Original and revised model in information sampling literature
- Original model
- Information sharing is unbiased
- Information is either mentioned or not
- Information is either shared with everyone or no
one
- Revised model
- Information sharing is biased and deliberate
- Information can be mentioned partially or with a
spin - Information is selectively shared with some but not
other members
> Team information processing is a motivated proces!
2 Different types of motivation in motivated information processing
Different types of motivation jointly shape collective information processing
- Epistemic motivation:
- Willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough
and accurate understanding > shapes how
information is processed (depth)
- Social motivation:
- Preference for outcome distributions between
oneself and other group members (proself vs.
prosocial) > biases what information is processed
Drivers of epistemic motivation
Factors that promote epistemic motivation: - Personality: - Openness to experience - Need for cognition - Situation: - Accountability - Group: - Preference diversity - Consistent dissenting minorities • Factors that reduce epistemic motivation: - Situation: - Time pressure, decision urgency - Environmental noise - Autocratic leadership
Drivers of social motivation
Factors that promote prosocial motivation: - Personality: - Agreeableness & disposition to trust - Values: - Collectivism - Collective identity - Situational factors: - Instructions to cooperate - Past cooperation, future interaction - Prosocial norms, climate - Team- based rewards Factors that promote pro-self motivation - Values: - Individualism - Situational factors: - Past competition, no future interaction - Individual-based rewards
When is task conflict less negative?
…it happens in top-management teams rather than on lower organizational levels
…it is low in magnitude
…it is not accompanied by relationship conflict
> Common theme: Task conflict often becomes personal making conflict management key!
Initial responses to negative behavior
Motivational intervention
- Goal:
- Change bad apple behaviors through influence
tactics
- Strategies:
- Positive & negative reinforcement
- Punishment
Rejection
- Goal:
- Minimize or eliminate interaction with bad apple
- Strategies:
- Formal exclusion from groups
- Informal change in “psychological composition”
How do bad apples spoil the bunch?
- Episodic negative behavior
- Initial responses fail
- Chronic negative behavior
- Psychological reactions
- Defensive behaviors
- Psychological reactions create need to protect self-
worth, well-being, status, or autonomy among team
members which motivates defensive behaviors
- Psychological reactions create need to protect self-
- Amplifying group processes
- Group outcomes
> Effects are stronger, when – behaviors are intense – teams fail to perform as a consequence – interdependence is high
3 Amplifying group processes
1 Aggregation: Bad behaviors add up across members - Defensive reactions likely increase negative affect,
reduced trust, and feelings of inequity
- Withdrawal
- Exploding/revenge
- Mood maintenance
- Denial
# 2 Spillover: Bad apple behaviors displayed by team members increase the likelihood that other team members display them as well
- Different mechanisms
- Emotional contagion
- Downward matching
- Social learning (behavior, norms)
# 3 Sensemaking: Social sharing and repeated discussion of negative experiences with others
- Increases salience of negative events
- Reinforces lack of power and agency
- Promotes realization that team is defunct and unable
to enforce norms and achieve goals
- De-identification
3 Strategies to deal with bad apples
- Prevention:
- Careful selection and hiring, including socialization ▪
Careful composition of teams - Self-awareness and monitoring
- Careful selection and hiring, including socialization ▪
- Early and consistent intervention when problems
occur:- Reinforce norms for what is acceptable behavior
- Address both “bad apple” and other team members 3. Adopt a solution-oriented frame by focusing on…:
- …problematic behaviors rather than problematic
persons - …future rather than past
- …solutions and desirable behaviors
Similarities & Differences
Similarities:
- Relational
- Bases for hierarchical differentiation
- Can refer to intra- and intergroup context Differences:
- Property of target actor vs. other actors
- Relatively objective vs. subjective and perceptual o > Differences account for differences in the effects,
maintenance, and loss of power and status
Power & Dependence
Power
- reduces dependence or need to rely on others
- increases ability to set rules, agendas, and create
structures
Powerlessness
- Creates dependence on others to obtain resources
- Makes individuals conform to the rules, structures,
and agendas set by those controlling the resources
How power shapes social attentiveness
Focus of attention:
- Increased egocentricity
- Reduced ability to realize that others do not share
own perspective
- Reduced perspective taking ability
- Reduced emotion identification & reciprocity
- Reduced conformity & yielding to norms o Selectivity of attention:
- Instrumentality
- Others seen in more instrumental terms
- Social attention selectively granted to others that
can help fulfill current goals
How power activates the behavioral approach system
- Focus on positive aspects of environment:
- Seeing opportunities vs. threats
- Reduced attention to obstacles
- Seeing opportunities vs. threats
- More assertive actions & higher readiness to address
obstacles - Power holders face less interference from others
How power shapes thinking
- More abstract thinking:
- Perceiving patterns & global trends
- Better able to identify core, relevant information
- Different perspective on the future:
- Optimism about general and personal future
- Underestimation of risk & greater risk preference
- Heightened, sometimes illusory sense of control
- Higher positive affect & well-being
Reinforcing power hierarchies
- Psychological & behavioral consequences of power
lead power holders to claim new and hold onto
existing resources- Focus on goals & opportunities
- Engage in assertive action
- Regard others mainly to the extent they are
instrumentally useful - Optimism, confidence, and control
- Low power actors’ psychological processes activate
complementary behavioral patterns.
Reinforcing status hierarchies
Status shapes the expectations and behaviors of the observers in ways that create self-fulfilling prophecies and reinforce status hierarchies:
- Expectations shape evaluation
- Expectations shape behavior of others and self
- Expectations take on prescriptive character and
expectancy violation is sanctioned
- Expectations determine allocation of opportunities
to learn and perform
Power as a double edged sword
Power maintenance and loss can stem from the same behaviors:
- Disregarding others > Provoke resistance
- Being optimistic > Overlooking threats & dangers
- Risk taking & control > Incur major losses & public
embarrassment
- Thinking patterns > Communication inefficiencies
- Claiming excessive resources > Violating sense of
fairness
