Underestimating our influence over others at work

Abstract

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

Consequences of knowledge hiding: The differential compensatory effects of guilt and shame

“…As such, this study establishes an emotional dual‐process mechanism that is dependent on the type of self‐conscious moral emotion. Our findings also contribute to the literature stating that other‐oriented (i.e., guilt) and self‐concerned (i.e., shame) emotions can co‐occur and need to be captured simultaneously to be able to accurately predict subsequent behavioural strategies (Bohns & Flynn, ; de Dreu & Nauta, ).…”

“…Accordingly, the closer knowledge hiding perpetrators feel to the knowledge hiding target, the stronger their negative emotional reactions may be. Contextual factors refer to a set of external cues from which organizational members deduce what their attitudes and behaviour should be (Bohns & Flynn, 2013;Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). For example, contextual factors that increase employees' awareness about their moral wrongdoing, such as ethical climates (Victor & Cullen, 1988), corporate ethical codes (Stevens, 2008), and ethical supervisors (Brown & Treviño, 2006;Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2016), may strengthen the link between knowledge hiding and self-conscious moral emotions.…”

(Mis)Understanding Our Influence Over Others

“…There are numerous other potential moderators of the underestimation-of-compliance effect (for additional possibilities, see Bohns & Flynn, 2013). One factor of interest is gender (Eagly, 1983); however, we have found no reliable gender effects in our studies.…”

Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy

“…Sherif's (1935) early experiments on social influence showed that when judging how far a point of light had moved, people thought they were not influenced by others when in fact they were (see also Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). This interest in perception and reality continues to the present day with work showing that people underestimate their influence on others (Bohns & Flynn, 2013). Here, we consider how people's perceptions of how to improve accuracy by using advice compare with the reality of what actually increases accuracy.…”