Figure 1
Relationship of status to effective negotiation performance proposed by Miles & Clenney (2010).
Table 1
Definitions Distinguishing Status, Power, Influence and Authority.
| TERM | DEFINITION |
|---|---|
| Status | A student’s position relative to other students in the power and prestige order of the team, characterized by the degree to which the student is respected or admired by other teammates (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), which results in differences in action opportunities, performance outputs, evaluations, and patterns of influence in teams (Simpson et al., 2012). |
| Power | The “asymmetric control over valued resources” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), such as access to the conversational floor or access to learning activities, in student teams. |
| Influence | The ability of individuals to utilize conscious or unconscious social pressures to modify opinions, expectations, decisions, or behaviors in team setting (Simpson et al., 2012). |
| Authority | The expectation of influence (Karpowitz & Mendelberg, 2014) or the “legitimized right to means-end control” (Bennis et al., 1958, p. 144) derived from normative rules or established beliefs in a team setting. |
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Focal Teams.
| RACE/ETHNICITY | SEX | |
|---|---|---|
| Team Mobula | ||
| Matt | White | Male |
| Chelsea | White | Female |
| Max | Asian | Male |
| Addy | Black | Female |
| Kevin | Asian | Male |
| Team Surge | ||
| Danish | Asian | Male |
| Lauren | White | Female |
| Stephanie | White | Female |
| Ryan | White | Male |
| Rehman | Asian | Male |
| The Yachtsmen | ||
| Kyle | White | Male |
| Paul | White | Male |
| John | White | Male |
| Seth | White | Male |
| Cam | White | Male |
Table 3
Example Codes and Definitions.
| PARENT CODE | CHILD CODE | DEFINITION | EXAMPLE EXCERPT FROM FIELDNOTES AND INTERVIEWS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatives | NegativeInterrogative | A student utters a negative interrogative sentence during a design discussion. | [Fieldnotes]: At that moment, Seth interjected with a negative interrogative—“Aren’t we putting the thrusters on the outside?” |
| Yes-NoInterrogative | A student utters a yes-no interrogative sentence during a design discussion. | [Fieldnotes]: I recall this was a discussion that occurred during the last team meeting that is being raised again by Seth (“Do you think we should move the thrusters back since we are flipping the payload?”). | |
| Influence | Idea Uptake | A student discusses an individual or team idea that was taken up (e.g., further discussed, utilized in the design process). | [Student Interview]: So, we had some questions, some back and forth, getting him to fully explain the idea to us. Then after that, we were like okay yeah, that sounds great. Let’s do that. |
| Idea is Discarded | A student discusses an individual or team idea that was discarded (e.g., rejected by a teammate, never considered). | [Fieldnotes]: Stephanie began to challenge the “trapezoid” frame and questioned the benefits of the frame. At one point, she proposed a “fish” shaped frame and began to sketch the idea on the board. This idea was immediately rejected. Ravi: Whaaat!? WHAAAT!? Cooper: Nooooooo! | |
| Pushback | A student discusses an idea that it not taken up by the team but is also not summarily discarded. | [Fieldnotes] Kevin says “Let’s say we choose ROV 1. What would be our innovation?” Max responded suggesting the servo would be the innovation, and Matt pushed back— “That wouldn’t be worth that many points.” | |
| Influence by Questioning | A student exerts influence (e.g., re-directs discussion, expresses disagreement) through the use of questions. | [Fieldnotes] As Chelsea was typing in tasks, Max used a question to redirect the conversation and organize the team’s work: “Do we want to put in the build tasks?” [Read: We should add the build tasks.] |
[i] Note: The “Interrogatives” codes represent the second-wave data analysis. Whereas interrogatives were labeled “attacking questions,” “elaborating questions,” or “leading questions” in the preliminary analysis, the second-wave analysis reclassified codes by their type of interrogative.