Organizational Behaviour Seminars -2022-3

----

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

----------------

This paper is the first to propose and validate a process by which exchange partners arrive at a shared understanding of what actions constitute cooperation and defection in changing and complex environments, thereby making cooperation possible. Past research has focused on defection incentives as determinants of cooperative outcomes but has failed to explain how exchange partners arrive at shared understandings of what actions constitute cooperation, and why exchanges featuring the same incentives sometimes have different cooperative outcomes. I resolve this puzzle and explain how and when exchange partners can coordinate on the meaning of cooperation. I do so by advancing and testing a theory of shared coordination frameworks – developed through long-term exchange – that help exchange partners reach common interpretations of cooperation when unanticipated events occur. I then provide theoretical clarification for the prevalence of long-term exchange, by demonstrating the causal primary of shared frameworks in actors’ decisions to exchange with long-term partners. I validate these propositions using a novel experimental platform that (1) manipulates participants’ coordination frameworks; and (2) disentangles their effect from defection incentives and other correlates of long-term exchange. The results indicate that shared frameworks dramatically increase the likelihood of successful cooperation and long-term relationships in complex exchanges.

My research analyzes the effect of unions on wage inequality: not so much in increasing the compensation of unskilled, low-wage workers, but primarily in restricting executive pay. I present studies on unionism over the past few decades in scrutinizing company performance and wage inequality and in promoting changes in the structure and regulation of executive pay. My main hypothesis is that unions have reduced CEO compensation, promoted greater equity among company employees, and increased company efficiency. I also test whether unions have strengthened the tenuous connection between company performance and executive compensation which, in and of itself, helps shareholders construct better compensation plans. Finally, I discuss the impact of unions upon CEO-worker pay ratio

My co-authors, Luke Hedden and Hamza Kahn, and I examine how different forms of identity conflict, such as extreme intergroup polarization and ingroup identity policing, can occur when organizations publicly take stands, or avoid taking stands, on social issues. Drawing on research and theory in diverse areas such as social identity theory, moralization and moral judgments, we show how ‘normal’ identity processes namely ingroup-outgroup differentiation and black sheep effects –can become transformed and distorted when moral dynamics are triggered in the wake of organizations taking (and sometimes not taking) positions on social issues. As these transformed dynamics render ineffective many known solutions to identity-based conflicts, we conclude by turning to what organizations might do to create space for moral reasoning, such as creating conflicting moral intuitions and managing the intense emotions that occur in the wake of morally-infused identity conflicts.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Organizations increasingly use Artificial Intelligence (AI) for decision and task support. Yet, while scholars have extensively discussed various opportunities and threats posed to employees by such smart systems, none have examined how employees’ distinct perceptions of AI – as an opportunity or a threat – affect their decision-making behaviors. Drawing from research on automation bias, we theorize that while perceiving AI as an opportunity (vs. a threat) may increase its usage by employees, it may also increase their preference to rely on the AI (to use the AI than to make their decisions alone), leading to reduced task effort and heightened compliance with fictitious AI decisions. We also hypothesize that this adverse effect will be pronounced among employees with high (vs. low) self-efficacy or job expertise. I will present findings from several studies supporting our hypotheses and discuss their potential implications for employee-AI interactions.