- 13 Jun 2014
- Working Paper Summaries
Handshaking Promotes Cooperative Dealmaking
A simple handshake can have large consequences for a negotiation. In this paper the authors suggest that handshakes before negotiations—or the lack thereof—serve as subtle but critical indicators of negotiators' social motives. In particular, handshakes signal willingness to act cooperatively during negotiations. The authors propose and show through experiments that handshakes increase cooperative behaviors at the bargaining table and, as a result, influence outcomes in both integrative and distributive negotiations. Integrative negotiations are those in which parties' interests are neither completely opposed nor completely compatible, allowing negotiators to mutually benefit by making efficient trades. In contrast, distributive or "zero-sum" negotiations—in which the parties' interests are completely opposed—are characterized by a different set of strategies such as appearing firm and even lying about one's interests. Overall, these results contribute to research and scholarship on social motives. The work also has practical implications for the importance of building rapport in negotiation and conflicts more generally. Key concepts include: Simply shaking hands before negotiations can increase cooperation at the bargaining table. The social ritual of shaking hands can have positive effects even in antagonistic settings such as negotiations between parties in conflict. A simple everyday ritual such as a handshake can create positive outcomes not just for individuals, but for parties in conflict. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 09 Jun 2014
- Research & Ideas
The Manager in Red Sneakers
Wearing the corporate uniform may not be the best way to dress for success. Research by Silvia Bellezza, Francesca Gino, and Anat Keinan shows there may be prestige advantages when you stand out rather than fit in. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 14 May 2014
- Working Paper Summaries
Morality Rebooted: Exploring Simple Fixes to Our Moral Bugs
Although scholars know far more now than they used to about the conditions under which individuals are likely to behave, current understandings are still primarily descriptive. This paper responds to the challenge of advancing knowledge of unethical behavior from largely descriptive research to a framework aimed to reduce or even eliminate unethical behavior in organizations. The goal is twofold: First, the authors identify approaches to mitigating unethical behavior based on empirical evidence from existing research in moral psychology and behavioral ethics. Second, they develop a framework for evaluating different strategies with prescriptive recommendations on how to reduce unethical behaviors. Overall they find that ethical fixes emerge in two broad categories: values-oriented and structure-oriented approaches. Values-oriented approaches shift people's preferences to be moral, whereas structure-oriented approaches seek to design incentives, decisions, and tasks such that the unethical option is less tempting. Based on theory and empirical findings, the authors propose that adopting both values-oriented and structure-oriented approaches mitigates the risk of adverse effects from one strategy taken from a single approach. Key concepts include: This paper discusses the power of subtle changes and shows how they can point our moral compass toward a more ethical direction. The distinction the authors draw between values-oriented and structure-oriented approaches demonstrates that there is no one right approach to reduce unethical behavior in organizations and society more broadly. The prescriptions based on ethics research discussed here are grounded in economic and psychological models of unethical behavior. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 13 May 2014
- Working Paper Summaries
The Contaminating Effects of Building Instrumental Ties: How Networking Can Make Us Feel Dirty
Network ties are essential to advancement in organizations: they provide access to opportunities, political insight, and technical knowledge. Yet networking with the goal of advancement often leaves individuals feeling somehow bad about themselves—even dirty. The authors use field and laboratory data to examine how goal-oriented or instrumental networking influences individual emotions, attitudes, and outcomes, including consequences for an individual's morality. The authors argue that networking for professional goals can impinge on an individual's moral purity—a psychological state that results from a person's view of the self as clean from a moral standpoint and through which a person feels virtuous—and thus make him or her feel dirty. There are three main insights: First, the authors show the importance of a clear conceptual distinction between instrumental networking driven by individual agency versus spontaneous networking reflecting the constraints and opportunities of the social context. Second, the research establishes the relevance of moral psychology for network theory. Third, because people in powerful positions do not experience the morally contaminating effects of instrumental networking, power emerges from this research as yielding unequal access to networking opportunities, thus reinforcing and perpetuating inequality in performance. Key concepts include: Professional-instrumental networking is the purposeful creation of social ties in support of task and professional goals. The content and approach of networking each influence the psychological experience of those engaging in it, including a person's feelings of moral purity. The amount of power people have when they engage in instrumental networking for professional goals influences how dirty such networking can make them feel. Organizations need to create opportunities for emergent forms of networking, because people who need instrumental networking the most are the least likely to do it. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 09 May 2014
- Working Paper Summaries
‘My Bad!’ How Internal Attribution and Ambiguity of Responsibility Affect Learning from Failure
As scholars and practitioners have observed, failure clearly presents a valuable opportunity for learning in organizations. All too often, however, the opportunity is lost. Indeed, prior studies on the topic suggest that, perhaps ironically, such learning often fails to occur. In this paper the authors begin to uncover when and why individuals are more likely to learn from failed experiences. Specifically, they present evidence from three studies that support a conceptual model of learning from failure as operating through individuals' internal attributions of failure, driven in part by low ambiguity of responsibility, that lead to increased learning effort and subsequent improvement. The paper thus makes theoretical advances and carries implications for managers. Theoretically, the authors focus attention on the role of attribution in learning from failure, showing that attribution style is an important moderator of the relationship between failure and learning. Next, they identify a key situational determinant of individuals' responses to failure: ambiguity of responsibility. Third, they highlight the key role of effort as a mechanism for the effects of learning from failure. For managers, these results emphasize a specific measure that organizational leaders might take before an experience to enhance learning: actively managing perceptions of ambiguity of responsibility. Key concepts include: This paper offers a more nuanced view of learning that provides an integrated conceptual model for understanding individual learning from failure. Managers in organizations should think carefully about how ambiguity of responsibility is likely to play out in their context, utilizing strategies such as job design to help to limit this effect. Upfront planning might remove possible barriers that would increase ambiguity of responsibility. Feedback could influence these ambiguity perceptions as well. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 05 May 2014
- Research & Ideas
Reflecting on Work Improves Job Performance
New research by Francesca Gino, Gary Pisano, and colleagues shows that taking time to reflect on our work improves job performance in the long run. Open for comment; 0 Comments.
- 11 Apr 2014
- Working Paper Summaries
Learning By Thinking: How Reflection Improves Performance
Knowledge plays an important role in the productivity and prosperity of economies, organizations, and individuals. Even so, research on learning has primarily focused on the role of doing (experience) in fostering progress over time. To compare the effectiveness of different sources of learning, the authors take a micro approach and study learning at the individual level. They argue that learning from direct experience can be more effective if coupled with reflection—that is, the intentional attempt to synthesize, abstract, and articulate the key lessons taught by experience. Using a mixed-method approach that combines laboratory experiments and a field study in a large business process outsourcing company in India, they find support for this prediction. Further, they find that the effect of reflection on learning is mediated by greater perceived ability to achieve a goal (i.e., self-efficacy). Together, these results reveal reflection to be a powerful mechanism behind learning, confirming the words of American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer John Dewey: "We do not learn from experience ... we learn from reflecting on experience." Key concepts include: Learning from direct experience can be more effective if coupled with reflection-that is, the intentional attempt to synthesize, abstract, and articulate the key lessons taught by experience. Reflecting on what has been learned makes experience more productive. Reflection builds one's confidence in the ability to achieve a goal (i.e., self-efficacy), which in turn translates into higher rates of learning. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 18 Nov 2013
- Research & Ideas
Pulpit Bullies: Why Dominating Leaders Kill Teams
Power interrupts, and absolute power interrupts absolutely. Francesca Gino and colleagues discover that a high-powered boss can lead a team into poor performance. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 19 Aug 2013
- Research & Ideas
Studying How Income Inequality Shapes Behavior
Professor David A. Moss is studying how growing income disparity affects our decision-making on everything from risk-taking to voting. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 25 Jul 2013
- Research & Ideas
Why Unqualified Candidates Get Hired Anyway
Why do businesses evaluate candidates solely on past job performance, failing to consider the job's difficulty? Why do university admissions officers focus on high GPAs, discounting influence of easy grading standards? Francesca Gino and colleagues investigate the phenomenon of the "fundamental attribution error." Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 27 Jun 2013
- Working Paper Summaries
Social Norms Versus Social Responsibility: Punishing Transgressions Under Conflicting Obligations
Laws and regulations provide guidelines for how to punish transgressions, but ultimately, individuals make the decisions about whether and how much to punish alleged wrongdoers. Many people feel inclined to treat wrongdoers preferentially in certain contexts. For example, people may be tempted to give people a break on "special days" such as birthdays because birthdays are part of a larger class of days with social or religious significance that produce strong norms of helping, kindness, and forgiveness. This study examines what happens when those with the authority to punish find themselves in situations that encourage leniency, specifically on offenders' birthdays. Examining over 134,000 arrest records for driving under the influence (DUI offenses) in the state of Washington during a ten-year period, the researchers find that, counter to predictions, police officers are less likely to be lenient toward marginal offenders (i.e., those just under the 0.08 BAC per se threshold) on their birthdays than on any other day. Overall, the paper argues that exploring how people respond to dual pressures provides insight into how they reconcile competing motivations, whether they can correctly compensate for biases, and additional ways in which discretion may be problematic. Individuals with the responsibility to punish behave differently in the presence of a social norm to treat someone leniently than they do in the absence of that norm. However, contrary to common intuition, the resolution of this tension results in harsher treatment of offenders rather than leniency. Key concepts include: Subtle contextual factors play an important role in how people make decisions about punishment. Results of this paper help illuminate how discretion is exercised, furthering knowledge of how discrimination operates. The paper also contributes to knowledge about how social norms affect behavior, specifically examining how individuals behave when two normative motivations collide. When authority figures have discretion over punishment decisions, being confronted with a social norm of leniency causes a negative reaction, which leads them to punish transgressors more harshly. Authorities with discretion over punishment should be vigilant about how they exercise that discretion in the face of norms that may motivate them toward leniency, lest they overcompensate. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 03 Jun 2013
- Research & Ideas
The Power of Rituals in Life, Death, and Business
Experimental research by Michael I. Norton, Francesca Gino, and colleagues proves multiple benefits of using rituals. Not only do they have the power to alleviate grief, but they also serve to enhance the experience of consuming food—even something as mundane as a carrot. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 29 May 2013
- Research & Ideas
Faculty Symposium Showcases Breadth of Research
Faculty present their latest research on the human tendency toward dishonesty, the use of crowdsourcing to solve major scientific problems, and the impact of private equity investments. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 01 Apr 2013
- Research & Ideas
First Minutes are Critical in New-Employee Orientation
Employee orientation programs ought to be less about the company and more about the employee, according to new research by Daniel M. Cable, Francesca Gino, and Bradley R. Staats. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 27 Feb 2013
- Research & Ideas
Sidetracked: Why Can’t We Stick to the Plan?
In her new book, Sidetracked, behavioral scientist and professor Francesca Gino explores the unexpected forces that often keep people from following through with their plans, both professional and personal. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 13 Feb 2013
- Research & Ideas
5 Weight Loss Tips From Behavioral Economists
Behavioral economists study what motivates people to buy, save, donate, and any other number of actions that build society. The following studies reveal proven methods of encouraging healthy eating and exercise. Open for comment; 0 Comments.
- 28 Sep 2012
- Working Paper Summaries
Self-Serving Altruism? When Unethical Actions That Benefit Others Do Not Trigger Guilt
Not a day goes by without the revelation of unethical behavior by a politician, movie star, professional athlete, or high-ranking executive. This paper asks: Is a person's willingness to cross ethical lines influenced by the presence of others who may benefit? Research by Francesca Gino, Shahar Ayal, and Dan Ariely. Findings show that cheating is motivated by potential benefits to others. The authors analyze the results of three experiments to suggest that the potential benefits which dishonesty may create for others not only help people justify their own bad behavior but also serve as a self-serving motivator for it. Focusing on the social utility of others, people more freely categorize their own actions in positive terms and avoid negative updating of their moral self-image. As a result, people feel less guilty about their dishonest behavior when others-in addition to themselves-can benefit from them. Among the implications: Team settings might be conducive to dishonest behavior among group members, and thus might not be ideal to foster learning. Key concepts include: People cheat more when other individuals can benefit from their cheating. Individuals also cheat more when the number of beneficiaries of wrongdoing is larger. Individuals often resolve ethical dilemmas through creative reassessments and self-serving rationalizations. They think they can act dishonestly enough to profit from their unethicality, but honestly enough to maintain a positive self-concept. Dishonesty should be studied not only at the individual level but also at the group level, where members can influence one another in their ethical as well as unethical behavior. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 26 Sep 2012
- Working Paper Summaries
License to Cheat: Voluntary Regulation and Ethical Behavior
One powerful tool, at least in theory, that policymakers can rely on to stem cheating is regulation through monitoring and sanctions. But regulation does not really help when individuals and firms who are supposed to be regulated may have the ability to determine how much regulation they face, or even whether they face it at all. This paper studies what happens when individuals can avoid or circumvent regulation and monitoring intended to curb unethical conduct. Results from several experiments show significantly more misreporting under voluntary regulation (where participants have a choice of whether to be regulated) than when they are either all submitted to mandatory regulation or when no opportunity for regulation exists. These findings have several practical implications: For example, policies imposing either no regulation or total regulation may be preferable to policies that allow for regulation that is easily circumvented. Key concepts include: Easily avoidable regulation may lead to outcomes that are worse than simply having no regulation. When individuals can choose whether to be voluntarily subject to regulation, they might conduct greater unethical behavior than when behavior is completely unregulated. Policymakers have the tool of increasing the visibility of the choice to be regulated, in order to enhance the voluntary adoption of regulation and decrease subsequent unethical behavior. Policymakers' choices concerning the presence of regulation in one domain can affect behavior in other, unregulated contexts. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 17 Sep 2012
- Research & Ideas
Blue Skies, Distractions Arise: How Weather Affects Productivity
New studies show that workers are more productive on rainy days than on sunny ones. Does your office take advantage? Research by Francesca Gino and colleagues. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
Does ‘Could’ Lead to Good? Toward a Theory of Moral Insight
When people encounter difficult ethical challenges, research has shown, they generally ask themselves the question, "What should I do?" Organizations, too, frame the principles to guide managerial conduct in terms of "should." Despite the pervasiveness of having a "should" mindset when confronting moral dilemmas, however, the authors of this paper argue that a significant class of ethical challenges, often overlooked in efforts to understand misconduct, benefit from the application of unconventional thinking. When encountering ethical dilemmas, shifting one's mindset from "What should I do?" to "What could I do?" generates moral insight, defined as the realization that ostensibly competing values are not entirely incompatible. Moral insight allows for exploration of more possible solutions beyond the apparent constraints of the problem provided, and for the formulation of creative solutions that satisfy multiple moral imperatives. Although our natural inclination is to contemplate dilemmas with a "should" mindset, the authors argue that adopting a "could" mindset opens a broader range of possibilities and brings us one step closer to moral insight. Key concepts include: Moral insight is generated when individuals are prompted to consider the question "What could I do?" in place of their intuitive approach of considering "What should I do?" Employees and teams might devise practical solutions that resolve the inherent tension in a dilemma. Rather than assume a fixed contest that requires adjudication and a tradeoff, the research indicates that with some unconventional thinking, managers can generate solutions to ethical dilemmas. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.