Emergent power hierarchies and group performance (Published online: 7 Oct. 2014)

In newly formed groups, informal hierarchies emerge automatically and readily. In this study, we argue that emergent group hierarchies enhance group performance (Hypothesis 1) and we assume that the more the power hierarchy within a group corresponds to the task-competence differences of the individual group members, the better the group performs (Hypothesis 2). Twelve three-person groups and 28 four-person groups were investigated while solving the Winter Survival Task. Results show that emerging power hierarchies positively impact group performance but the alignment between task-competence and power hierarchy did not affect group performance. Thus, emergent power hierarchies are beneficial for group performance and although they were on average created around individual group members' competence, this correspondence was not a prerequisite for better group performance.

A model of gender prejudice, power, and discrimination: How hierarchy-enhancing factors predominate over hierarchy-attenuating factors

Gender inequalities remain an issue in our society and particularly in the workplace. Several factors can explain this gender difference in top-level managerial positions such as career ambitions but also biases against women. In our chapter, we propose a model explaining why gender inequalities and particularly discrimination against women is still present in our societies despite social norms and existing legislation on gender equality. To this purpose, we review research on discrimination through two different approaches, (a) a prejudice approach through the justification-suppression model developed by Crandall and Eshleman (2003) and (b) a power approach through the social dominance theory (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In our work, we integrate these two approaches and propose a model of gender prejudice, power and discrimination. The integration of these two approaches contributes to a better understanding of how discrimination against women is formed and maintained over time.

Image guided critical screw placement precision in the cervical spine : important or incidental? : results of a series of 91 consecutive cases using OVEM

Study design: A retrospective study of image guided cervical implant placement precision. Objective: To describe a simple and precise classification of cervical critical screw placement. Summary of Background Data: "Critical" screw placement is defined as implant insertion into a bone corridor which is surrounded circumferentially by neurovascular structures. While the use of image guidance has improved accuracy, there is currently no classification which provides sufficient precision to assess the navigation success of critical cervical screw placement. Methods: Based on postoperative clinical evaluation and CT imaging, the orthogonal view evaluation method (OVEM) is used to classify screw accuracy into grade I (no cortical breach), grade la (screw thread cortical breach), grade II (internal diameter cortical breach) and grade III (major cortical breach causing neural or vascular injury). Grades II and III are considered to be navigation failures, after accounting for bone corridor / screw mismatch (minimal diameter of targeted bone corridor being smaller than an outer screw diameter). Results: A total of 276 screws from 91 patients were classified into grade I (64.9%), grade la (18.1%), and grade II (17.0%). No grade III screw was observed. The overall rate of navigation failure was 13%. Multiple logistic regression indicated that navigational failure was significantly associated with the level of instrumentation and the navigation system used. Navigational failure was rare (1.6%) when the margin around the screw in the bone corridor was larger than 1.5 mm. Conclusions: OVEM evaluation appears to be a useful tool to assess the precision of critical screw placement in the cervical spine. The OVEM validity and reliability need to be addressed. Further correlation with clinical outcomes will be addressed in future studies.

Dial M for Murder: A Case of Passion Killing, Criminal Evidence and Sultanic Power in Medieval India

This paper considers the structures and applications of the criminal judicial system in the Islamic Later Middle Period as it developed in India under the sultans of Delhi (1200-1400 CE). A fundamental issue in crime and punishment is the relationship between sultanic power and religious authority. Particularly at stake in this relationship is the question of who can sanction the highest form of punishment, i.e. the death penalty (siyāsa). Contemporary historians and scholars in the study of religion investigating the relationship between sharīʿa and siyāsa to reveal the extent and limits of sultanic power show a system of governance that allowed for the delegation of authority, particularly in the area of the judiciary, from the sultan down to viziers and judges. Some scholars depict the relationship between the ʿulamāʾ and the sultan as a kind of stand off. The actual dynamics of legal jurisdiction were much more complex. This study proposes a new interpretive framework for understanding the relationship between political power and religious authority through a critical analysis of the criminal judicial system, law, and historical narrative. In particular, I consider a murder case described by Shams al-dīn Sirāj ʿAfīf in one of the most significant histories written in the later Delhi Sultanate, the Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī.