- 16 Feb 2011
- Working Paper Summaries
Naivete and Cynicism in Negotiations and Other Competitive Contexts
In business and in life, it's important to strike a smart balance between naïveté and cynicism. Act too naïvely, and someone is bound to take advantage of you. Skew cynical, and you may miss out on new opportunities with good people. This paper discusses the decision errors inherent in leaning too far in either direction. Research was conducted by Chia-Jung Tsay, Lisa. L. Shu, and Max H. Bazerman of Harvard Business School. Key concepts include: Naïveté is more than a glut of trust. More broadly, naïve behavior refers to a failure to make the best decision, due to a lack of consideration of other people's strategic and behavioral perspectives. We are likely to make naïve decisions when we don't think through the likely future decisions of other parties. A cynic, on the other hand, may avoid a business transaction due to an assumption that the seller's self-interested motives will be harmful to him or her-even if logic shows that the deal would likely benefit both parties. When people withhold from trusting others, they usually lack opportunities to learn whether their trust would have reaped rewards. But when they offer their trust and are subsequently burned, they learn hard lessons about trust. This unbalanced feedback breeds cynicism. In laboratory studies, the best negotiators were those who had a tendency to think about the perspectives of others. However, most people lack sufficient perspective-taking ability. The researchers suggest that training mechanisms should be developed to increase that ability. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 15 Dec 2010
- Working Paper Summaries
Cognitive Barriers to Environmental Action: Problems and Solutions
Researchers have long studied the cognitive barriers that cloud our thinking and decision-making. In a recent book chapter, HBS doctoral student Lisa L. Shu and professor Max H. Bazerman look at three barriers that can prevent clear decision-making, specifically on environmental issues. They also propose ways in which these biases could be put to advantage in promoting sound environmental policy and practice. Key concepts include: There are three cognitive barriers impeding sound individual decision making that have particular relevance to behaviors impacting the environment: people discount the future to a greater degree than can be rationally defended; positive illusions lead us to conclude that energy problems do not exist or are not severe enough to merit action; we interpret events in a self-serving manner, a tendency that causes us to expect others to do more than we do to solve energy problems. These biases can be used advantageously in directing humanity toward better judgment. For example: Because people tend to steer away from choosing and accept the default, companies should make presets on refrigerators, computer displays, and air conditioners environmentally friendly. Key questions remain on the research frontier from the behavioral decision-making perspective. It would be helpful to learn which behaviors leading to energy conservation are easiest to change. Although the behavioral decision-making perspective and the neoclassical economics perspective recommend very different solutions for the same problems, the two academic approaches do not have to be in opposition. Rather, the behavioral approach can actually be used to supercharge the incentive-compatible recommendations of the neoclassical approach. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 20 Aug 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
A Decision-Making Perspective to Negotiation: A Review of the Past and a Look into the Future
The art and science of negotiation has evolved greatly over the past three decades, thanks to advances in the social sciences in collaboration with other disciplines and in tandem with the practical application of new ideas. In this paper, HBS doctoral student Chia-Jung Tsay and professor Max H. Bazerman review the recent past and highlight promising trends for the future of negotiation research. In the early 1980s, Cambridge, Massachusetts, was a hot spot on the negotiations front, as scholars from different disciplines began interacting in the exploration of exciting new concepts. The field took a big leap forward with the creation of the Program on Negotiation, an interdisciplinary, multicollege research center based at Harvard University. At the same time, Roger Fisher and William Ury's popular book Getting to Yes (1981) had a pronounced impact on how practitioners think about negotiations. On a more scholarly front, a related, yet profoundly different change began with the publication of HBS professor emeritus Howard Raiffa's book The Art and Science of Negotiation (1982), which for years to come transformed how researchers would think about and conduct empirical research. Key concepts include: Even as it has transitioned from decision analysis to behavioral decision research to social psychology, the decision perspective to negotiation has remained central to practitioners and academics alike, offering both practical relevance and the foundation for exciting new lines of research. Some of the most recent directions being pursued are surprises that early contributors to the decision perspective could have never predicted, as negotiation scholars engage with other disciplines and draw insights from diverse fields ranging from philosophy to neurobiology. Such collaboration is a healthy sign for an ongoing line of negotiation research. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 13 Aug 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-Benefit Analysis
Policy decisions may be the most important set of decisions we make as a society. In this realm, moral rules often play an active and dysfunctional role. The typical way in which we make decisions—by weighing them individually—leads us to overuse moral rules in a manner that is inconsistent with the more reflective set of preferences we would identify through joint consideration of options. In their response to a companion article in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Max Bazerman, of HBS, and Joshua D. Greene, of Harvard University, argue that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is unfairly stereotyped. The critique of CBA in the companion article could be better framed as a set of considerations that can contribute to more careful CBAs. Key concepts include: Good decision analysts pay attention to potential misapplications of cost-benefit analysis. CBA is not perfect, for many reasons. But CBA needs to be compared against an alternative, and the development of that alternative thus far is limited. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 15 Jul 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
Policy Bundling to Overcome Loss Aversion: A Method for Improving Legislative Outcomes
Citizens hope their elected representatives will pass legislation that creates net gains that outweigh net harms—in other words, legislation that has positive expected value for society. However, economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted that legislators often fail to pass such legislation, even when its net positive expected value is highly significant. The psychology and economics literature suggests that legislators face an uphill battle when proposing legislation that has both costs and benefits due to the power of loss aversion, a cognitive bias that has been found to cause individuals to dramatically overweight losses relative to gains. Here the authors propose and test a new type of policy bundling technique in which related bills that have both costs and benefits are combined in a way that reduces the harmful effects of loss aversion. Key concepts include: Because losses loom larger than gains psychologically, policies that would create net benefits for society but that would also involve costs may frequently be defeated. This policy bundling technique has the potential to help citizens and legislators who are struggling to pass legislation with salient costs that are outweighed by important benefits. While the behavioral decision research literature has shown it is difficult to fully de-bias human judgment, recent research suggests it is possible to design decision-making contexts in ways that lead to wiser choices. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 20 May 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
On Good Scholarship, Goal Setting, and Scholars Gone Wild
When confronted by anecdotal evidence and some causal evidence, how should scholars—and indeed businesses and society—react? In this response to a critique in the journal Academy of Management Perspectives, the authors articulate the aims of their article "Goals Gone Wild: How Goals Systematically Harm Individuals and Organizations," describe points of disagreement with the critics, offer a definition of good scholarship, and suggest a program of research for future studies of goal setting. Key concepts include: Future research should investigate both the constructive and harmful effects of goals. These studies will require new and creative approaches. Anecdotal evidence matters. Given that one large negative effect can overwhelm the influence of many positive effects, anecdotes and empirical results linking goals with harmful outcomes deserve more attention and systematic research. As financial crises, Ponzi schemes, and the collapse of the automotive industry demonstrate, the combination of unethical behavior, risk-taking and poor judgment can be toxic. Three areas of research with significant prospects for illuminating potential problems are the links between goal setting and unethical behavior, goal setting and excessive risk-taking, and goal setting and judgment. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 14 May 2009
- Sharpening Your Skills
Sharpening Your Skills: Managing Teams
The ability to lead teams is fast becoming a critical skill for all managers in the 21st century. Here are four HBS Working Knowledge stories from the archives that address everything from how teams learn to turning individual performers into team players. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 02 Mar 2009
- Research & Ideas
When Goal Setting Goes Bad
If you ever wondered about the real value of goal setting in your organization, join the club. Despite the mantra that goals are good, the process of setting beneficial goals is harder than it looks. New research by HBS professor Max H. Bazerman and colleagues explores the hidden cost when stretch goals are misguided. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 26 Feb 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
Barriers to Acting in Time on Energy and Strategies for Overcoming Them
What can the new presidential administration do to address our energy problems? For the past decade, most experts have accepted climate change as a fact, making the issue difficult to ignore—yet many politicians, and the voters who elect them, have done exactly that: ignored the problem. Scientists, policymakers, and others have come up with good ideas to address climate change and other energy issues. Many people seek to identify one cause of climate change, when it is abundantly clear that there are multiple causes. Cognitive, organizational, and political barriers exist that prevent us from addressing energy problems despite clearly identified courses of action. The creation and implementation of wise policy recommendations requires us to anticipate resistance to change and develop strategies that can overcome these barriers. Enacting wise legislation to act in time to solve energy problems requires surmounting cognitive, organizational, and political barriers to change. Key concepts include: The new U.S. presidential administration should identify energy policies that make wise tradeoffs across issues. The administration should communicate that decisions will be made to maximize benefits to society rather than to special-interest groups. The administration should seek energy policies that make sense even if climate change is less of a problem than best current estimates suggest. The administration should identify a series of small changes (nudges) that significantly influence the behaviors of individuals and organizations in a positive direction without infringing on personal liberties. When discounting of the future creates an insurmountable barrier to the implementation of wise policies, consider implementation on a mild delay. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 19 Feb 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
Dishonest Deed, Clear Conscience: Self-Preservation through Moral Disengagement and Motivated Forgetting
Why do people engage in unethical behavior repeatedly over time? In Everybody Does It! (1994), Thomas Gabor documents the pervasive immorality of ordinary people. Challenging the stereotype that only criminals violate the law, Gabor describes the numerous transgressions of everyday life and suggests that the excuses people make for their dishonest behavior parallel the justifications criminals make for their crimes. This common tendency of people to justify and distance themselves from their unethical behavior has captured the attention of several psychologists, and a long stream of research has documented differences in the way people think about their own ethical behavior and that of others. Harvard Business School's Lisa Shu and Max Bazerman, with colleague Francesca Gino, show that seemingly innocuous aspects of the environment can promote the decision to act ethically or unethically. Key concepts include: Once people behave dishonestly, they are able to morally disengage, setting off a downward spiral of future bad behavior and ever more lenient moral codes. However, this slippery slope can be forestalled with simple measures, such as honor codes, that increase people's awareness of ethical standards. Moral disengagement is not always a necessary condition leading to dishonesty, but it may in fact result from unethical behavior. The decision to behave dishonestly changes levels of moral disengagement, and the awareness of ethical standards affects the decision to engage in unethical behavior. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 11 Feb 2009
- Working Paper Summaries
Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting
For decades, goal setting has been promoted as a halcyon pill for improving employee motivation and performance in organizations. Advocates of goal setting argue that for goals to be successful, they should be specific and challenging, and countless studies find that specific, challenging goals motivate performance far better than "do your best" exhortations. The authors of this article, however, argue that it is often these same characteristics of goals that cause them to "go wild." Key concepts include: The harmful side effects of goal setting are far more serious and systematic than prior work has acknowledged. Goal setting harms organizations in systematic and predictable ways. The use of goal setting can degrade employee performance, shift focus away from important but non-specified goals, harm interpersonal relationships, corrode organizational culture, and motivate risky and unethical behaviors. In many situations, the damaging effects of goal setting outweigh its benefits. Managers should ask specific questions to ascertain whether the harmful effects of goal setting outweigh the potential benefits. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 09 Oct 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
Dirty Work, Clean Hands: The Moral Psychology of Indirect Agency
When powerful people do morally questionable things, they rarely interact directly with their putative victims. Mobsters have hit men. CEOs have vice presidents, lawyers, and accountants. More specifically, the powerful are likely to carry out their intentions through the actions of other agents, with varying degrees of explicit direction and control. This working paper describes four studies that explore the effects of such "indirect agency" on moral judgment. Key concepts include: Results of these studies suggest that heightened awareness of people's sometimes dubious motivations for acting indirectly, and the organizational structures that facilitate them, may be a useful safeguard against the abuse of power. Acting indirectly through another can hide the fact that one has caused harm, hide the fact that one knowingly chose to cause harm, and hide the extent of one's control over the harmful outcome. Causing harm indirectly through another can protect harm-doers, and thus harm society in a more subtle and insidious way. This is important to know, given that many of the greatest crimes against society are perpetrated by powerful people who carry out their intentions through others. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 02 Oct 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
Nameless + Harmless = Blameless: When Seemingly Irrelevant Factors Influence Judgment of (Un)ethical Behavior
Most of us regularly make ethical judgments about others' behavior and make decisions regarding whether or not to punish others' unethical behavior. Although many of us know how we would rationally like to behave in these situations, little prior research has explored the systematic errors we commit in the process of evaluating others' unethical behavior and acting upon it. The present research by Gino, Shu, and Bazerman focuses on the effects of both the outcome of unethical acts and the identifiability of the victim of wrongdoing on ethical judgments and decisions to punish unethical behavior. Key concepts include: The decision to withhold or disclose information about the victims and outcomes of a behavior can be a powerful determinant of the ethical perception of that behavior. Decision-makers should anticipate being judged less for the ethics of their actions than for the consequences of those actions and the identifiability of the victim of their wrongdoing. No matter how ethical the decisions of a manager or a company may be, judges (such as customers, citizens, or employees) might punish the manager or company if things go wrong or if the victims are clearly identified. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 28 Aug 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
How Can Decision Making Be Improved?
While scholars can describe how people make decisions, and can envision how much better decision-making could be, they still have little understanding of how to help people overcome blind spots and behave optimally. Chugh, Milkman, and Bazerman organize the scattered knowledge that judgment and decision-making scholars have amassed over several decades about how to reduce biased decision-making. Their analysis of the existing literature on improvement strategies is designed to highlight the most promising avenues for future research. Key concepts include: People put great trust in their intuition. The past 50 years of decision-making research challenges that trust. A key task for psychologists is to identify how and in what decision-making situations people should try to move from intuitive, emotional thinking to more deliberative, logical thinking. The more that researchers understand the potentially harmful effects of some biased decision-making, the more important it is to have empirically tested strategies for reaching better decisions. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 01 Apr 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
No Harm, No Foul: The Outcome Bias in Ethical Judgments
Too often, workers are evaluated based on results rather than on the quality of the decision. Given that most consequential business decisions involve some uncertainty, the upshot is that organizations wind up rewarding luck rather than wisdom. From a rational decision-making perspective, people's decisions should be evaluated based on the information the decision maker had available to him or her at the time, and not based on the ultimate results. This paper tests predictions about this effect, known as the outcome bias, in two studies in which participants were asked to consider various ethically questionable behaviors. Participants were also given information about the outcome of such behaviors and were asked to rate the ethicality of the described actions with or without the outcome information. The findings extend prior research in psychology and ethics. Key concepts include: The tendency demonstrated in these two studies might lead people to blame others too harshly for making sensible decisions that have unlucky outcomes. The outcome bias could also partly explain the slow reactions that people tend to have when they observe others' unethical behavior. It is worth trying to understand a decision maker's state of mind. Judging decisions based on their outcomes will wind up condemning too many unlucky people and acquitting too many scoundrels. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 18 Mar 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
Modeling Expert Opinions on Food Healthiness: A Nutrition Metric
Despite an increased standard of living in the United States and other developed countries, health problems attributable to poor nutrition persist in part due to consumers' inability to translate the dietary advice of nutrition experts into anything actionable. Citing the improvement of public health as a primary objective, numerous studies have highlighted the need for a nutritional scoring system that is both comprehensive in its coverage of food products and easily understood by consumers. In this paper the researchers advance this objective by proposing a nutrition metric that is based on the current views of leading experts in the field. The metric can be used to score any food or beverage for which several component nutrient quantities are known. Key concepts include: This model encompasses the factors that matter most to the professional judgment of nutrition experts. Previous models focusing solely on either positive or negative nutrients have omitted critical information that experts take into account when assessing a food's healthiness. This model could be used to generate healthiness ratings that are displayed on or near food and beverage labels, allowing consumers to make more informed choices about which products to purchase and consume. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 08 Feb 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
Psychological Influence in Negotiation: An Introduction Long Overdue
This paper attempts to encourage a better dialogue between research on social influence and on negotiation. It provides an overview of the literature on both areas, and identifies opportunities for creating more effective and useful research. First, HBS professors Deepak Malhotra and Max Bazerman identify those elements of psychological influence that do not require the influencer to change the economic or structural aspects of the bargaining situation in order to persuade the target. Second, they review prior research on behavioral decision-making in negotiation to identify those ideas that may be relevant to influence in negotiation. Third, they provide a framework for thinking about how to leverage behavioral decision research to wield influence in negotiation. Fourth, they consider how targets of influence might defend against these tactics. Fifth, because psychological influence is, by definition, aimed at achieving one's own ends through the strategic manipulation of another's judgment, they consider the ethical issues surrounding its application in negotiation. Key concepts include: A broader research field of negotiation is needed, one that more closely matches real-world views of what negotiation entails. This paper conceptualizes and organizes a new domain of academic inquiry—psychological influence in negotiation—contrasting it with literature on social influence. The last 50 years of research on social influence has focused largely on economic and structural elements of influence. However, psychological influence is an interesting and important domain of study in its own right, and is very relevant to the field of negotiation research. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 11 Jan 2008
- Working Paper Summaries
See No Evil: When We Overlook Other People’s Unethical Behavior
Even good people sometimes act unethically without their own awareness. This paper explores psychological processes as they affect the ethical perception of others' behavior, and concludes with implications for organizations. First, there is a tendency for people to overlook unethical behavior in others when recognizing such behavior would harm them. Second, people might readily ignore unethical behavior when others have an agent do their dirty work for them. Third, gradual moral decay leads people to grow comfortable with behavior to which they would otherwise object. Fourth, the tendency to value outcomes over processes can lead us to accept unethical processes for far too long. Key concepts include: Most people value ethical decisions and behavior, and strive to be good. Yet psychological processes sometimes lead them to engage in questionable behaviors that are inconsistent with their own values and beliefs. It is common to fail to notice or act on information when dealing with ethically relevant decisions. Organizational leaders must understand these processes and make the structural changes necessary to reduce the harmful effects of human psychological and ethical limitations. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
- 12 Oct 2007
- Working Paper Summaries
Mental Accounting and Small Windfalls: Evidence from an Online Grocer
In the course of daily life, people occasionally receive small windfalls. Every so often we are handed a gift certificate for $5 off a meal, find a $10 bill on the street, or win $20 in an impromptu game of poker. According to standard economic theory, these types of small windfalls should have no noticeable effect on spending decisions because such windfalls constitute meaningless changes to lifetime wealth. However, if you have ever been the recipient of a small windfall, you may remember thinking about ways to spend this unexpected cash, buying items you might not have otherwise purchased. This kind of behavior can be interpreted as an example of "mental accounting" as theorized by economists Richard H. Thaler and Hersh M. Shefrin. This paper presents evidence supporting some of the implications of a theory of mental accounting in the domain of online grocery shopping. Key concepts include: In the domain of online groceries, the redemption of a $10-off coupon increases an individual's spending, as predicted by Thaler and Shefrin. The increase in spending stimulated by the redemption of a $10-off coupon is focused on groceries that customers would not purchase in the absence of such a coupon. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.
Blind Spots: We’re Not as Ethical as We Think
Even when we think we are making principled decisions, recent research reveals we are not as ethical as we would like to believe. Professor Max H. Bazerman discusses his new book, Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It. Plus: Book excerpt. Key concepts include: Good people do bad things without being aware that they are doing anything wrong. Motivational blindness is the tendency to not notice the unethical actions of others when it is against our own best interests to notice. The "want" self—that part of us that behaves according to self-interest and, often, without regard for moral principles—is silent during the planning stage of a decision but typically emerges and dominates at the time of the decision. Organizations can monitor how they are creating institutions, structures, and incentives that increase the likelihood of unethical actions, while individuals can "precommit" to intended ethical choices. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.