Punctuated incongruity: A new approach to managing trade-offs between conformity and deviation

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT Research in Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2014.08.002
Shefali V. Patil , Philip E. Tetlock
{"title":"Punctuated incongruity: A new approach to managing trade-offs between conformity and deviation","authors":"Shefali V. Patil ,&nbsp;Philip E. Tetlock","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2014.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Micro and macro scholars alike have long warned about “incongruent” work environments that sow confusion by sending inconsistent normative signals to employees. We argue that these warnings rest on the debatable assumption that employees do not have cognitive bandwidth and emotional resilience to do more than single-mindedly pursue internally consistent goals. Challenging this assumption, we argue that employees in today's complex knowledge economies often face tasks that require balancing opposing risks such as those of conforming too closely to standard practices against those of deviating too far. Given this reality, we explain how congruity can sometimes be maladaptive and incongruity, adaptive. Congruent combinations of process accountability and </span>collectivism can trigger excessive conformity and congruent combinations of outcome accountability and individualism can induce excessive deviation. But incongruent combinations can motivate employees to rethink tacit assumptions and explore better ways of reaping the benefits of conformity (deviation) at a lower cost of the other value. That said, managing tradeoffs can be exhausting—and congruity affords needed guidance. Organizations should therefore introduce incongruity in carefully calibrated quasi-experimental doses. The likelihood of successful implementation of this advice hinges on managers’ ideological resistance to incongruity as well as their ability to mobilize employee “buy in.” Our chapter highlights the dialectical interplay between incongruity which encourages </span>mindfulness and congruity which provides a respite from the burdens of choice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"34 ","pages":"Pages 155-171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.riob.2014.08.002","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308514000069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Micro and macro scholars alike have long warned about “incongruent” work environments that sow confusion by sending inconsistent normative signals to employees. We argue that these warnings rest on the debatable assumption that employees do not have cognitive bandwidth and emotional resilience to do more than single-mindedly pursue internally consistent goals. Challenging this assumption, we argue that employees in today's complex knowledge economies often face tasks that require balancing opposing risks such as those of conforming too closely to standard practices against those of deviating too far. Given this reality, we explain how congruity can sometimes be maladaptive and incongruity, adaptive. Congruent combinations of process accountability and collectivism can trigger excessive conformity and congruent combinations of outcome accountability and individualism can induce excessive deviation. But incongruent combinations can motivate employees to rethink tacit assumptions and explore better ways of reaping the benefits of conformity (deviation) at a lower cost of the other value. That said, managing tradeoffs can be exhausting—and congruity affords needed guidance. Organizations should therefore introduce incongruity in carefully calibrated quasi-experimental doses. The likelihood of successful implementation of this advice hinges on managers’ ideological resistance to incongruity as well as their ability to mobilize employee “buy in.” Our chapter highlights the dialectical interplay between incongruity which encourages mindfulness and congruity which provides a respite from the burdens of choice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
间断的不一致:一种管理一致性与偏差之间权衡的新方法
长期以来,微观和宏观学者都警告说,“不一致”的工作环境会向员工发出不一致的规范信号,从而造成混乱。我们认为,这些警告基于一个有争议的假设,即员工没有认知带宽和情绪弹性,只能一心一意地追求内部一致的目标。挑战这一假设,我们认为,在当今复杂的知识经济中,员工经常面临需要平衡对立风险的任务,例如过于严格地遵循标准实践与偏离太远的风险。鉴于这一现实,我们解释了和谐有时是如何不适应的,而不和谐是如何适应的。过程问责制和集体主义的一致结合会导致过度从众,结果问责制和个人主义的一致结合会导致过度偏离。但是,不一致的组合可以激励员工重新思考隐性假设,并探索以较低的其他价值成本获得一致性(偏差)收益的更好方法。也就是说,管理权衡可能会让人筋疲力尽,而一致性提供了所需的指导。因此,各组织应在仔细校准的准实验剂量中引入不一致性。这一建议成功实施的可能性取决于管理者在意识形态上对不一致的抵制,以及他们动员员工“买入”的能力。我们的章节强调了鼓励正念的不和谐和提供选择负担喘息机会的和谐之间的辩证相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Organizational Behavior
Research in Organizational Behavior Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Creativity as privilege Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale Leading for human sustainability: An extension of Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory Are experts overconfident?: An interdisciplinary review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1