Are social prediction errors universal? Predicting compliance with a direct request across cultures

Research in Organizational Behavior

2013

Self Cite

Employees at all organizational levels have influence over their subordinates, their colleagues, and even their bosses. But are they aware of this influence? We present evidence suggesting that employees are constrained by cognitive biases that lead them to underestimate their influence over others in the workplace. As a result of this underestimation of influence, employees may be reluctant to spearhead organizational change, discount their own role in subordinates' performance failures, and fail to speak up in the face of wrongdoing. In addition to reviewing evidence for this bias, we propose five moderators that, when present, may reverse or attenuate the underestimation effect (namely, comparative judgments, the objectification or dehumanization of an influence target, the actual degree of influence any one influencer has, the means of influence, and culture). Finally, we offer some practical solutions to help employees more fully recognize their influence over other members of the organization. Employees at all organizational levels have influence over their subordinates, their colleagues, and even their bosses. But are they aware of this influence? We present evidence suggesting that employees are constrained by cognitive biases that lead them to underestimate their influence over others in the workplace. As a result of this underestimation of influence, employees may be reluctant to spearhead organizational change, discount their own role in subordinates' performance failures, and fail to speak up in the face of wrongdoing. In addition to reviewing evidence for this bias, we propose five moderators that, when present, may reverse or attenuate the underestimation effect (namely, comparative judgments, the objectification or dehumanization of an influence target, the actual degree of influence any one influencer has, the means of influence, and culture). Finally, we offer some practical solutions to help employees more fully recognize their influence over other members of the organization.Underestimating Our Influence at Work 3 Contents

Section: Culturementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Underestimation Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Underestimating Our Influence At Work 19mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Underestimating our influence over others at work

Research in Organizational Behavior

2013

Self Cite

“…For example, cultural values, such as collectivism and individualism, have been found to moderate (Bagozzi, Verbeke, & Gavino 2003) and alter (Stipek 1998;Wallbott & Scherer 1995) individuals' experiences of self-conscious emotions, such as shame, guilt, and embarrassment. Individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to be more aware of others' perspectives (Heine, Takemoto, Moskalenko, Lasaleta & Henrich 2008) and the extent to which their behaviors affect other people (Bohns et al 2011). Thus, their appraisals of events may be less affected by environmental interventions designed to draw attention to how their actions affect others.…”

Section: Individual Differences Related To the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt by Design: Structuring Organizations to Elicit Guilt as an Affective Reaction to Failure

Flynn

2013

Organization Science

Self Cite

In this article, we outline a model of how organizations can effectively shape employees' affective reactions to failure. We do not suggest that organizations eliminate the experience of negative affect following performance failures-instead, we propose that they encourage a more constructive form of negative affect (guilt) instead of a destructive one (shame). We argue that guilt responses prompt employees to take corrective action in response to mistakes, while shame responses are likely to elicit more detrimental effects of negative affect. Further, we suggest that organizations can play a role in influencing employees' discrete emotional reactions to the benefit of both employees and the organization. We describe the necessary antecedents for encouraging guilt responses without simultaneously eliciting shame. Essentially, employees are more likely to experience guilt (but not shame) if they feel they had control over a specific negative event and the event resulted in a negative outcome for others. Given these necessary preconditions, we identify a set of organizational characteristics-autonomy, specificity of performance feedback, and outcome interdependence-that can be modified to make the experience of guilt more likely than that of shame in the workplace. The ethical and practical limits of shaping employees' emotional experiences within a negative affective domain are also addressed. Published in Organization Science AbstractIn this article, we outline a model of how organizations can effectively shape employees' affective reactions to failure. We do not suggest that organizations eliminate the experience of negative affect following performance failures-instead, we propose that they encourage a more constructive form of negative affect (guilt) instead of a destructive one (shame). We argue that guilt responses prompt employees to take corrective action in response to mistakes, while shame responses are likely to elicit more detrimental effects of negative affect. Further, we suggest that organizations can play a role in influencing employees' discrete emotional reactions to the benefit of both employees and the organization. We describe the necessary antecedents for encouraging guilt responses without simultaneously eliciting shame. Essentially, employees are more likely to experience guilt (but not shame) if they feel they had control over a specific negative event and the event resulted in a negative outcome for others. Given these necessary preconditions, we identify a set of organizational characteristics-autonomy, specificity of performance feedback, and outcome interdependence-that can be modified to make the experience of guilt more likely than that of shame in the workplace. The ethical and practical limits of shaping employees' emotional experiences within a negative affective domain are also addressed.

“…Drawing on past research (Bohns et al, 2011;Flynn & Lake (Bohns), 2008), we predicted that the discomfort of saying ''no'' to a second request would be palpable for potential helpers even (or especially) if they had already rejected an initial request. However, we expected help-seekers would fail to appreciate this fact.…”

Section: Study 3: Mediation By Discomfortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Once Bitten, Twice Shy

Newark

Flynn

Social Psychological and Personality Science

2013

Self Cite

Four studies examined help-seekers' beliefs about how past refusals affect future compliance. In Study 1, help-seekers were more likely than potential helpers to believe that a previous refusal would lead a potential helper to deny a subsequent request of similar size. Study 2 replicated this effect and found that help-seekers underestimated the actual compliance rate of potential helpers who had previously refused to help. Studies 3 and 4 explain this asymmetry. Whereas potential helpers' willingness to comply with a subsequent request stems from the discomfort of rejecting others not once, but twice, help-seekers rely on dispositional attributions of helpfulness to estimate the likelihood of hearing ''yes'' from someone who has previously told them ''no.''