Search results

Balance Theory has accumulated an impressive record of empirical confirmation at both the micro- and macro-levels. Yet, it is unclear why humans consistently prefer balanced relations when imbalance offers the opportunity to reap material rewards. We argue that balance is preferred because it functions as a “compression heuristic,” allowing networks to be more easily encoded in, and recalled from, memory.

We present the results of a novel randomized laboratory experiment using nearly 300 subjects. We evaluate the independent and joint effects of degree of balance/imbalance and presence/absence of kin compression heuristics on network recall.

We find that memory for relationship valence is more accurate for balanced, rather than imbalanced, networks and that relationship existence and relationship valence are separable cognitive elements. We also use comparisons between kin and non-kin networks to suggest that humans are implicitly aware of the conditions under which imbalanced networks will be most durable.

We show that the tension/strain postulated to generate mental and behavioral responses to increase balance likely stems from cognitive limitations. More broadly, this connects balance theory to models of human cognition and evolution and suggests that human general processing ability may have evolved in response to social, rather than physical, challenges.

This paper poses the question of whether the mainstream feminist movement in the United States, in concentrating its efforts on achieving gender parity in the existing workplace, is selling women short. In it, I argue that contemporary U.S. feminism has not adequately theorized the problems with the relatively unregulated market system in the United States. That failure has contributed to a situation in which women’s participation in the labor market is mistakenly equated with liberation, and in which other far-ranging effects of the market system on women’s lives inside and outside of work – many of them negative – are overlooked. To theorize the effects of the market system on women’s lives in a more nuanced manner, I borrow from the insights of earlier Marxist and socialist feminists. I then use this more nuanced perspective to outline an agenda for feminism, which I call “market-cautious feminism,” that seeks to regulate the market to serve women’s interests.

In an ongoing War for Talent, what are the intangible and tangible return on investments (ROIs) for boundary-spanning employees? This study aims to develop a formative structural equation model (SEM) of the Matthew effect in talent. management.

This study develops a formative SEM theoretical model. Training and development (T&D) are the two antecedents of the latent construct – talent management strategy (TMS). This study frames the latent construct (TMS) in the proximal context of reducing burnout (cynicism and inefficacy), the distal context of subjective and intangible outcomes (job and life satisfaction) and the omnibus context of objective, tangible and financial rewards (the sales commission). The study collected data from multiple sources – objective sales commission from personnel records and subjective survey data from 512 sales employees.

The empirical discoveries support the theory. Both T&D contribute significantly to the TMS, which reduces burnout in the immediate context. TMS enhances job satisfaction more than life satisfaction in the distal context. TMS significantly and indirectly improves boundary spanners’ sales commission in the omnibus context via life satisfaction, but not job satisfaction. The model prevails for the whole sample, men, but not women.

Our discoveries offer practical implications for the Matthew effect in talent management: policymakers must cultivate T&D, develop TMS, facilitate the spillover effect from job satisfaction to life satisfaction, concentrate on the meaning in their lives and take their mind off money. TMS ultimately helps ignite these boundary spanners’ sales commission and their organization’s bottom line and financial health. The rich get richer.

It is life satisfaction (not job satisfaction) that excites boundary-spanning employees’ high level of sales commission. Our model prevails for the whole sample and men, but not for women. Job satisfaction spills over to life satisfaction for the entire sample, for men, but not for women. The results reveal gender differences.

This study aims to investigate the differences between inside and outside business-to-business salespeople. Although prior research has highlighted a need to compare these two distinct sales positions, limited research examines the two. Specifically, this study investigates differences between inside and outside salespeople for the following constructs: positivity, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction and turnover intentions.

A Qualtrics panel of 210 business-to-business salespeople from a variety of US industries was used, with 43.8% classifying themselves as inside. Multi-group analysis using partial least squares structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM) was conducted where job type serves as the moderator for the entire model.

Results indicated four of six significant differences based on position. Specifically, positivity had a significant impact on emotional exhaustion for outside salespeople only. For extrinsic motivation, inside salespeople exhibited a stronger impact on emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, the impact of emotional exhaustion on turnover intentions was stronger for outside salespeople. The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intentions was stronger for inside salespeople. These results are supported by social exchange theory and distraction conflict theory.

This research highlights that sales managers and organizations need to consider different policies based on position type to increase job satisfaction and reduce turnover intentions. Practical guidelines for effectively managing the two positions are provided.

The value of this paper is that it indicates that there are indeed significant differences between these two types of sales positions, and thus, future research should not combine them into a single sample.

Are people more or less likely to use their power if they have high social status? This chapter discusses how having status affects the use of power by those in positions of power in exchange relations or small groups. Although status and power are typically assumed to be mutually reinforcing, there is growing recognition that having status may actually inhibit the use of power under certain conditions.

I review relevant research findings and consider three variables in particular that may moderate the effects of status on the use of power: legitimacy of status, achieved versus ascribed status, and individualist versus collectivist cultures.

While status and power are close correlates, there is growing recognition – particularly in organizational psychology – that, under certain conditions, having status may inhibit the use of power or that lacking status increases power use. These studies shed new light on how status interacts with power in hierarchical groups and challenge the pervasive view of power and status as mutually reinforcing forces that perpetuate inequalities. Understanding more precisely when and why status and power have convergent or divergent effects on power use is an important task for scholars of group processes.

The possibility that status and power can have distinct consequences, let alone opposite effects, presents an intriguing opportunity for scholars of group processes to rethink and extend our understanding of social hierarchies in a new light.