Search results

This study uses an eye-tracking device to examine the effects of dissenting opinion on information search style and decision quality, using insights from dual-process theory. When evaluating strategic outcomes, managers not exposed to a dissenting opinion employ directed information search using System 1 (heuristic, automatic cognitive processing), leading to low-quality decisions. Providing a dissenting opinion causes managers to use System 2 (sequential information search characterized by deliberate, slow, and effortful cognitive processing), leading to higher-quality decisions. This study provides useful insights into the cognitive processes underlying managers' judgments, and the factors that influence their decisions. We conclude by discussing the critical role of dissent in business practices, and explain how dissent affects people's System 2 cognitive processes.

Collaborative systems are particular cases of multi-team systems in which several groups representing various interests meet to debate and generate solutions on complex societal issues. Stakeholder diversity in such systems often triggers power differences and disparity and the study explores the dual role of power disparity in collaborative settings. The purpose of this paper is to extend the power approach-inhibition model (Keltner et al., 2003) to the group level of analysis and argue that, on the positive side, power disparity increases the cognitive activity of the interacting groups (i.e. task-related debates), while on the other hand it generates a negative affective climate.

The authors collected data at two time points across nine behavioral simulations (54 teams, 239 participants) designed to explore the cognitive and affective dynamics between six parties interacting in a collaborative decision task.

The results show that power disparity increases cognitive activity in collaborative multi-party systems, while it hinders the affective climate, by increasing relationship conflict and decreasing psychological safety among the stakeholders.

This study provides important theoretical and practical contributions mostly for the consultation processes, as interventions might be directed at fostering the positive effects of power disparity in collaborative setting, while mitigating its drawbacks.

By extending the approach-inhibition model to the group level, this is one of the first empirical studies to examine the dual nature of the impact that power disparity has on the cognitive (i.e. positive effect) and affective (i.e. negative effect) dynamics of multi-party collaborative systems (i.e. multi-team systems).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on the antecedents and consequences of group cognitive complexity (GCC) and integrate the empirical work by using the composition/compilation framework of emergence and the input-mediator-output-input (I-M-O-I) model of team effectiveness.

Through a systematic search in extant databases, the authors found 27 empirical studies exploring the antecedents and consequences of GCC.

The extant literature is dominated by a compilational approach on GCC, experimental designs and a focus on exploring the antecedents of GCC (group composition and processes mostly), thus providing useful insights for organizational interventions. The work on the implications of GCC for individual or organizational level outcomes is however scant. Future endeavors could rely more on a multilevel exploration of GCC, take a developmental rather than a one-shot approach and explore the impact of new ways of working on the emergence of GCC.

The authors propose an integration of extant empirical work on GCC by using two complementary frameworks: the I-M-O-I model and the composition/compilation framework. The authors highlight the implications for practice and draw future research directions.

The paper aims to extend research which has sought to explain Britain's early success as an industrial power by identifying the influence of religious doctrine of the Dissenting Protestant churches on the development of accounting practices in the factory. The concern is not with specific accounting practices but with the social and moral environment which provided the incentives and permissions that encouraged late eighteenth century English industrialists to develop the practices that they used.

The paper draws on the highly influential writings of social theorists such Weber, Sombart and Tawney to identify the religious doctrines that both motivated and justified the rational, ideological business practices of prominent businessmen.

The rise of accounting as a powerful tool of control and discipline was significantly assisted by the teaching of the Dissenting Protestant churches on “calling”. Religious beliefs provided permissions, justifications and incentives which underpinned the entrepreneurial energies, opportunities and successes of the early industrialists. Accounting could be seen to assume almost the aura and nascent legitimacy of a religious practice, a means of sanctifying practices which were otherwise reviled by social elites.

Despite encouragement from accounting researchers for histories of accounting which give greater credence to the reflexivity between accounting and society, this has yet to find a significant presence amongst the searches for beginnings in cost accounting where economic and management factors remain the overwhelming focus. Religious beliefs are shown to have been especially influential in the adoption of accounting practices by early industrialists who were frequently members of the Dissenting Protestant churches.

Although decision makers and their superiors are obliged to be open to bad news, dissent, warnings, and problem signs, employees are often afraid to speak up. The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for the study of organizational dissent strategy used during the decision‐making phase of organizational change.

After identifying the components of the frame work, it is illustrated by examining two distinct and challenging dissent experiences. Propositions are set forth for further research.

It is argued that level of trust and sense of urgency will impel employees to voice opposition using four dissent strategies: organizational silence, organizational rumbling, organizational communication, and/or organizational blasting.

The paper is of value by showing that decision makers should be better equipped to identify and manage dissent strategies before they cause harm within their organizations.

This chapter reviews research on group conflict from three perspectives. First, a development perspective of group conflict understands conflict as a natural part of group history. This view emphasizes progress through conflict as a precondition for group growth and productivity. Second, an instrumental perspective of group conflict differentiates between functional and dysfunctional conflict. Research in this area focuses on the preconditions for functional conflict while reducing the likelihood of dysfunctional conflict. Finally, a political perspective situates conflict as tension between advantaged and disadvantaged social groups. The focus of this view is on empowering marginalized voices in groups. After examining these three perspectives, the chapter highlights how each might approach conflict in potentially nuanced contexts such as intergroup conflict, virtual teams, and third-party resolutions.

The relationship between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion is a longstanding concern in sociology and related disciplines. Past work suggests that intergroup conflict shapes emotional bonds between group members, promotes in-group and out-group stereotyping, encourages self-sacrifice for the group, and changes the social structure of groups. Conflict thus plays an important structural role in organizing social interaction. Although sociologists contributed much to the beginnings of this research tradition, sociological attention to the conflict–cohesion link has waned in recent decades. We contend that despite advances in our understanding of the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, more remains to be done, and sociologists are especially equipped to tackle these unanswered questions. As such, we encourage sociologists to revisit the study of intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion and offer some possibilities for furthering our understanding of this phenomenon. After reviewing and evaluating the relevant literatures on the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, we consider ways in which a broad range of current theories from the group process tradition – including theories of status, exchange, justice, identity, and emotion – could contribute to understanding the conflict–cohesion hypothesis and how those theories could benefit from considering the conflict–cohesion hypothesis. In doing so, we make a case for the continuing importance of sociology in explaining the link between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion.

As normative interventions (NIs) have been claimed to be effective in improving decision quality in groups, the aim of the paper is to address the effectiveness of NIs in ad hoc and established groups across several task domains.

Three experimental studies were conducted to test the effects of NIs on collective cognition, group rationality, and decision quality.

The first experimental study (58 groups) compared the effects of NIs on the emergence of group level cognitive structures. The results show that NIs lead to higher group cognitive complexity in established rather than in ad hoc groups. The second study tests the effects of NIs on group rationality (as emergent group competence) in a sample of 40 established groups and shows that NIs have synergic effects and foster group rationality. In the third study the insights of the first two studies are extended to a more realistic decision task performed by groups of managers. The results of the last study show that decision quality is higher in groups that received NIs as compared to groups that did not receive NIs.

The results contribute to the group cognition literature by showing the synergic effects of NIs.

The results show that NIs are simple and effective ways of improving information processing and decision quality in established decision‐making groups.

NIs help in achieving better decisions throughout society.

The paper is the first comprehensive test of the impact of NIs on group information processing across several cognitive tasks and the first to explore group rationality as an emergent group‐level competence.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the influence of managerial discretion on the effectiveness of say on pay (SOP) as a governance mechanism. This goal covers an important gap since the issue of how effective SOP is in promoting more aligned compensation has proved somewhat controversial.

This empirical research opted for a panel methodology for the period 2003–2017, using a sample of large UK listed-companies (specifically, 3,445 firm-year observations). Data were obtained from several sources (Manifest Ltd, BoardEx, Worldscope, Factset Ownership and DataStream).

Results show that managerial discretion plays an important role in the effectiveness of SOP as a mechanism for increasing aligned CEO compensation. While individual discretion (latitude of objectives) exerts a negative effect, contextual discretion (latitude of action) increases SOP effectiveness. The global effect of managerial discretion is positive when there is high level of both individual and contextual discretion.

This empirical study provides evidence concerning an emerging topic in the literature regarding the impact of SOP as a shareholder activism mechanism of corporate governance on executive compensation. By taking managerial discretion into consideration as a relevant moderating factor, it also offers a better explanation of SOP effectiveness as a governance mechanism.

Substantial developmental psychology research on attachment theory documents that children with secure affectional ties (attachments) to caregivers are more likely to excel in psychosocial and behavioral performance than their peers with insecure attachments. We review attachment theory and research in the developmental psychology literature and propose causes of secure short-term attachments to workgroups. Whereas traditional attachment research has documented social–emotional antecedents, we propose social–emotional and task-related antecedents of secure attachment to workgroups. Suggestive data are presented to illustrate our propositions. We discuss theoretical and practical contributions of our attachment theory-based perspective on workgroups, as well as areas for future research.