No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how the environment surrounding a decision-making event affects whether decision-makers consider the credibility of their advisors and take their advice. Design/methodology/approach In two experiments, the characteristics of the event and credibility of the advisor were manipulated, the extent to which participants considered the information from the advisor was measured, and whether participants took advice was determined. Findings Decision-makers are more likely to take advice from advisors when the decision-making event is of low urgency or high criticality because they are more likely to consider information provided by high-credibility advisors. Practical implications Within organizations, decision-makers may be making suboptimal decisions when faced with highly urgent decisions or decisions with low criticality. This study suggests that under these conditions, decision-makers are less likely to consider the information provided by high-credibility advisors. Organizations may consider encouraging decision-makers to override their tendency to disregard advice from credible advisors. Originality/value This study introduces a contextual factor relevant to managers, event characteristics, which has an effect on whether decision-makers take advice. A unique experimental design was utilized in which credibility was manipulated across two studies with an explicit (Study 1: resume) vs implicit (Study 2: video) method, and advice-taking was measured with a decision that was clearly right or wrong.

Using a multilevel field study with data collected over a 9-month period, we tested how team psychological safety interacts with levels of team relationship conflict to influence an individual’s team identification and satisfaction with their team. We propose that team psychological safety measured early in a team’s time together influences what team members can expect to experience in subsequent team interactions. We use identification and team conflict theory to theorize that through sense-making processes, team members evaluate early experiences with their team relative to initial levels of team psychological safety, which then influences their levels of team identification. When team members experience high levels of team psychological safety initially followed by an increasing trajectory of relationship conflict within the team over time, we predicted and found that individual’s team identification decreased, resulting in lower satisfaction with their team. The theoretical and practical implications for aligning early perceptions of team’s psychological safety with patterns of perceived relationship conflict and its effect on team identification and satisfaction with the team are discussed.