Power, Status, Legitimacy, and Shame in Organizations

The power-status theory of emotions posits that emotions arise out of a process in which people compare the levels of status and power that they experience against some standard of status and power adequacy. Power-status theory is effective at predicting emotions, but it does not formally specify a structural mechanism that explains how actors determine what constitutes adequate or inadequate power and status. The authors argue that legitimacy, or the notion that actors have a right to expect compliance and deference, serves as this mechanism. Focusing on shame, the authors illustrate that perceived losses in legitimacy mediate a substantial portion of the links among status loss, power loss, and shame. The authors also find that legitimacy mediates the relationship between a person’s position within an organization and the shame they experience when their status and power are challenged. These findings advance power-status theory by providing a structural standard for status and power adequacy that explains how losses in status and power generate emotional outcomes.