Co-authors Tobias Schaefers, Kristina Wittkowski, Sabine Benoit, and Rosellina Ferraro recently published an article in the Journal of Service Research entitled “Contagious Effects of Customer Misbehavior in Access-Based Services.” Below is their informational video as a supplement to their article, which helps analyze how connections to a person’s community can influence behavior in the given shared space.
Don’t forget to visit the journal’s homepage to sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research!
Newly published research from California Management Review is now online! We invite you to view all of the Online First articles for CMR by clicking here, that hosts articles covering a variety of topics such as corporate misconduct, competitive strategy, and benefits of minority stake strategies.
One article in particular, “Strategizing with Biases: Making Better Decisions Using the Mindspace Approach,” co-authored by Chengwei Liu, Ivo Vlaev, Christina Fang,
Jerker Denrell, and Nick Chater focuses on Mindspace when it is applied to strategic decision making. The complete abstract for the article is below:
This article introduces strategists to the Mindspace framework and explores its applications in strategic contexts. This framework consists of nine effective behavioral interventions that are grounded in public policy applications, and it focuses on how changing the context can be more effective than attempts to de-bias decision makers. Behavioral changes are likely when we follow rather than fight human nature. Better decisions can be achieved by engineering choice contexts to “engage a bias” to overcome a more damaging bias. This article illustrates how to engineer strategic contexts through two case studies and outlines directions and challenges when applying Mindspace to strategic decisions.
Visit the journal homepage and sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest articles!
Researcher S. Bhattacharya conducted a survey of 10,000 job seekers and found that 42% left their jobs due to dissatisfaction with managers (Bhattacharya 2008). Does this sound like a reason why you left a job you’ve held in the past?
Companies everywhere want to retain the most efficient performers, so what can “bad” managers do to motivate and inspire the current employees to stay? Authors Christopher S. Reina, Kristie M. Rogers, Suzanne J. Peterson, Kris Byron, and Peter W. Hom analyze both positive and negative tactics that managers practice in their recently published article, “Quitting the Boss? The Role of Manager Influence Tactics and Employee Emotional Engagement in Voluntary Turnover.” This article can be found in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, and is currently free to read for a limited time.
Please find the abstract below:
Employees commonly cite their managers’ behavior as the primary reason for quitting their jobs. We sought to extend turnover research by investigating whether two commonly used influence tactics by managers affect their employees’ voluntary turnover and whether employees’ emotional engagement and job satisfaction mediate this relationship. We tested our hypotheses using survey data collected at two time points from a sample of financial services directors and objective lagged turnover data. Using multilevel path modeling, we found that managers’ use of pressure and inspirational appeals had opposite effects on employee voluntary turnover and that employees’ emotional engagement was a significant and unique mediating mechanism even when job satisfaction, the traditional attitudinal predictor of turnover, was also included in the path model. Our findings contribute to turnover research by demonstrating a relationship between specific managerial behaviors and employee turnover and shed light on a key mediating mechanism that explains these effects.
Sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you’re up-to-date with the latest articles!
Game tiles picture attributed to airpix (CC).
Bhattacharya S. (2008, March). Why people quit. Business Today. Retrieved from http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/trends/why-people-quit/story/1542.html Google Scholar
[We’re pleased to welcome author Claartje J. Vinkenburg of VU University, Amsterdam. Vinkenburg recently published an article in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences entitled, “Engaging Gatekeepers, Optimizing Decision Making, and Mitigating Bias: Design Specifications for Systemic Diversity Interventions.” Below, Vinkenburg discusses the motivation for pursuing this research, along with future applications. From Vinkenburg:]
What inspired you to be interested in this topic? I was triggered by the cover article of the July 2016 issue of Harvard Business Review which stated that diversity efforts fail. I have seen such failures, but also examples of quite successful diversity interventions in up-or-out systems such as academia and professional service firms that deserve a wider audience of researchers and practitioners. This journal and especially the special issue addressed questions around systemic change that provided a great fit with my story of design specifications for successful diversity interventions.
Were there findings that were surprising to you? I was surprised to discover in writing the article but also in presenting it in various forms to different audiences that so many people are unaware of the existence and effects of bias, and firmly believe that the way people are promoted in their organizations reflects meritocracy. Making them aware is one thing, but doing something about it is a wicked problem that requires working through paradox.
How do you see this study influencing future research? While the successful diversity interventions described may not challenge meritocracy directly, but they help to achieve ³true² meritocracy by reducing bias in the assessment of merit, focusing on the often capricious application of criteria in performance evaluation and/or reward allocation. Future action research or intervention studies could look at mediated sensemaking and other forms of working through paradox with gatekeepers, as well ways to de-bias our HR or people decision making such as selection and promotion.
Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you never miss the latest articles!
Diversity pyramid photo attributed to Ben Mason (CC).
[We’re please to welcome author David Dryden Henningsen of Northern Illinois University. Henningsen recently published an article in the International Journal of Business Communication entitled, “Nuanced Aggression in Group Decision Making” co-authored by Mary Lynn Miller Henningsen, also of Northern Illinois University. The article is currently free to read for a limited time. From D. Henningsen:]
What inspired you to be interested in this topic? Reflecting on our experiences in meetings, my co-author and I both noted the presence of people who rely on bullying or whining as their preferred influence style. It occurred to us that this is likely a common experience. Everyone probably knows a whiner and/or a bully. Examining the literature on group decision-making revealed that this is an area that has been largely unaddressed by scholars. We decided to conduct this study as a preliminary test of the effects of whining and bullying in organizations. It was the insights of one of the reviewers which helped us to frame both bullying and whining as aggressive behavior, but that offers an intriguing perspective on how submissive behaviors (i.e., whining) need not be passive behaviors.
Were there findings that were surprising to you? The findings were largely consistent with our belief that whining and bullying would be detrimental in the workplace. There is an interesting sex difference that emerges with regard to effectiveness. Whereas women tend to feel effectiveness is hurt by the presence of whining, bullying, or both, men tend to feel effectiveness is really only hurt when both whining and bullying occur.
How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice Although this is an exploratory study, it provides important insights into the use of aggressive tactics to gain influence. There is a lot of research on informational and normative influence. However, we suspect that non-rational forms of influence are fairly common in the workplace. We hope to further explore how those tactics may offset more rational approaches.
Stay up-to-date with the latest research from IJBC, and sign up for email alerts today!
Group projects are everywhere–whether you’re at school, at work, or even in your household. It’s customary to listen to each member of the group, and what he/she has to say about a strategy for approaching the project, or ways to improve the process in the future. Often, the ideas are compounded and morphed into a strategy that the group can agree on, but does that mean someone would choose not to offer an idea if it’s a different perspective than the “norm”?
A recent study in Management Teaching Review focuses on group decision making and how groups are more likely to accept a decision as “the best” when group members conform to social norms. Authors C. Melissa Fender and Lisa T. Stickney present the data for us in their article, “When Two Heads Aren’t Better Than One: Conformity in a Group Activity.” The article is currently free to read for a limited time; click here to view the full text.
The abstract for the article is below:
Group and team class decision-making activities often focus on demonstrating that “two heads are better than one.” Typically, students solve a problem or complete an assessment individually, then in a group. Generally, the group does better and that is what the students learn. However, if that is all such an activity conveys, then a significant teachable moment has been missed. It is often the case that a group member has one or more correct answers that the group did not use, or perhaps even outscores the group. The simple activity described here provides an opportunity to discuss a number of reasons that can cause such conformity to happen, integrating several areas of human psychology and behavior, and then segue into techniques to prevent it.
Click here to sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Management Teaching Review.
“Which hotel looks nicer for the better price? Where should we eat? What excursions did the concierge recommend?” These are all questions couples ask each other when planning a vacation, and when plans change during the trip. For some couples, the decision time on where to eat can take longer than others, and the even bigger decision is where to travel in the first place. So how are couples approaching the decision process, and is there a gender correlation between who makes what decision? I.e. when to travel, budget on the hotel, the bus tour to sign up for.
A recent study entitled “Exploring the Length and Complexity of Couples Travel Decision Making“, published in Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, observes the patterns of how couples decide on the much anticipated annual travel plans. This article is co-authored by Wayne W. Smith, Robert E. Pitts, Steve W. Litvin, and Deepti Agrawal, and is currently free to read for a limited time. The abstract for their article is below:
A quasi-experiment is used to examine the dynamics of the shared decision-making process by observing couples in real time as they make decisions about an overnight stay at a luxury resort. Observations and video recordings of the decision processes of 24 couples were coded and analyzed. The time to final decision, number, and type of tactics used were found to vary with couples’ length of experience with one another. Observation indicated that couples with greater travel experience together relied on “predealing” based on their experience together to avoid conflict, while less-experienced couples’ decisions were more likely to yield winners and losers. These findings and those related to the use of persuasive tactics by members of the couple dyads provide the basis for specific recommendations for marketing travel products.
Sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest research from Cornell Hospitality Quarterly.