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]

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]

Makingmistakes is an inevitable part of leadership, but little is known about how and when leaders benefit from reflecting on their missteps. In this paper, we propose that mistakes, when reflected upon, have the potential to increase a leader's expressed humility. We detail how having leaders recall past mistakes can help them formulate plans for learning and encourage them to express humility. We also argue that this positive relationship is strengthened when leaders have a promotion focus. We detail downstream benefits, as increased levels of leaders' expressed humility are expected to increase their teams' improvement-oriented behaviors and, subsequently, team performance. Across multiple studies and using varied methods (i.e., scenario-based experimentswith 955 managerial leaders, a laboratory experiment with 210 student leaders and team members, and a daily field experiment with 85 managers), we empirically test the proposed relationships. Our studies contribute to the literature by identifying leaders' recall of learning from mistakes as an important intervention to elicit their expressed humility. [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]

We examine whether observers hold biases that can negatively affect how racially diverse teams are evaluated, and ultimately treated, relative to racially homogeneous groups. In three experiments, which held the [...]

The current research sheds new light on how and why status hierarchies impact interpersonal helping by examining people's reactions to recently experienced status change. Specifically, we incorporate findings from research on the self-serving attributional bias to theorize about how the direction of status change (i.e., a gain or a loss) can shape the extent to which people accept or deflect personal responsibility for their change in status, which we argue will then impact other-concern and, thus, their willingness to help. Further, we identify status change legitimacy as a key contingency that will strengthen or weaken the psychological and behavioral effects of status change. Among firefighter teams (Study 1), participants in the laboratory (Studies 2 and 3), and student teams (Study 4), we show that (1) status change impacts interpersonal helping through its impact on changes in other-concern and (2) status change legitimacy moderates the effect of status change on both other-concern and interpersonal helping. Additionally, we document an asymmetry with regards to the effects of status change on both other-concern and helping behavior (i.e., with the negative impact of a status loss being stronger than the positive impact of a status gain). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current paper examines how posting performance--an act that triggers increased social comparisons between workers--influences employees' motivation when working in groups. In the study, posting employee performance moderated the relationship between groupwork and employee motivation. When individual performance was publicly posted in the workplace, employees working in a group performed better than when working alone (i.e., social laboring); however, when individual performance was not posted, employees working in a group performed worse than when working alone (i.e., social loafing). The findings shed light on how social comparisons can have positive implications for employee performance in groups. Keywords: organizational studies; effectiveness performance; motivation; productivity History: Received September 14, 2011; accepted August 6, 2013, by Jesper Sorensen, organizations. Published online in Articles in Advance January 2, 2014., Introduction Despite the widespread use of groups and teams in organizations to perform both routine and specialized tasks, concerns have long been raised that working in a group has the [...]

A purported downside of social category diversity is decreased relationship focus (i.e., one's focus on establishing a positive social bond with a coworker). However, we argue that this lack of [...]

There is a growing consensus that cooperative goal structures are more effective at motivating groups than competitive goal structures. However, such results are based largely on studies conducted in highly-controlled settings where participants were provided with the necessary resources to accomplish their assigned task. In an attempt to extend the boundary conditions of current theoretical predictions, we undertook a field experiment within a base-of-the-pyramid setting where resource scarcity is extremely high. Specifically, we collected data on 44 communities within rural Sri Lanka who were tasked with contributing a portion of their resources to the construction of a school building; 24 were assigned to a competition condition and 20 to a cooperation condition. The results of our field experiment, and subsequent follow-up interviews and focus groups, collectively suggest that competitive goal structures generally lead to higher levels of motivation within a resource scarce environment. However, our results also suggest that cooperative goal structures can be highly motivating when groups are unfamiliar with one another, as cooperating with unfamiliar groups can provide access to valuable and rare knowledge within such settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for profitably distributing products to previously underserved "base-of-the- pyramid" (BOP) markets as a means of poverty alleviation has received growing interest within the management field. However, such business models often struggle with the agency costs that arise between the firm and local sales agents as the institutions and infrastructure in BOP markets make traditional contractual and monitoring mechanisms difficult and expensive to employ. We present the results of two complementary studies which were both conducted with salespeople in rural Guatemala. The first study employed a quasi-experimental field-study combined with in-depth interviews, while the second study was a laboratory experiment. The results of the studies suggest that identity-based mechanisms can potentially mitigate agency costs through a positive identity spillover effect in multiproduct settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the role of status distance (i.e., the magnitude of status differences between coworkers) in understanding interpersonal helping in organizations. Results from an experiment and a field study show a curvilinear relationship between status distance and helping, with less help provided to those at relatively small and large status distances from oneself, and relatively more help offered to those at moderate status distances. Although prior work on status differences has primarily considered status ordinally (i.e., rank ordering of individuals), or in terms of direction (i.e., whether someone is higher or lower status), the current work takes a more exacting look at status differences, providing insights into the relationship between status and helping that would have been overlooked if relying solely on the traditional ordinal approach to social hierarchy. These findings offer an empirical basis and theoretical motivation to consider status distance as a critical variable in future work examining the effects of status differences on interpersonal dynamics. Importantly, this work also offers a relevant and timely perspective for managers debating the costs and benefits of various hierarchical arrangements in organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - We apply theories of physical distance to better understand behavior and judgment in intragroup and intergroup negotiations. Approach - By applying theories of physical distance to the domain of intragroup and intergroup negotiations we develop predictions about how large magnitudes of physical distance from in-group and out-group members should affect individuals' trust, interpretation of behavior, and willingness to use negotiation to resolve conflict. Findings - Based on the current application of physical distance theories, several predictions are made for how increased distance should differentially impact the negotiation process when negotiating with in-group versus out-group members. Notably, it is predicted that because of increased schema-reliance associated with increased physical distance, negotiations with out-groups should have increased challenges. Implications - The current chapter yields several interesting avenues for future empirical research. Moreover, we propose specific strategies that may be of use in reducing the potential harmful impact of increased physical distance in intergroup negotiations. Value of the paper - We integrate several theories of physical distance to generate novel predictions for group negotiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the trust development literature has been characterized overwhelmingly by rationality-based models, the current research attempts to explain how affect can influence this process. To better understand how and why affect would influence trust development, 5 experiments were conducted to examine the effects of positive mood on people's tendencies to trust and distrust others. Consistent with theory, which argues that positive mood promotes schema reliance, the relationship between positive mood and trust was influenced by the presence of cues that indicated whether the other party was trustworthy or untrustworthy. Across 5 studies, trusting behaviors (Experiments 1-3) and perceptions of trustworthiness (Experiments 4 and 5) were found to be influenced by cues associated with trust or distrust. Specifically, when available cues about the other party promoted trust, people in a positive mood increased their trust; when cues promoted distrust, people in a positive mood decreased their trust. The data support the expectation that affect can influence trust development, although the relationship is more complex than main effect predictions of mood-congruency models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current paper reports the findings of an experiment designed to investigate the persistence of motivation gains in small groups. The current study had participants work on a conjunctive task, where they believed that their performance was highly instrumental for the group to perform well. Building on prior work on the Köhler effect, although motivation gains became smaller over time, these gains in effort still remained statistically significant across several work trials. Moreover, the attenuation of the Köhler effect was found to be moderated by the stability of group membership. More specifically, as compared with people who worked with the same partner (i.e., closed groups), gains in effort were found to be more robust for participants who worked with several different partners (i.e., open groups). The current findings help fill an important gap in the motivation gains literature by demonstrating that motivation gains in groups can persist across multiple work trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined whether increasing evaluation concerns would increase the magnitude of the Köhler effect (i.e., one type of motivation gain that has been documented to occur in small groups). Evaluation concerns were manipulated by having participants work in the physical presence or virtual presence of their coworker. As anticipated, motivation gains were significantly greater for participants who worked in the physical presence of their coworker. These results suggest that evaluation concerns can potentially increase the magnitude of the Köhler effect. Furthermore, the findings have implications for practitioners and researchers interested in the differential impact that face-to-face and virtual mediums have on motivation in groups or teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few interpersonal relationships endure without one party violating the other's expectations. Thus, the ability to build trust and to restore cooperation after a breach can be critical for the preservation of positive relationships. Using an iterated prisoner's dilemma, this article presents two experiments that investigated the effects of the timing of a trust breach—at the start of an interaction, after 5 trials, after 10 trials, or not at all. The findings indicate that getting off on the wrong foot has devastating long-term consequences. Although later breaches seemed to limit cooperation for only a short time, they still planted a seed of distrust that surfaced in the end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sometimes group work conditions lead to motivation gains rather than to social loafing. Two theoretical explanations for the Köhler motivation gain effect are identified, one stressing social comparison and a second stressing the indispensability of one's effort to the group. The results of three new experiments are reported. Experiment 1 suggested that both explanations are valid and contribute to the Köhler effect. Prior studies suggested that there might be gender differences in the relative importance of these two explanatory processes. Experiment 2 confirmed this suggestion. In Experiment 3, the gender difference was eliminated by priming women with a goal (viz., competition) presumed to be chronically more important to men. It is argued that the relative importance of these two motivational processes will depend on the immediate and chronic importance attached to more personal (viz., to achieve a favorable social comparison) versus collective (viz., to contribute to one's group) goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "The Affective Consequences of Diversity and Homogeneity in Groups," by Katherine W. Phillips and Robert B. Lount is presented.

In two experimental studies of two-party information sharing, we demonstrate that affective state plays a role in the knowledge-transfer process. Study 1 (N = 108 MBA students) found that affective state has a larger impact on those in need of knowledge ("receivers") than on those in possession of knowledge ("senders"), with elated/happy receivers more likely than angry/frustrated receivers to absorb and act on new information. Study 2 (N = 180 undergraduates) replicated this finding and also demonstrated that having receivers and senders in the same high-arousal affective state as each other (affective congruence) enhances knowledge transfer, regardless of whether the affective state is positive (elated/happy) or negative (angry/frustrated). These findings help fill an important gap in the literature regarding the influence of affect on knowledge transfer in groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

O. Köhler (1926, 1927) found that less able performers tried harder as team members under conjunctive task demands (Köhler motivation gain effect) and that the greatest gain occurred with moderately discrepant coworker abilities (Köhler discrepancy effect). Recent investigations have reproduced Köhler overall motivation gain but not the discrepancy effect. The present research examined whether workers' foreknowledge of task abilities--present in Köhler's research, absent in contemporary studies--moderates the discrepancy effect. Participants worked alone or in 2-person teams under conjunctive task demands. Experiment 1 manipulated foreknowledge of ability. Experiment 2 manipulated discrepancy: a (confederate) teammate performed slightly, moderately, or substantially better. Both experiments found (a) overall motivation gains and (b) discrepancy moderation under foreknowledge conditions. Implications for understanding group motivation gains are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]