Search

Although teams of negotiators are widely assumed to be better at unlocking integrative solutions compared to individual negotiators, the interteam negotiation context is characterized by unique challenges that can make effective collaboration between teams difficult. We extend our theoretical understanding of interteam negotiations by offering novel insights about when and why teams realize their potential in integrative negotiations. Specifically, we propose a theoretical model that explains how hierarchical team structures reduce information elaboration within teams, which reinforces "fixed-pie" assumptions that prompt the reliance on value-claiming behaviors between teams and lower high-quality outcomes such as the joint gain achieved. Across four studies, each involving interactive team-on-team negotiations, we provide support for the hypothesized effects of formal intrateam hierarchies on joint gain, and test a useful intervention to mitigate the harmful effects of hierarchically structured teams at the negotiation table. Contributions to the literatures on team negotiations, interteam collaboration, and hierarchical differences within teams are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights the value in taking a multi‐temporal perspective to the literature on underdogs and favorites in competitive contexts. We contend that an inherent feature of the psychological experience of being an underdog or favorite is the coexistence of thoughts related to the past and future. Building upon this key insight, we adopt a multi‐temporal lens to compare current research on underdogs and favorites to the broader literature studying competition and motivation in intergroup contexts, with the goal of identifying possible areas of coherence and contradiction in relation to other relevant theoretical frameworks. Through this analysis, we put forth a set of what we hope are thought‐provoking research questions that are intended to guide and inspire future work in this domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizations benefit from including employees with dissimilar values and perspectives, but their ability to realize these benefits is constrained by the degree to which those holding the dissimilar values (i.e., value minorities) feel comfortable engaging with their colleagues and the work of the collective. We extend theory on value dissimilarity by directly examining the experience of individuals whose values are dissimilar from those of their colleagues, and factors driving their engagement in work. Our examination spanned three studies: a laboratory experiment, a vignette study of employed adults, and a three-wave survey of student project groups. We found that the negative relationship between holding dissimilar values from one's colleagues and engagement was lessened when value minorities disclosed personal information unrelated to their dissimilar values (Studies 1–3). Self-disclosure also moderated the negative relationship between value dissimilarity and feeling respected by one's colleagues (Studies 2 and 3). Furthermore, felt respect mediated the effect of value dissimilarity on engagement, and this indirect effect was moderated by self-disclosure (Studies 2 and 3). Overall, this research is relevant to organizations seeking to capitalize upon the benefits of minority perspectives in the workforce but suggests that a critical first step is to prioritize the experience of value minorities and the decreased sense of social worth that can accompany this experience. By fostering an environment conducive to self-disclosure, organizations can help to alleviate the discomfort associated with value dissimilarity, thereby ensuring that all people, including the value minority, feel respected and are maximally engaged at work. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15768. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Any single competition is rarely a "one-off" event and instead is often part of a larger sequence of related competitions. Thus, we contend that in order to better understand people's competitive experiences, we must take a more holistic view, where their experiences and behaviors in the present are a function of their past and expected future outcomes. This research expands the temporal lens of competition by examining how past outcomes (i.e., winning vs. losing streak) and future expectations (i.e., underdog vs. favorite standing) collectively influence an actor's cognitive and affective reactions to a competition, with implications for their willingness to transgress. Studies 1 (fantasy football managers) and 2 (the English Premiere League teams) show that streaks and underdog vs. favorite standing interact to predict competitive transgressions: winning streaks increase transgressions for underdogs, and losing streaks increase transgressions for favorites. Studies 3 (public defenders) and 4 (Democrats and Republicans) experimentally manipulate streaks and standing and unpack the cognitive (i.e., outcome uncertainty) and affective (i.e., excitement for underdogs, and anxiety for favorites) mechanisms that precipitate these transgressions. Theoretical implications for the competition literature, as well as managerial insights, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study examined longitudinal relations between overt and relational victimization, sadness and anger dysregulation, and depressive and anxiety symptoms across 6 months among an ethnically diverse sample of sixth graders (N = 485; 48% male; 65% African American). No direct longitudinal relations were found between peer victimization and internalizing symptoms or between internalizing symptoms and peer victimization, and these findings were consistent across gender and disability status. The relation between overt victimization and subsequent increases in relational victimization was stronger for youth with versus without high incidence disabilities. Significant indirect effects were found for overt victimization on both depressive and anxiety symptoms via sadness dysregulation. The strength of the indirect effects did not differ by gender. Findings highlight the merits of school-based violence prevention programs that address emotional management and are embedded within multi-tiered school environment interventions.

Learning analytic implementations are increasingly being included in learning management systems in higher education. We lay out some concerns with the way learning analytics--both data and algorithms--are often presented within an unproblematized Big Data discourse. We describe some potential problems with the often implicit assumptions about learning and learners--and indeed the tendency not to theorize learning explicitly--that underpin such implementations. Finally, we describe an attempt to devise our own analytics, grounded in a sociomaterial conception of learning. We use the data obtained to suggest that the relationships between learning and the digital traces left by participants in online learning are far from trivial, and that any analytics that relies on these as proxies for learning tends towards a behaviorist evaluation of learning processes.