No abstract

No abstract

The current paper revisits and builds upon task demonstrability, which defines the criteria necessary for groups to choose a correct response if any member prefers that response. We identify boundary conditions of the current conceptualization of task demonstrability with respect to its use in understanding modern organizational teams. Specifically, we argue that, in its current form, task demonstrability is not optimally suited to studying ongoing teams in which member expertise varies and teams work to complete complex multifaceted tasks. To address this issue, we provide a revisited perspective on demonstrability. We specify the nomological network of revisited demonstrability and recast each of its criteria in a form that preserves the original intent of the construct, but has broader applicability, particularly to organizational contexts. We then discuss theoretical implications and managerial applications of the construct. Finally, noting that there is no standard assessment tool for demonstrability (original or revisited), we develop and validate a measure to facilitate future research.

We extend the field’s understanding of voice recognition by examining peer responses to voice. We investigate how employees can help peers get a status boost from voicing, while also raising their own status, by introducing the concept of amplification—public endorsement of another person’s contribution, with attribution to that person. In two experiments and one field study, we find that amplification enhances status both for voicers and for those who amplify voice. Being amplified was equally beneficial for voicers who framed their ideas promotively (improvement-focused) and prohibitively (problem-focused; Study 1), and for men and women (Study 2). Furthermore, amplified ideas were rated as higher quality than nonamplified ideas. Amplification also helped amplifiers: participants reading experimentally manipulated meeting transcripts rated amplifiers as higher status than those who self-promoted, stayed quiet, or contributed additional ideas (Studies 1 and 2). Finally, in an intervention in a nonprofit organization, select employees trained to use amplification attained higher status in their work groups (Study 3). In all, these results increase our understanding of how social actors can capitalize on instances of voice to give a status boost to voicers who might otherwise be overlooked, and help organizations realize the potential of employees’ diverse perspectives.

This chapter frames the transfer of advice as a special case of traditional cooperative decision making, in which group members proffer preferences (advice) to one another as a means of reaching consensus. Although the transfer of advice differs from group decision making on a number of acknowledged factors, the underlying processes of the two are analogous, such that the group decision-making literature can usefully inform the study of advice. Using this theoretical perspective, the chapter examines how advice is offered and accepted as a function of demonstrability—that is, the degree to which a decision environment facilitates shared conceptual systems, the willingness and ability to include the input of others in one’s decision making, and the willingness and ability of those with expertise to attempt to transfer their knowledge to others. This understanding is then applied to two cases: the craft beer industry and travel hacking. Best practices in business are discussed.