Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes最新文献

Multinational team members commonly face challenges to influence their peers to attain shared work goals in a language different from their mother tongue. However, the mechanisms linking multinational team members’ official corporate language fluency and their displays of informal influence are not well understood. Drawing from status characteristics theory, we propose that peer-granted status mediates the relationship between fluency in the official corporate language and informal influence. We tested this prediction across two field studies and two experiments utilizing three different operationalizations of informal influence: voice behavior, voice quality, and leadership emergence. Overall, we demonstrate that members fluent in the official corporate language receive higher peer-granted status than their less fluent peers, and this relationship is stronger in teams whose members primarily converse in a common non-corporate language. In turn, high-status members engage in voice more frequently, and are more likely to convey voice quality and emerge as leaders.

When deciding whether to negotiate, individuals typically assess any potential costs of negotiation. We propose that one major cost that individuals are concerned about, particularly in the context of job offers, is an offer being withdrawn from the bargaining table—losing out on a deal entirely. We refer to this heretofore unexamined concern as the perceived likelihood of jeopardizing a deal by negotiating. We investigate job candidates’ perceived likelihood of jeopardizing a deal, as compared to hiring managers’ reports, across seven studies (total N = 3,338), including surveys of academic job candidates and members of academic hiring committees, managers and hiring professionals, and experimental studies with interactive, incentivized negotiations conducted both in person and online. We consistently document that job candidates’ perception of the likelihood of jeopardizing a deal is exaggerated, i.e., discrepant with that of the hiring side. In some cases, this perception is associated with negotiation avoidance. We also theorize and find support for two underlying psychological mechanisms: zero-sum perceptions and psychological power. We further document contextual factors that decrease candidates’ zero-sum perceptions or increase their perceived power, which, in turn, diminish (but do not fully eliminate) the discrepancy between candidates’ and managers’ perceptions of the likelihood of jeopardizing a deal.

We investigate employee evaluations of racial minority leaders who engage in allyship behaviors aimed at advancing racial equity. We argue that when racial minority leaders engage in racial allyship, perceptions of them as effective allies and leaders vary based on the target beneficiary group (i.e., who the allyship benefits) and the language utilized to explain their allyship (i.e., how the allyship is framed). We hypothesize and find empirical evidence across three experimental studies that suggests that when racial minority leaders engage in allyship behaviors that benefit their own racial group (i.e., same-race allyship), as opposed to another racial minority group (i.e., cross-race allyship), employees view them as displaying more ingroup favoritism, which lowers perceptions of allyship effectiveness. Additionally, we find that decreased perceptions of allyship effectiveness results in reduced employee perceptions of overall leader effectiveness and employee intentions to support racial equity efforts. Finally, we introduce voice amplification framing—a novel framing tactic in which racial minority leaders publicly highlight the ideas and voices of lower-level employees within their allyship—and we show that using this framing reduces the negative effects of same-race allyship. Our theory and findings have several implications for literature on allyship, message framing, and leadership.

When leaders call on their followers’ loyalty, is it an effective strategy, particularly when such loyalty calls conflict with other ethical duties? And, if calling on loyalty is an effective strategy, when and why are such appeals more effective? These questions were examined in six studies measuring the unethical compliance of workers interacting online, students working together in classroom and fraternity members collaborating in their houses. Findings revealed that the effectiveness of leaders’ loyalty calls depended critically on the target of loyalty: calling on group loyalty was generally more effective than calling on personal loyalty to the leader in eliciting followers’ compliance with leaders’ unethical requests and in helping followers feel better about their deceit because such calls helped followers to rationalize their unethical behavior more easily. Thus, calling on group loyalty not only increases followers’ unethical behavior but also helps them feel righteous about their deceit.

Allyship is a way for advantaged groups to advance equity, yet acts of allyship are infrequent or limited. Here we explore a potential reason for this: a miscalibration between advantaged and disadvantaged groups’ perceptions of allyship. Studies 1a−2b demonstrate that advantaged groups (men in Studies 1a−1b; White people in Studies 2a−2b) underestimate how much disadvantaged groups (women in Studies 1a−1b; Black people in Studies 2a−2b) would appreciate various acts of allyship. Across these studies, relatively disadvantaged members (non– White men in Studies 1a−1b; White women in Studies 2a−2b) were better calibrated in their assessments than relatively advantaged members. Study 3 examines real, behavioral contexts whereby advantaged groups (men) underestimate disadvantaged groups’ (women’s) appreciation of allyship. Study 4 demonstrates that expectations about appreciation predict allyship intentions. Finally, Study 5 finds that highlighting appreciation of potential allyship can increase allyship intentions.

Leader allyship can be an important tool for advancing workplace gender equality; however, its ultimate effectiveness may depend on the reactions of those who witness it. Specifically, male observers can enhance allyship efforts by emulating their leader’s allyship or, conversely, undermine them by decreasing their allyship emulation. Across four studies, we explore why, when, and how ally leaders may encourage rather than discourage such allyship emulation. We find that observers’ identification with the leader drives their allyship emulation. Yet, this identification is contingent on the gender demography of the workgroup, as witnessing leader allyship lowers identification with the leader in male-dominated contexts. Further, how leaders engage in allyship matters for observers’ identification. Performative allyship lowers identification across both gender-balanced and male-dominated contexts, while authentic allyship increases identification and subsequent allyship emulation only in gender-balanced contexts. Finally, leaders can increase allyship emulation through identification in male-dominated workplaces with allyship-related storytelling.

Relationships are a critical component of professional life, yet people often experience difficulties forming workplace bonds. We examine the impact of perceiving one’s interaction partner as authentic in an initial encounter as a key driver of relationship initiation through shared reality. Study 1, a longitudinal field study of professional networking events, revealed that perceived partner authenticity predicted relationship initiation four weeks later. Study 2 found pre-registered experimental evidence for the relationship between perceived partner authenticity and relationship initiation. Study 3 replicated these effects between pairs of new acquaintances working on a collaborative task and found that shared reality mediated the link between perceived partner authenticity and relationship initiation. In Study 4, these effects persisted for observable authenticity behaviors in conversations. Finally, Studies 5a-5b tested the causal effect of perceived partner authenticity on relationship initiation through increased shared reality. Overall, our results suggest that perceiving one’s partner as authentic during initial professional encounters promotes relationship initiation by fostering shared reality.

People who are extrinsically motivated are negatively stereotyped and are viewed less positively compared to those who are intrinsically motivated. As a result, individuals can strategically express their intrinsic motivation as an impression management tactic to gain more favorable evaluations from others. Aside from directly signaling their intrinsic motivation, individuals can also choose a more aggressive strategy by demeaning extrinsic motivation (e.g., “being motivated by money is shallow and meaningless!”). Across 7 primary studies and 3 supplementary studies (N = 3153), we document the prevalence of this phenomenon, users’ (mis)perceptions of how effective this strategy should be, and its actual interpersonal consequences across different contexts. Although being extrinsically motivated is negatively evaluated, we posit that demeaning extrinsic motivation would ironically make one appear more hypocritical and thus disliked, compared to demeaning other negative behaviors or explicitly praising extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, we found that these effects are stronger for those who are low in job calling orientation and high in socioeconomic status. In sum, although people might choose to demean extrinsic motivation in order to gain social approval, such a strategy often backfires.