Organizational Behaviour Seminars
(Academic Year 2022-2023)
Comparing Base of the Pyramid and Wealthy Individuals in Creative Problem Solving
|14.11.22||Rellie Derfler Rozin
University of Maryland
Person Perception at the workplace
Person perception theory asserts that swift judgments of competence and warmth are the two main dimensions upon which we assess strangers. In this talk I will present two research projects using the lens of person perception theory in the workplace context. In one project we explore how swift judgments of competence and warmth affect team members’ selection through mapping (respectively) on predictions of future task-related and contextual performance in the team. We also explore the validity of such predictions (derived from these swift judgements). In a second project, we are looking at how different types of networking “pitch” (warmth vs. competence-related) affect success of networking behaviors depending on one’s gender.https://tau-ac-il.zoom.us/j/87812790088?pwd=V2ZEWG9JNUpqNG1WK0xsR0ZQc1ErUT09
University of Oklahoma
The Complexity of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: An Ongoing Effort to Understand the Dark Side of the “Good Soldier” Syndrome
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
University of Pennsylvania
Getting less than what you pay for: Negotiations decrease employee motivation
Most social settings, from work environments to family life, involve negotiating. A vast literature examines negotiation strategies and outcomes, yet the criteria for the quality and outcome of negotiations have remained essentially unchanged in several decades. Research focuses on value creation and value claiming. The literature has been surprisingly silent on what happens after negotiations conclude. Here we examine how negotiations affect the parties' relationship, and their motivation to work with and for one another after negotiating.
Across several studies, we find that negotiating wage decreased employees' productivity. Subjects exerted less effort, and were less accurate, in real-effort tasks after negotiating their wage than after being told of a non-negotiable wage. We find evidence that perceived conflict underlies this effect. Negotiations turned the relationship more contentious, thus diminishing employees' desire to work harder. Lay-people did not anticipate the detrimental effect of negotiations on motivation and productivity. Results imply that negotiations have harmful long-term consequences, and should be entered with caution. We challenge current prescriptions regarding when, and how, people should negotiate.
Having the others in heart and in mind: Determinants, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal decision
In this talk, I will present three independent research projects. The projects explore determinants, judgments and consequences of different types of pro-social decisions and behaviors across a variety of contexts.
The first project (with Ronit Montal) examines effects of envy on helping in teams, differentiating between autonomous versus dependent help. In line with a cost-benefit model, we find that people are less likely to provide help, particularly autonomous help, to their envied (vs. non-envied) teammates, and that this reluctance to help envied others is less apparent when task interdependence is high (vs. low).
The second project (with Hadar Shany & Tehila Kogut) focuses on the context of negotiations and explores how different types of pre-negotiation gestures – namely, monetary versus non-monetary, impact the target negotiators’ subsequent negotiation motivations, perceptions, and behaviors (i.e., offers). Across several studies, we find that when facing a single-issue distributive negotiation, people are reluctant to negotiate with non-monetary benefactors, yet happy to negotiate with monetary ones. Moreover, when negotiating with non-monetary (vs. monetary) benefactors, negotiators are more driven by pro-social motivations, and propose less self-serving negotiation offers. The third project (with Margarita Leib & Shaul Shalvi) examines peoples’ willingness to sacrifice their ethical values in order to help or hurt others. Specifically we assess the extent to which people are willing to bluntly lie and/or implicitly “bend the rules” to reciprocate others’ (un)generosity, as well as out of mere spite or altruism. Results of this project indicate that unethical helping is more common than unethical hurting. The former occurs even in the absence of self-gains, and without a reciprocal motivation.
Determinants of (im)moral judgments and decisions
Norms shape our judgment and choice. In this talk, I will review two independent findings pertaining to the relationship between norms, ethical judgments and decisions about harming and saving others.
The role of (in)action norms while driving regular and autonomous vehicles (With Simone Moran and Clil Uliel)
The technology for self-driving cars is here and soon self-driving cars will replace regular cars reducing casualties and improving our lives. Still, not all accidents will be avoided and situations of unavoidable harm will still exist. Here we suggest that in a case of unavoidable harm a driver in a self-driving car who swerves the car in order to obtain the more utilitarian outcome will be judged more favorably than a driver in a regular car obtaining the same outcome. The reason is that we have different (in)action norms. We expect the driver in the regular car to act and choose the utilitarian outcome but we do not expect the driver in the self-driving car to override the car’s default. This difference in expectation leads in turn to a more favorable judgment of the latter.
Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior (with Ilana Ritov)
Competition is prevalent. People often resort to unethical means to win (e.g., the recent Volkswagen scandal). Not surprisingly, competition is central to the study of economics, psychology, sociology, political science, and more. Although we know much about contestants’ behavior before and during competitions, we know little about contestants’ behavior after the competition has ended. Connecting post competition behaviors with preceding competition experience, we find that after a competition is over winners behave more dishonestly than losers in an unrelated subsequent task. Furthermore, the subsequent unethical behavior effect seems to depend on winning, rather than on mere success. Providing insight into the issue is important in gaining understanding of how unethical behavior may cascade from exposure to competitive settings.
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology