: If any memberof ? is automorphic to all his neighbors,
then
? is automorphic.
The proofusingmathematicalinductionand the mathematicaltheoryof
groupsis straightforwardand will not be givenhere.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 SOCIOMETRY

PROBLEMS

OtherStatus Formulas
Katz (9) proposesa statusindexwhich"allows forwho choosesas well
as how manychoose."The statusformulaof equation (1) accomplishesthe
same qualitativepurpose by taking the distance betweenmembersinto
account However,it is open to improvement and modification to make it
more realisticempirically. The objection can be made that a person with
40 low-levelsubordinates(it is easy to supplyexamples,e.g., the head of the
secretarialpool) does not actuallyhave more"status" than the personwith
fewerhigh-levelsubordinates, even thoughequation (1) does give him (or
her) more.This can be answeredby weightingthe membersof ?, say by
thelevel numberor by the statusnumbergivenby equation (1) or by some
othercriterion.In any case, if w(A) is the weightassignedto each number
A, thenthe weightedstatusws(A) can be obtainedby modifying equation
(3) to read:
(16) ws(A) = d(A,P) w(P),
whereP rangesover the subordinatesof A in ?. If we particularizethis
formulato a standardtwo-branching organization02 and take the weight
do notadd any-
w(P) equal to thelevel ofP in 02, thenlevel0 subordinates
thingto a member'sstatus,and we obtain for the weightedstatus of a
personA in level k:
k-i
(17) ws (A)- X, (k- V)2.
j=1

Status and Control

Two relevantquotes on controlare fromLikert (11, p. 16):
textbooks
Management emphasize of administra-
and controlas thefoundation
authority
tion.

and fromTannenbaum(15, p. 545):

The controlgraph(hierarchical the importance
levelsvs. amountof control)illustrates
of controland the
the distribution
of two distinctaspectsof controlin organizations:
totalamountof control.

We assume that the amount of controlA has over his subordinates

decreaseswiththe distancefromA. Thus he may have completecontrolover
his immediatesubordinates,"half-control"over his 2-subordinates,etc.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 41

Then a formulaforc(A), the amountof controlA has in ?, is givenusing

thenotationof equation (1) by
m
(18) c(A) = > ka7/2k.
k= 1
One can thenask thesynthesistypeof question:Whichorganizational struc-
turesgive the leader the best combinationof maximalstatus and maximal
control?
We note thatwiththisformulation, controlis a formof weightedstatus!

Matrix Formulafor Status

Both Katz (9) and Kendall (10) have obtainedmatrixformulasfortheir
status indices.Is therea convenientmatrixformulafor s(A) whichgives
the status of every memberin an organization,with one calculation?A
circuitousanswerto thisquestionhas been foundby Ross and Harary (14)
wherean algorithmforfindingthe matrixof distancesof a digraphis given.
The rowsumsof thismatrixthengivess(A) foreveryA in 0. The question
raisedhereasks if thereis a moredirectway to findthe statusof everyone
in 0.

Formaland InformalStatus
In Likert(11, p. 3), we find:
These studies also showed that the workers had developed an "informal organization"
which differedfromthe "formal" or organization-chartorganization.

We have been discussingmainlyformalorganizations 0 hereratherthan the

informalone whichis also presentin each group.
Does a givenformalorganizationcharttend to induce a certainkind of
structurein the corresponding informalorganization?In particular,what
socialpowerorganizations are inducedby autocratic,democratic, and laissez-
fairetypesof formalorganizations?
One can easily extendthe conceptof subordinatesof membersof 0 to
subordinates of subgroupsof 0. This wouldlead to a statusformula,similar
to equation (1), forthe subgroupsof 0. An "approachto the description of
organizationthroughdata on communication"posed by Jacobson and
Seashore(7) involvesa combination of informalor perceivedstatuswiththe
status of subgroups.One can ask the generalquestion: What role do sub-
groupsplay in the determination of informalstatus?

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 SOCIOMETRY

SynthesisProblems
Synthesisproblemsin organizationtheoryask whichstructuresare best
suited to solve optimallycertaintypesof problems,e.g., to maximizepro-
ductivity(as in (12)). Experiments have been conductedwhichshow that
the "centrality"of an individualin a communication networkplays a role
in his contributionto a group problem-solving situation (see (6)), and
verifiesthat the most centralpersontendsto assumeleadership.The tran-
sitivityof the tendencyto maintaintightcontrolin ? is reportedin (8) as
well as an inversevariationbetweencontroland productivity.

An Application
As an illustrationof statusin otherfields,one may cite the "publication
status"as some sortof indexof creativity. references
The first-order can be
consideredas the immediatesubordinatesof a paper; the second-order
referencesas the 2-subordinates,etc. (It has been suggestedthat when an
author refersto his own papers, these should not be counted.) A first
approximation to thispublicationstatusidea is foundin (3), p. 56:
By a complicatednominatingprocedure150 "significantcontributors"to psychologywere
selected. In addition 474 "other highly visible persons" were chosen. . . . A correlation
between the numberof votes receivedand numberof journal citationswas computed.A
correlationof 0.67 was found. This was the highest correlationamong four variables
correlated.

Manuscript received: January 16, 1958

Revised manuscriptreceived: June 6, 1958
Frank Harary
Research Centerfor Group Dynamics
Universityof Michigan
Ann Arbor,Michigan

REFERENCES

1. Anonymous, "How Seven Employees Can Be Made To Do the Work of One,"

Fortune, March 1956, 122, 123, 146. (Reprinted from The Economist, London,
Nov. 19, 1955. This article has subsequentlybeen expanded into a book entitled
Parkinson'sLaw).
2. Baumgartel,H., "Leadership, Motivations, and Attitudesin Research Laboratories,"
Journal of Social Issues, 1956, 12, 24-31.
3. Clark, K. E., America's Psychologists,Washington: AmericanPsychological Associa-
tion, 1957.
4. Harary, F., "StructuralDuality," Behavioral Science, 1957, 2, 255-265.
5. Harary, F., "A Criterion for Unanimity in French's Theory of Social Power," a
chapter in Studies in Social Power, D. Cartwright(ed.), in press.
6. Harary, F., and R. Z. Norman, Graph Theory as a Mathematical Model in Social
Science, Ann Arbor,Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1953.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STATUS AND CONTRASTATUS 43

7. Jacobson, E., and S. E. Seashore, "CommunicationPractices in Complex Organiza-

tions," Journal of Social Issues, 1951, 7, 28-40.
8. Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn, "Industrial Productivity,"in L. R. Tripp, Human Organ-
ization and WorkerMotivation (ed.), Industrial Relations Research Association,
1951.
9. Katz, L., "A New Status Index Derived from SociometricAnalysis," Psychometrika,
1953, 18, 39-43.
10. Kendall, M. G., "Further Contributionsto the Theory of Paired Comparisons,"
Biometrics,1955, 2, 43-62.
11. Likert,R., "Developing Patternsin Management,"AmericanManagement Association,
General Management Series No. 178, 1955.
12. Likert, R., "Developing Patterns of Management II," American Management Asso-
ciation, General Management Series No. 182, 1956.
13. Morse, N. C., E. Reimer,and A. S. Tannenbaum, "Regulation and Control in Hier-
archical Organizations,"Journal of Social Issues, 1951, 7, 41-48.
14. Ross, I. C., and F. Harary, "Identificationof the Liaison Persons of an Organization
Using the StructureMatrix," Management Science, 1955, 1, 251-258.
15. Tannenbaum, A. S., "Control Structureand Union Functions," AmericanJournal of
Sociology, 1956, 61, 536-545.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.205 on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:55:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions