1,720,964 research outputs found
Reducing organizational rule breaking through task variety: how task design supports deliberative thinking
Full text linkIn this paper we argue that task design affects rule breaking in the workplace. Specifically, we propose that task variety activates deliberative (Type 2) processes as opposed to automatic/intuitive (Type 1) processes, which, in turn, helps prevent individuals from breaking rules in order to serve their own hedonic self-interest. We use data from the home loan application processing operations of a Japanese bank to establish the phenomenon in the field. We document that increased task variety at a daily level is associated with lower levels of rule breaking in the form of violating corporate break time policies (Study 1). We further explore the relationship between task variety and rule breaking in three lab experiments, using different operationalizations of rule breaking (Studies 2, 3a, and 3b) and provide direct evidence for the mediating effect of deliberative thinking in this relationship (Studies 3a and 3b). We discuss implications for rule compliance in
organizations, behavioral ethics, and work design
Social reconnection revisited: The effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity, trust, and general risk-taking
No full textWe hypothesize that people at risk of exclusion from groups will engage in actions that can socially reconnect them with others and test the hypothesis in four studies. We show that participants at risk of exclusion reciprocated the behavior of an unknown person (Study 1a) and a potential excluder (Study 1b) more compared to two control groups (people who received a non-social negative feedback and people who were actually excluded). Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1a with trust as the dependent variable. Study 3 showed that people who were at risk of exclusion took less general risk compared with both control groups. These results demonstrate socially adaptive responses of people who are at risk of social exclusion.Social exclusion Potential exclusion Social risk Trust Reciprocity Risk-taking
Should I stand up for my mistreated colleague? When and why high-status team members stand up for their coworkers
No full textSupervisory mistreatment has adverse consequences for its victims. Coworkers, as observers, can shape victims’ experiences by standing up for them. Yet doing so entails the risk of supervisory retaliation. High-status coworkers should be well-positioned to stand up for victims as they have greater social capital at work. However, such retaliation risks may loom large for them because they are highly motivated to protect what they have. Thus, prior research reports both positive and negative links between status markers and various forms of standing up. We suggest that these inconclusive findings stem from examining individuals’ status only within a single domain (e.g., work) while neglecting how their standing in other groups may shape their experiences in that focal domain. Building on status inconsistency theory (Lenski, 1954) and the concept of status portfolios (Fernandes et al., 2021), we argue that status variance (i.e., inconsistency of status across groups) shapes how high-status employees react to mistreatment. Specifically, we hypothesize that high-status employees with high (compared to low) status variance will experience greater fear of retaliation and reduced willingness to stand up. We argue that this occurs because they perceive their status portfolios as unstable and become more vigilant in protecting their elevated standing at work. Four complementary studies provided support for our hypotheses. We discuss implications for research on bystander intervention, supervisory mistreatment, and statu
Motivation purity bias: Expression of extrinsic motivation undermines perceived intrinsic motivation and engenders bias in selection decisions
Full text linkSwiftly judging whom to bring on board: How person perception (accurate or not) influences selection of prospective team members
Full text linkWe develop and test a holistic model of how team members’ swift judgments about a prospective team member impact their selection decisions and how accurate those judgments are in predicting the prospective member’s performance. Applying the social psychology literature on person perception to the organizational literature on team member selection, we argue that team members’ perceptions of the prospective member’s competence primarily shape their predictions about the prospective member’s task-related performance in the team, whereas perceptions of warmth primarily shape predictions about the prospective member’s interpersonal contextual performance in the team. We further propose that, although team members rely on both performance predictions when choosing a prospective member, predicted task-related performance receives more weight than predicted interpersonal contextual performance, and that the importance of predicted interpersonal contextual performance is elevated when team task interdependence is high. Importantly, we theorize that the predictions about task-related performance show good accuracy, whereas the predictions about interpersonal contextual performance do not, which makes the reliance on the latter erroneous. Across two studies utilizing prospective members’ actual task-related and interpersonal contextual performance (objective and peer-rated), as well as team members’ predictions about such performances, we found support for our predictions. Our research resolves several outstanding puzzles in the literature on person perception, integrates it into organizational research, and offers novel and actionable insights for selecting prospective team members
JAZZING THROUGH UNCERTAINTY: THE IMPROVISATION MINDSET AS AN INTERVENTION
No full textTask uncertainty—the unpredictability of task inputs, processes, and outcomes—often leads to adverse consequences, such as impaired decision-making and reduced task performance. Because uncertainty makes individuals feel like they are losing control (Matta et al., 2017), individuals usually react to it with control-maintaining strategies, such as seeking information. In the present study, I draw from arts (jazz music/improv theatre) and improvisation literature, then build on appraisal theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) to propose that an improvisation mindset—an approach that involves giving up some active control—can be a counterintuitive but potentially highly effective approach to dealing with task uncertainty. Specifically, I hypothesize that an improvisation mindset (triggered by situational interventions developed in this research) can help individuals see uncertain tasks as more of a challenge and less of a hindrance, thus improving their task performance. Three main studies (and six supplemental ones) provide evidence for my hypotheses, demonstrating both the effectiveness and distinctiveness of the improvisation mindset. I discuss the contributions to the literature on uncertainty, appraisals, and improvisation at the workplace, as well as future research
Physical Boundaries Make Psychological Boundaries Stronger: The Synergistic Effect of Open Workspace and Authentic Climate on Employee Knowledge Sharing and Voice Behavior
No full textPhysical settings in the workplace carry important implications for employees’ perceptions and behaviors. Organizations’ increasing need for employees’ sharing of expertise and ideas has led to an increased interest in the management of physical barriers in the workplace (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007). While prior research, which focuses primarily on the functional perspective (e.g., visibility, accessibility, level of noise), has yielded valuable insights into the role of open workspace (i.e., workspace with few or no physical barriers) in influencing employee knowledge sharing behavior (among other collaborative behaviors), the existing work may have over-emphasized the instrumental aspects of physical barriers. As a result, other critical psychological processes (such as the symbolic effects) through which physical barriers impact employees’ sharing of expertise and ideas could be overlooked, resulting in an incomplete and even biased view of open workspace. The goal of this dissertation is to extend the existing research by employing a symbolic perspective and investigate how and when fewer physical barriers in the workspace have a positive effect on employees’ knowledge sharing and voice behavior. Specifically, integrating the symbolic perspective of the physical environment with optimal distinctiveness theory, I propose that fewer physical barriers can increase employees’ knowledge sharing and voice behavior through decreased employees’ experienced isolation by signaling a sense of connectedness and inclusion. Furthermore, the positive relational cues of open workspace are more likely to be salient when there is a high (versus low) authentic climate. The results from two studies (a laboratory experiment and a field survey) supported that fewer physical barriers in employees’ workspace increased its occupant’s knowledge sharing and voice behavior, especially when there was a high (versus low) authentic climate. Moreover, employees’ experienced isolation mediated the above relationship. Together, my results suggest that there is a synergistic effect of physical barriers and authentic climate on employee knowledge sharing and voice by conveying positive relational cues
THE DEI SIGNALING THRESHOLD: WHEN AND WHY MORE MESSAGING IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER
No full textWhen it comes to messaging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts to employees, organizations take great care in considering the content of the signals they create. However, despite carefully designed communications, they continue to struggle to garner employee support and participation for these initiatives. Counter to the prevailing assumption that more DEI signaling is better (Roberson, 2006; Plaut et al., 2011; Nishii, 2013; Richard et al., 2013; Leslie, 2019; Hunt et al., 2020; Shuman et al., 2023), I argue that positive effects of organizational DEI signaling do not persist with increased exposure to DEI-related stimuli. Leveraging exposure effect research, I instead propose that employee attitudes shift from positive to negative as exposure to signaling increases, thereby decreasing their desire to engage with DEI at work. Specifically, I hypothesize that low and moderate levels of signaling are associated with employees feeling more engagement towards DEI, but at higher DEI fatigue and cynicism are more likely to develop, negatively impacting employees’ DEI effort. I further posit that because managers play a central role in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors, a manager’s consistency with organizational DEI signaling is the key to minimizing negative employee attitudes that emerge because of overexposure. I test these hypotheses in an experiment and a field study with implications for the literatures on DEI in organizations, issue fatigue, and behavioral integrity
- …
