Striving for high social status is the dream of many people. They take many steps and make a great effort to be able to boast of belonging to their dream group. Most often this is a reference group – one we compare ourselves with and aspire to. We live in a hierarchical society in which certain strata can be distinguished. There are not that many of them, and the boundaries between them are not as sharp and impassable as in caste societies, for example in India. Even so, people still talk about the upper class, the middle class, the working class and the intelligentsia. Each of these classes forms a kind of microculture and has its own signs of recognition.
These signs may be language, dress, the objects we surround ourselves with, where we live and where we go on holiday, but also music, literature and forms of leisure. All these signs of recognition can become objects of desire and special appreciation for those whose need and value is status – the fact of belonging to a particular group.
However, our society also has slogans such as equality and justice, written even into the constitution and embedded in the foundations of faith and religion. There are people among us who cross the boundaries between classes with great ease and don’t stand out in any way. They stand in opposition to all elitism, are egalitarian, and to the naked eye are hard to place in any particular class.
Belonging to a particular group and showing that belonging can be a value; being someone important or original, standing out, mattering and being high up is a magnet for some people.
In Shalom Schwartz’s reflections on values, status can be found in “face” (prestige), which belongs to the group of values focused on the self and aimed at self-protection. Prestige can have two shades: it can strengthen one’s own importance and enhance the self, but it can also seek to maintain the status quo. It is close to power and security. On the circle of values, prestige is in complete opposition to universalism. Interestingly, it is also far from benevolence and self-direction in thought.
In Józef Kozielecki’s hierarchies of values, status can be found mostly in the Heraclean hierarchy, as it is linked to showing strength, belonging to divine power and ostentatiously displaying importance. A low need for status can be found in Socrates, in the Socratic hierarchy of values.
If, on the other hand, we analyse status through the lens of Edgar Schein’s career anchors, it is hard to find a direct link to any one anchor. Status can fit equally into professionalism, leadership or lifestyle.
Steven Reiss describes status as the need to belong to an elite group. A high need for status is a striving for elitism, while a low need for status is a striving for egalitarianism.
With a high need for status, people who want to feel prestige may use various strategies in both material and non-material dimensions. The material dimension means surrounding oneself with objects, clothing, places and gadgets characteristic of the group one aspires to. A designer watch or clothes from a famous designer are signs of being someone better and a source of pride. The non-material dimension of a strong need for status may show itself in using titles, talking about one’s own merits and seeking relationships with people who already belong to the dream group. This leads to selectively surrounding oneself with people only because they have something important and stand out – surrounding oneself with proverbial “queens of life”.
How to recognise people for whom a high need for status is a motivator?
If there is a buzz, a party or something important and prestigious happening, they are usually at the centre of it.
They are quick to judge others, drawing conclusions about their competence and importance from how they are dressed, what car they drive and what titles they use.
Hierarchy at work is important to them; they show respect and deference to those higher in the hierarchy and accept their special rights, and expect the same from those lower in the hierarchy.
In situations of stress, tension or fatigue, they tend to belittle opponents.
They talk a lot about their achievements, positions and successes, even if they are ancient history.
How to recognise people for whom a low need for status is a motivator?
They are easiest to recognise by their clothes – they dress so as not to stand out too much from the crowd.
They don’t like drawing attention to themselves or being put on a pedestal. A back seat and supporting roles suit them. Formal galas tire them, especially if they have to appear on stage and receive awards.
When working in a group, they easily use the language of “we” and emphasise shared elements and equality.
They don’t emphasise their achievements, and when asked about their successes they usually play them down.
They sometimes feel awkward and shy when others pay attention to them.
What to do to satisfy a strong need for status?
The basic way to motivate such employees is to notice them and put them in the foreground, for example by inviting them to speak first. Their motivation is strongly influenced by the employer’s position, a prestigious job title, the company’s location – even the location of their office: the closer to the board, the better. The employer brand matters a lot to them, and they pay attention to what other employees say about the employer. They expect respect, and any excessive familiarity or failure to notice them will be demotivating. They don’t want to feel part of a worthless mass; they like to stand out and feel that their contribution is significant.
What to do to satisfy a low need for status?
Their strongest motivator is equality – equal treatment for everyone – and praise linked to the actual results of work rather than social status. It is best to let them act discreetly from the back seat. They particularly appreciate a flat structure and the absence of titles. They simply don’t understand differentiated benefits and special rights that depend on position in the company.
How do people who need status see those who don’t?
People with a strong need for status see themselves as outstanding people who deserve something better. They think of themselves as exceptional people who have achieved something. They believe they are entitled to more because they belong to a particular group. They look at people without a need for status as grey mice – unremarkable and average. They think they lack style, taste and refinement, and see them as coarse and unpolished.
On the other hand, people with a low need for status see those who need status as posers and snobs in the bad sense of the word – conceited and arrogant. To them such people are like hollow eggshells: beautiful on the outside, empty inside. Their superficiality repels them, and they prefer people with a low need for status. They consider themselves and those like them as equals, where everyone has equal opportunities, not drawing attention to oneself is a virtue, and the absence of privileges based on non-objective factors such as “position in the company” is right.
A need or value is not a competency.
Status is deeply rooted in people. It is not the same as taste or following current trends. Status as a need to belong to an elite group depends on the environment in which a person functions and was brought up.
Status is not a competency, but behind it there may be more or less developed competencies such as empathy, communication, assertiveness, openness to others and active listening.
Without these competencies being well developed, status can turn a person’s behaviour into something snobbish and destructive for those around them and for themselves.
