OAM Final

Can we measure happiness?

"All things considered, how happy would you say you are with your life these days" 0 (extremely unhappy) to 10 (extremely happy) Individual correlates: - Reports of friends - Physical functioning (i.e. cortisol, blood pressure, heart rate, some immune responses) - Electrical brain activity Societal correlates: rates of suicide and depression Often % of life satisfaction can be explained 50% by genetics, 40% by acctons, and 10% by demographics or circumstances

Reward power

Ability to give valued outcomes/resources (i.e. person who controls Emory's housing parking, or financial aid) Could be money or praise

Coercive power

Ability to punish or withhold rewards Depends on fear from failure to comply

The power trip (reading)

According to the survey, the students at the top of the social hierarchy -- they were the most "powerful" and respected -- were also the most considerate and outgoing, and scored highest on measures of agreeableness and extroversion According to psychologists, one of the main problems with authority is that it makes us less sympathetic to the concerns and emotions of others Nice people are more likely to rise to power; then something strange happens: authority undermines the very talents that got them there Paradox of power: the vast majority of rude and inappropriate behaviors, such as the shouting of profanities, come from the offices of those with the most authority The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude In some cases, these new habits can help a leader be more decisive and single-minded, or more likely to make choices that will be profitable regardless of their popularity Best treatment is transparency, and the worst abuses of power can be prevented when people know they're being monitored People give authority to people that they genuinely like When you give people power, they basically start acting like fools; they flirt inappropriately, tease in a hostile fashion, and become totally impulsive One of the main problems with authority is that it makes us less sympathetic to the concerns and emotions of others Instead of analyzing the strength of the argument, those with authority focus on whether or not the argument confirms what they already believe; if it doesn't, then the facts are conveniently ignored Under certain conditions, power can lead people to make fewer mistakes on tedious tasks, such as matching a color with its correct description

The strength of weak ties

Acquaintances are more valuable for exposure to jobs, information, ideas than close friends 56% of people got job from personal connection (especially for lower level), 19% formal means (ads), 20% applied directly Close friends occupy the same world you do and are exposed to similar information Weak ties can provide access to different worlds that you don't belong to

Foundations of Organizational Structure (reading)

An organizational structure defines how job tasks are formally divided, grouped, and coordinated Managers need to address six key elements when they design their organization's structure - Work specialization: To what degree are activities subdivided into separate jobs? - Departmentalization: On what basis will jobs be grouped together? (region, job function, etc.) - Chain of command: To whom do individuals and groups report? -- Unbroken line of authority that extends from the top of the organization to the lowest echelon and clarifies who reports to whom -- Authority refers to the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and expect them to be obeyed -- The principle of unity of command helps preserve the concept of an unbroken line of authority - Span of control: How many individuals can a manager efficiently and effectively direct? -- Largely determines the number of levels and managers an organization has - All things being equal, the wider or larger the span, the more efficient the organization - Centralization and decentralization: Where does decision-making authority lie? - Formalization: To what degree will there be rules and regulations to direct employees and managers? - If a job is highly formalized, the incumbent has a minimum amount of discretion over what, when, and how to do it - Where formalization is low, job behaviors are relatively unprogrammed, and employees have a great deal of freedom to exercise discretion in their work In a strong recent trend among organizations of all sizes, rigid functional departmentalization is increasingly complemented by teams that cross traditional departmental lines We now turn to three of the more common organizational designs: the simple structure, the bureaucracy, and the matrix structure: The simple structure has a low degree of departmentalization, wide spans of control, authority centralized in a single person, and little formalization - The simple structure is most widely practiced in small businesses in which the manager and owner are one and the same - It's fast, flexible, and inexpensive to operate, and accountability is clear - One major weakness is that it's difficult to maintain in anything other than small organizations - Risky: everything depends on one person Standardization underlies the bureaucracy - The bureaucracy is characterized by highly routine operating tasks achieved through specialization, very formalized rules and regulations, tasks grouped into functional departments, centralized authority, narrow spans of control, and decision making that follows the chain of command - Its primary strength is its ability to perform standardized activities in a highly efficient manner - Weakness: obsessive concern with following the rules Matrix structure combines two forms of departmentalization: functional and product - The strength of functional departmentalization is putting like specialists together, which minimizes the number necessary while allowing the pooling and sharing of specialized resources across products - Its major disadvantage is the difficulty of coordinating the tasks of diverse functional specialists on time and within budget - The most obvious structural characteristic of the matrix is that it breaks the unity-of-command concept - Employees in the matrix have two bosses: their functional department managers and their product managers - The strength of the matrix is its ability to facilitate coordination when the organization has a number of complex and interdependent activities - The major disadvantages of the matrix lie in the confusion it creates, its propensity to foster power struggles, and the stress it places on individuals Virtual organization (also sometimes called the network, or modular, organization): typically a small, core organization that outsources major business functions (i.e. old hollywood) - In structural terms, the virtual organization is highly centralized, with little or no departmentalization - These virtual organizations have created networks of relationships that allow them to contract out manufacturing, distribution, marketing, or any other business function management feels others can do better or more cheaply - The major advantage of the virtual organization is its flexibility - They are in a state of perpetual flux and reorganization, which means roles, goals, and responsibilities are unclear The boundaryless organization seeks to eliminate the chain of command, have limitless spans of control, and replace departments with empowered teams By removing vertical boundaries, management flattens the hierarchy and minimizes status and rank Downsizing is a systematic effort to make an organization leaner by selling off business units, closing locations, or reducing staff Mechanistic model: generally synonymous with the bureaucracy in that it has highly standardized processes for work, high formalization, and more managerial hierarchy Organic model: looks a lot like the boundaryless organization, is flat, has fewer formal procedures for making decisions, has multiple decision makers, and favors flexible practice An innovation strategy strives to achieve meaningful and unique innovations An organization pursuing a cost-minimization strategy tightly controls costs, refrains from incurring unnecessary expenses, and cuts prices in selling a basic product Organizations following an imitation strategy try to both minimize risk and maximize opportunity for profit, moving new products or new markets only after innovators have proven their viability Technology: describes the way an organization transfers inputs into outputs An organization's environment includes outside institutions or forces that can affect its performance, such as suppliers, customers, competitors, government regulatory agencies, and public pressure groups The more scarce, dynamic, and complex the environment, the more organic a structure should be The more abundant, stable, and simple the environment, the more the mechanistic structure will be preferred In highly formalized, heavily structured, mechanistic organizations, the level of fairness in formal policies and procedures is a very important predictor of satisfaction In more personal, individually adaptive organic organizations, employees value interpersonal justice more The evidence generally indicates that work specialization contributes to higher employee productivity-but at the price of reduced job satisfaction Globalization, strategic alliances, customer organization links, and telecommuting are all examples of practices that reduce external boundaries It is probably safe to say no evidence supports a relationship between span of control and employee performance There is still a segment of the workforce that prefers the routine and repetitiveness of highly specialized jobs We find fairly strong evidence linking centralization and job satisfaction In general, organizations that are less centralized have a greater amount of autonomy, and autonomy appears positively related to job satisfaction But, again, individual differences surface Our conclusion: To maximize employee performance and satisfaction, managers must take individual differences, such as experience, personality, and the work task, into account; culture should factor in, too

Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas In A Bruising Workplace (reading)

At Amazon, workers are encouraged to tear apart one another's ideas in meetings, toil long and late (emails arrive past midnight, followed by text messages asking why they were not answered), and held to standards that the company boasts are "unreasonably high" The internal phone directory instructs colleagues on how to send secret feedback to one another's bosses -- used for sabotage Even as the company tests delivery by drone and ways to restock toilet paper at the push of a bathroom button, it is conducting a little-known experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers, redrawing the boundaries of what is acceptable Company veterans often say the genius of Amazon is the way it drives them to drive themselves "If you're a good Amazonian, you become an Amabot," said one employee, using a term that means you have become at one with the system Every aspect of the Amazon system amplifies the others to motivate and discipline the company's marketers, engineers and finance specialists: the leadership principles; rigorous, continuing feedback on performance; and the competition among peers who fear missing a potential problem or improvement and race to answer an email before anyone else To prod employees, Amazon has a powerful lever: more data than any retail operation in history Ideas are critiqued so harshly in meetings at times that some workers fear speaking up Amazon is O.K. with moving through a lot of people to identify and retain superstars But just as Jeff Bezos was able to see the future of e-commerce before anyone else, she added, he was able to envision a new kind of workplace: fluid but tough, with employees staying only a short time and employers demanding the maximum

How a Company Made Everyone a Team Player (reading)

At the San Clemente, Calif., maker of medical devices, any worker can form a team to tackle any project Team members set meetings, assign tasks and create deadlines themselves Now, companies are experimenting with different kinds of teamwork as competition and complexity increase and business problems cross departmental or geographic boundaries Most big companies assign teams for projects ICU Medical Inc. is unusual in that it allows workers to initiate the teams -- it's rare that a company says, "Go form your own team and go address this issue" Dr. Lopez decided to delegate power by letting employees form teams, hoping it would help him spread out the decision-making and encourage input from people closest to the problems -- but it did not work at first After about a year and a half, he decided teams should elect leaders, which brought a vast improvement At the same time, ICU started paying teams rewards based on a percentage of the cumulative salaries of their members Healthy cultures tend to produce collaborative teams, while divisive, political cultures become more so -- the strategy can be effective, as long as companies impose ground rules to prevent chaos - But Mr. Rosen and others say teams can also be inefficient and distracting - The rewards can create tension ICU Medical provides these ground rules for employee teams: - Challenge the issue, not the person - Consider all options - Stand up for your position, but never argue against the facts - Allow yourself the opportunity to seriously consider opposing views - Lose the words 'I' and 'they' once a decision is reached Over the years, ICU has instituted more rules to help teams function smoothly A group of employees created a 25-page handbook that concretely spells out team operation Teams must post notes of each meeting to the company intranet, where any employee can offer feedback

Strategic Alliances Activity ($3)

At the outset (before any of the teams met) most groups, especially A, define the problem in terms of economic return: - "How much incremental gain can I make?" - "Can I get my $3 back?" Teams often get caught up in the extra incremental gain -> competitive mindset As the negotiations unfolded, most groups realize that this is an exercise in trust and rapport - Incremental gain is inconsequential - Cost of mistrust is high

Pull (interpersonal influence)

Attracting -- finding common ground and visioning Bridging -- involving, listening, and disclosing Used in minority position Techniques: create doubt, build relationships, identify persuadable, appear non-threatening

Determining what to share in a negotiation

BATNA: - Can be a source of power and leverage - Should share it if you have a better offer from another company/competitor - Should not change during the negotiation, though improving your BATNA can improve your position Reservation price: - Generally never share it, as it is a source of weakness - Subjective; can change if you gain new information

Myth of the fixed pie

Barrier to integrative solutions Assume issue is distributive; fail to find integrative solution We tend to assume most negotiations are fixed pies -- in other words, all issues are simply distributive Most negotiators believe others interests are exactly the opposite of their own This mindset can lead us to fail to create or uncover opportunities for integration This myth can be amplified by focusing on positions rather than interests For instance, in a job negotiation, the applicant may assume that salary is the only issue and focus on 45k vs 42k... only when the two parties discuss the possibilities further do they discover that moving expenses and starting date can also be negotiated, which may facilitate resolution of the salary issue.

Focus on positions vs. interests

Barrier to integrative solutions Waste energy arguing positions; fail to uncover underlying interests Parable of the lemon (use juice and peel) Positions: what you want - Employee: "I need a higher salary" - Employer: "I don't want to create inequity among colleagues" Interests: why you want it - Employee: "I need a higher salary to cover the rising costs of daycare for my child" - Employer: "We're in the process of developing free daycare in the company building" Focus entirely on positions and you can fail to uncover interests - which is often necessary for effective integrative bargaining

BATNA

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement What are your options if you can't reach a deal?

BioPharm-Seltek exercise (basics)

BioPharm's BATNA: $37.5M - Buy a plot of land and build a new plant -- Land costs $500k -- Building costs $25M and takes 12 months -- For each month BioPharm is not producing product, it loses $1M Seltek's BATNA: - Reconfigure the plant for general manufacturing -- Cost: $3M -- Time required: 6 months -- Will give the plant an appraised value of $10M Seller's reservation price (7M) vs. buyer's reservation price (37.5M+) Bargaining zone in between

Why we adapt? (reference group)

Changes alter our reference group Unemployment hurts less if similar others are also unemployed The more your spouse earns, the less satisfied people are with their jobs What matters isn't how much you make; it's about how much you make compared to those around you Perceived relative income stronger predictor of well-being than actual I.e. your income is $50,000 vs. others' $25,000; your income is $100,000 vs. others' $200,000

Mechanistic model (bureaucracy)

Clear division of labor (specialization) Tall, centralized hierarchy (centralization) Standardized processes for work (formalization) Highly formalized and clear delineation of roles Advantages: - Efficiency (coordinates behavior) - Less expensive - Consistency Disadvantages: - Can be mind-numbing; generally less satisfying - Limited creativity; obsessive rule following - Slow to adapt to changing conditions Potentially more efficient economies of scale, less duplication, and role clarity ... High departmentalization, centralization, and formalization Top-down communication and decision making Clearly specified division of labor (specialization) Mechanistic management structures are used in environments where there is high complexity in the tasks undertaken by the organization Each employee specializes in a particular task and makes only a small contribution to the company's final output Emphasis is placed on improving technical processes and senior managers decide how work will be accomplished The mechanistic management structure is very rigid and slow to adapt to changing environmental conditions The structure is also not suited to turbulent or highly competitive market conditions such as those found in the telecommunications industries In addition it should not be used when the majority of the staff are highly skilled professionals, such as in an international auditing firm Green

Outcomes depend on relationships (Strategic Alliances)

Coalitions are formed on the basis of the relationships between the parties as much as the economic interests that attract the parties Two dimensions of relationships are important in forming alliances: trust (consistent, reliable, keep promises) and rapport (bond or connection) Social hierarchy is an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension Outcomes depend as much on relationships as $

Moral justification

Cognitive strategies used to justify unethical behavior Psychological mechanism that enables unethical behavior I.e. focus on redefining job as working in a rewarding environment rather than selling cigarettes When we recognize that our behavior may be unethical but justify doing what we're doing. Most of us like to see ourselves as ethical beings and have personal standards of ethical behavior We have the ability to deactivate or disengage when faced with potential behavior counter to our own personal standards I.e. a CEO justifying child labor by convincing himself that child would be doing more demeaning work at home if not employed by the factory

Costs of strong cultures

Costs: pressure, homogeneity and lack of diversity Reluctance to question shared values and assumptions Insulation from outside viewpoints, diverse perspectives Feeling coerced and pressured to comply with norms Less ability to increase and leverage diversity Difficulty responding to change, especially with mergers and acquisitions Mergers and acquisitions often fail... frequently due to cultural mismatch (colliding cultures; i.e. Daimler-Chrysler): Daimler had more formal and structured management style and became the dominant culture Chrysler favored a more relaxed freewheeling structure with a max exodus of top performers When culture and strategy don't align... - Dominant cultural value: cost efficiency and competitiveness - Problem: increasing consumer demand for innovative and stylish computers (Dell)

Spending on others (happiness)

Cross sectional study of Americans: - Spending on self did not predict happiness - Spending on others (either charity or gifts) did People are happier when they spend money on others rather than on themselves

While there are new pressures, organizations are slow to change

Despite the many forces pushing us towards change, organizations are often slow or resistant to change Most change initiatives fall (estimated 60-70% failure rate) IBM study of executives who had instituted a major change found big challenges: - Convincing employees to embrace the changes - Corporate culture - Resource shortage Changing mindsets and attitudes is the biggest challenge to implementing change

Negotiation and the gender wage gap

Difference between starting salaries of male and female MBA graduates: 7.6% Only 7% of women, but 57% of the men, asked for more money (negotiated on salary) Students who negotiated (most of whom were men) were able to increase their starting salaries by 7.4%, which is almost exactly the difference between men's and women's starting salaries Nonetheless, over 60% of hiring managers leave room in the first offer for salary negotiations, and over 80% of corporate recruiters are willing to negotiate compensation

Distributive vs. integrative negotiation

Distributive: - Win/lose - Positional - Claiming value - Dividing the pie - Goal: individual gain - Offers no future relationship ... Integrative: - Win/win - Interest based - Creating value - Expanding the pie - Goal: mutual/individual gain - Long-term relationship

Perpetuating culture

Employee selection, socialization, rewards and punishments

Inequity and moral justification

Employee theft often reframed as restoring equity/fairness Greenberg attributes the theft increase to a reaction to perceived underpayment inequity The convicted TSA officer said he believes that most people working for the agency are honest but that poor morale and a low pay scale led some to be tempted to steal When employees believe they've been treated unfairly (within the fast food industry), they are more likely to: - Eat food without paying for it - Take company supplies or equipment for personal use - Take money from employer without permission

Antidotes: transparency, checks and balances

Enron: black box; no one really knew how they made money "Synergistic corruption"- lawyers, bankers, accountants

Being Too Busy for Friends Won't Help Your Career (reading)

Everything we do to succeed in our careers is improved when we're supported by a foundation of strong, stable friendships Basic research tells us this is so, yet many who focus on their careers run the risk of losing touch with their closest social connections Friends are critical for both our psychological and physical well-being The number and strength of our friendships has long been a consistent predictor of emotional well-being Friendships can influence our basic physiology, as shown by studies that link social connections to cellular-level protection against disease and a recent meta-analysis that demonstrated having strong social relationships was associated with a 50% reduction in risk of mortality But maintaining close friendships is increasingly a challenge for ambitious professionals People's biggest regrets revolved around relationships and career -- people described their regrets about relationships much more intensely than those about careers and other non social aspects of their lives Many people can recognize the immediate importance of putting time into romantic and family relationships, but friendships are not quite so top of mind -- friendships can easily be neglected Part of the challenge today is that our definition of friendship keeps changing We're developing larger social networks but ending up with weaker intimate ties In terms of close friendships, we average only about 5 Being overcommitted to work and family obligations, having unprecedented geographic mobility, telecommuting instead of working beside colleagues, and tapping or tweeting instead of talking We can expect busier schedules and career demands to only make it more challenging to build, prioritize, and maintain intimate friendships Research has shown that friends make you better on the job and help you earn more, partly because they provide an emotional buffer that keeps you motivated and focused Steps toward more meaningful friendships: - Make the effort - Ask for your friends' perspectives - Plan around shared interests - Make new friends - Seek out like-minded people who live nearby and meet up face to face - Prioritize work and friendships

Increasing driving forces: creating urgency

Expose employees to external environment (often only the people at the top feel the pressures of change) - Changing consumer trends, impending regulations, etc. "Burning platform strategy" -- creating urgency in good times - Steve Jobs iPod Mini -> iPod Nano (Jobs challenging executives to develop a better product when iPod Mini sales were soaring; 9 mths later, iPod Nano) -- "Playing it safe is the most dangerous thing we can do" - Risk: can produce cynicism about change and undermine trust in leaders Dissatisfied customers create a compelling driving force for change because of the adverse consequences for the org's survival and success

Reducing resistance: communication

FBI: communicating as frequently as possible that the FBI must change, why it must change and what the new changes will look like - From a primary focus on crime solving to a dual focus on crime solving and terrorism prevention Reduces resistance by combating misinformation, articulating what can be expected, lowering stress and anxiety even if it is bad Alternative: rumors

Social comparisons and moral justification

Facilitate moral justification Social comparisons: how we are doing relative to other people Upward social comparisons (people doing better than we are) -> envy Envy -> sabotage, aggressive behavior Since we lack objective, nonsocial standards for most of these assessments, we tend to use others - typically, similar others - as our points of comparison People make both upward social comparisons, to targets who are (perceived as) better on some dimension, and downward social comparisons, to targets who are (perceived as) worse on some dimension When social comparisons lead to envy, people are motivated to take actions to sabotage others or aggress against them to undermine them socially or to engage in other harmful behaviors The experience of envy can also motivate deception in interpersonal negotiations

Moral neglect

Failure to recognize the moral implications of our actions Psychological mechanism that enables unethical behavior Overlooking ethical implications Social proof: people are more likely to cheat when they think everyone else is doing it (i.e. walking behind someone littering increases likelihood that you litter or cheating on taxes) When similar others cheat, we're more likely to cheat When dissimilar others cheat, we're less likely to cheat People look to others to determine what is socially acceptable We learn our standards from watching what other people do, not hearing what they say We look for cues about normative behavior, which changes our standards/beliefs about what's ethical Unethical behavior in a room increased when the ostentatious cheater was clearly an in-group member (a member of the same university as the participants) and decreased when he was an outgroup member (a student at a rival university) A possible influence of observing the unethicality of another person is that it simply changes one's understanding of the social norms related to dishonesty

Why aren't Americans happier

Fewer friends: - 1985: 57% listed >2, most common response was 3 - 2004: 37% listed <2, most common response was 0 Spend less time socializing with neighbors Much more likely to live alone So... we aren't any happier than we were when we didn't have AC, no indoor plumbing, etc.

Enhancing trust

Focus on a shared problem or enemy -- removes the perception that goals are at odds Similarity (position) -- I just want my $3 back Schmoozing increases liking and trust, and also humanizes Vulnerability

Yes, Power Corrupts, But Power Also Reveals (reading)

Frank Lloyd Wright is often touted as the greatest architect in American history, but he is also remembered as a man corrupted by power As people gave Wright credit for his brilliant ideas, perhaps the fame and fortune went to his head Power reveals: rather than turning Frank Lloyd Wright into a credit hog, it may well be that being drunk on power simply freed him up to reveal his true colors Because powerful people have plenty of resources, they don't need to worry as much about the negative consequences of expressing their values Frank Lloyd Wright may have had taker tendencies all along, which were amplified as he gained power Perhaps gaining power doesn't cause people to act like takers; it simply creates the opportunity for people who think like takers to express themselves

Building better teams: diversity

Functional: specialized training, work roles, etc. Demographic: age, race, gender, nationality, etc. Personality: extraversion, etc. Advantages: - Generate a more comprehensive view of a problem - More creative and innovative solutions - Broader set of skills and network of contacts to draw from - Increases problem solving, cognitive complexity, information processings Challenges of diverse teams - But... people often don't like being on diverse teams - Less committed and satisfied - More likely to leave team - More likely to dislike team members - More likely to fight Groups tend to focus on info they all know and weigh that more heavily

What can be done about the common knowledge effect

Get information on the table before people vote or commit to a preference Frame the task as problem-solving rather than a judgment or personal preference (promotes info sharing) Cultivate a norm of constructive disagreement - Prediscussion disagreement increases likelihood of unique information being shared - Even one dissenter can help... You want to encourage people to introduce new positions, to create novelty You want to have an awareness that there is a tendency to spend too much time and attention validating each other's viewpoints. Having a lone dissenter (even one who advocates a bad choice) helps odds of making optimal choice

Advantages of groups

Greater pool of knowledge: a group can bring much more information and experience on decisions Different perspectives: individuals with varied experience and interests help the group see decision situations and problem from different angles Greater comprehension: give and take of group discussion can deepen individual comprehension - Managing conflict: how the team fights, what they fight about

Conditions that strengthen conformity

Group size: as the number of people increases so does conformity up to a point... - Conformity increases up to 3 or 4 people in a group - After 3 or 4, the amount of additional influence was negligible Incompetent and insecure members: 12 angry men Group's status and attractiveness: if it's a group you want to be a part of, you're more likely to conform

Common knowledge effect

Groups tend to focus on what everyone knows and ignore specialized information Weakness of groups Shared information is likely to be mentioned early on and repeatedly discussed Less likely to introduce or discuss unshared info, in part because of motivation to reach group consensus Consequences: - Fail to recognize unique information and leverage expertise of their members - Can lead to suboptimal decisions - Groups are typically no more accurate than the average of the member judgment Social reasons contribute to this - Shared info elicits encouragement and validation from others; encourages its repetition - Social costs of revealing unique information (perceived incompetence; liking) Biases also contribute - Anchor on initial preference - Confirmation bias: stress info in line with preference; don't tend to reveal/acknowledge other info - Commitment & Consistency: publicly defend their stated positions

Resistance: common personal and organizational reasons

Habits: - Help us cope with complexity - High costs of breaking habits Fear of unknown: - Uncertainty (future, work, expectations) - Fear of losing control - Fear of new skill requirements Loss aversion

Anonymity

Halloween costumes increase aggressive behavior, likelihood of stealing candy People in dimly lit rooms more likely to cheat Enron example: traders manipulating power in CA Psychologically, anonymity facilitates immoral action by allowing people to feel shielded from personal responsibility. When they are anonymous, individuals feel less ''like themselves'', and as if their actions are unobserved and thus will have no consequences.

What science tells us about happiness

Happiness is only slightly affected by circumstances: genetic set point, adaption, social comparisons There are ways people can boost their happiness: social connections, using money more effectively

Why be happy?

Happiness: experience of joy contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one's life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile Most people care about being happy Social outcomes: happier people are better liked, have more friends, higher odds of marriage, lower odds of divorce, strong social bonds Work outcomes: productivity, success, and creativity Health: bolstered immune system, longevity (nun essays analyzed and demonstrated that those who are happier tend to live longer) Happiness is at a fairly stable set-point (genetics, limited role of circumstances), but there are things we can do (social networks, spending money on experiences and others)

Changes associated with power

Having control over others' outcomes leads to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral changes Power is associated with increased access to material and social rewards and less interference from others when pursuing their own rewards Powerlessness is associated with social and material threats, which triggers anxiety, vigilance, and avoidance

Creative rotten apple pitches (ways to persuade/influence)

Highlighting hidden benefits (selling seeds, not apples) Reframing the product (selling rare antique apples) Refuting counter arguments ("this may look like a rotten apple, but...") Linking to an important cause (proceeds are given to charity) Main idea: if you can sell a rotten apple or an overpriced penny, selling something desirable (ideas, products, yourselves) should be comparatively easy

Organizational structure

How jobs and job tasks are divided, grouped, and coordinated Specialization: How is the work divided? I.e. Ford's assembly line Centralization: Where does the decision-making authority lie? - In highly centralized positions, decisions are made from the top with little input from lower level employees Formalization: To what degree do rules and regulations direct managers and employers? (roles and positions)

Increasing driving forces: benchmarking

How well is organization doing relative to its peers? Software development company: - Costs are twice as high - Time to get product to market was 4x longer - Customer satisfaction was 20% lower

Aspiration (target) price

Ideal agreement

Referent power

Identification, admiration, respect Based on identification with a person draw for likely respect Some people have more power than others because they are liked, respected A leader with a lot of referent power may have many connections or a large social network they can use to their advantage

Negotiator's dilemma

If A cooperates and B competes, A gets bad outcome (and vice versa) One approach to this dilemma is to selectively share information - Start by revealing a small amount or an unimportant piece of information - Signals trustworthiness to counterpart - Motivates counterpart to reciprocate - Protects you from being too vulnerable - Base reactions on tit-for-tat - If counterpart shares, reciprocate - If counterpart withholds, protect your interests

Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power

Implication: self-serving, morally questionable behavior is the surest way to obtain and hold onto power One of the most requested books in prison Laws include: conceal your intentions, court attention at all costs, use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victims, crush your enemy totally, keep others in suspended terror

Assessing trust

Important considerations in group negotiations: - Trustworthiness of key individuals - Binding agreement: collateral, written contract? - Nonverbal cues (competence, warmth)

How Uber Uses Psychological Tricks to Push Its Drivers' Buttons (reading)

In March 2017, the company announced that it would fix its troubled relationship with drivers, who have complained for years about falling pay and arbitrary treatment Uber's innovations reflect the changing ways companies are managing workers amid the rise of the freelance-based "gig economy" Its drivers are officially independent business owners rather than traditional employees with set schedules -> allows Uber to minimize labor costs, but means it cannot compel drivers to show up at a specific place and time -> lack of control, which can wreak havoc on a service whose goal is to seamlessly transport passengers whenever and wherever they want Uber helps solve this fundamental problem by using psychological inducements and other techniques unearthed by social science to influence when, where and how long drivers work Employing hundreds of social scientists and data scientists, Uber has experimented with video game techniques, graphics and noncash rewards of little value that can prod drivers into working longer and harder — and sometimes at hours and locations that are less lucrative for them To keep drivers on the road, the company has exploited some people's tendency to set earnings goals — alerting them that they are ever so close to hitting a precious target when they try to log off It has even concocted an algorithm similar to a Netflix feature that automatically loads the next program, which many experts believe encourages binge-watching In Uber's case, this means sending drivers their next fare opportunity before their current ride is even over "We show drivers areas of high demand or incentivize them to drive more, but any driver can stop work literally at the tap of a button — the decision whether or not to drive is 100 percent theirs" Because its drivers are independent contractors, they lack most of the protections associated with employment Now Uber began a process of, in effect, becoming a little more like Lyft It rethought a lease program, softened the hectoring tone of its messages and limited their volume; at times it became positively cheery The consultants at Lyft devised an experiment in which the company showed one group of inexperienced drivers how much more they would make by moving from a slow period like Tuesday morning to a busy time like Friday night — about $15 more per hour For another group, Lyft reversed the calculation, displaying how much drivers were losing by sticking with Tuesdays -> more significant effect (loss aversion) but Lyft decided against it because it doesn't want to manipulate For months, when drivers tried to log out, the app would frequently tell them they were only a certain amount away from making a seemingly arbitrary sum for the day, or from matching their earnings from that point one week earlier The messages were intended to exploit another relatively widespread behavioral tic — people's preoccupation with goals — to nudge them into driving longer Phenomenon known as income targeting, in which workers who can decide how long to work each day, like cabdrivers, do so with a goal in mind — say, $100 — much the way marathon runners try to get their time below four hours or three hours Rideshare companies can benefit if they get drivers to focus on dollar targets, instead of working only during the busiest times Uber, for its part, appears to be aware of the ludic loop; in its messages to drivers, it included a graphic of an engine gauge with a needle that came tantalizingly close to, but was still short of, a dollar sign Uber drivers can earn badges for achievements Consider an algorithm called forward dispatch — Lyft has a similar one — that dispatches a new ride to a driver before the current one ends -> overrides self-control Uber's app does not let drivers see where a passenger is going before accepting the ride, making it hard to judge how profitable a trip will be Having more drivers on the road benefits ride-share companies, but drivers profit from surge pricing and scarcity in their ranks

Group polarization

In groups, people tend to make more extreme decisions and pursue riskier courses of action Judges: % of time group took the most extreme action: - Alone: 30% of the time - In a group: 65% When individuals with the same views spend all of their time together, their viewpoints become stronger and more extreme

Cultural Change That Sticks (reading)

In the early 2000s Aetna was struggling mightily on all fronts Once openly known among workers as "Mother Aetna," the culture encouraged employees to be steadfast to the point that they'd become risk-averse, tolerant of mediocrity, and suspicious of outsiders The prevailing executive mindset was "We take care of our people for life, as long as they show up every day and don't cause trouble" When Aetna merged with U.S. Healthcare, a lower-cost health care provider, in 1996, a major culture clash ensued But instead of adapting to U.S. Healthcare's more-aggressive ways, the conservative Aetna culture only became more intransigent In late 2000, John W. Rowe, MD, became Aetna's fourth CEO in five years With other members of the senior team, he sought out employees at all levels—those who were well connected, sensitive to the company culture, and widely respected—to get their input on the strategy as well as their views on both the design and execution of intended process changes These conversations helped Rowe and his team identify Aetna's biggest problem: A strategy that focused narrowly on managing medical expenses to reduce the cost of claims while alienating the patients and physicians that were key to Aetna's long-term success At the same time, they surfaced Aetna's significant cultural strengths: a deep-seated concern about patients, providers, and employers; underlying pride in the history and purpose of the company; widespread respect for peers; and a large group of dedicated professionals The organization would pursue a strategy he called "the New Aetna" But this time, without ever describing their efforts as "cultural change," top management began with a few interventions These interventions led to small but significant behavioral changes that, in turn, revitalized Aetna's culture while preserving and championing its strengths 1. Match strategy and culture - Too often a company's strategy, imposed from above, is at odds with the ingrained practices and attitudes of its culture - Culture trumps strategy every time 2. Focus on a few critical shifts in behavior - When choosing priorities, it often helps to conduct a series of "safe space" discussions with thoughtful people at different levels throughout your company to learn what behaviors are most affected by the current culture—both positively and negatively - The behaviors you focus on can be small, as long as they are widely recognized and likely to be emulated 3. Honor the strengths of your existing culture - The same surveys of employee behavior, in-depth interviews, and observation that you use to diagnose your culture's weaknesses can also clarify its strengths - Another strength companies can leverage is the employees who are already aligned with their strategy and desired culture 4. Integrate formal and informal interventions - In our experience, most corporate leaders favor formal, rational moves and neglect the informal, more emotional side of the organization Formal: - Reporting structures, decision rules and rights, business processes and policies, training, leadership, and organizational development programs, performance management, compensation and rewards, internal communications, councils and committees, company events Informal: - Behavior modeling by senior leaders, meaningful manager-employee connections, internal, cross-organizational networks, ad hoc gatherings, peer-to-peer interactions and storytelling,communities of interest, engagement of exemplars and motivational leaders, changes to physical plant, resources, and aesthetics - Whether formal or informal, interventions should do two things: reach people at an emotional level (invoking altruism, pride, and how they feel about the work itself) and tap rational self-interest (providing money, position, and external recognition to those who come on board) 5. Measure and monitor cultural evolution - Pay attention to business performance, critical behaviors, milestones, and underlying beliefs, feelings, and mind-sets All too often, leaders see cultural initiatives as a last resort, except for top-down exhortations to change. By the time they get around to culture, they're convinced that a comprehensive overhaul of the culture is the only way to overcome the company's resistance to major change. Culture thus becomes an excuse and a diversion, rather than an accelerator and an energizer But cultural intervention can and should be an early priority—a way to clarify what your company is capable of, even as you refine your strategy. Targeted and integrated cultural interventions, designed around changing a few critical behaviors at a time, can also energize and engage your most talented people and enable them to collaborate more effectively and efficiently Coherence among your culture, your strategic intent, and your performance priorities can make your whole organization more attractive to both employees and customers. Because deeply embedded cultures change slowly over time, working with and within the culture you have invariably is the best approach. The overall change effort will be far less jarring for all concerned. Simply put, rather than attacking the heart of your company, you will be making the most of its positive forces as your culture evolves in the right way

Increasing driving forces (unfreezing)

Increase impetus to change; could also decrease resistance Driving forces: direct behavior away from the status quo Strategies for increasing driving forces: - Creating urgency - Creating dissatisfaction with status quo - Comparing to other companies Change requires upsetting the equilibrium between driving and restraining forces

Social proof

Influence tactic People often do what others are doing Why it works: the widespread thing is often the right thing - norms, information, etc. I.e. getting hotel guests to reuse towels: - "The majority of guests reuse their towels" -> 29% increase - "The majority of guests in this room reuse their towels" -> 41% increase I.e. canned laughter - Audiences laugh longer and much more often; rate show as being funnier; works especially well for bad jokes (i.e. Big Bang Theory) I.e. salting the tip jar and management fads Also applies to bystander emergencies: if others don't act, we won't either Most likely when: uncertainty is high; normative behavior is unclear; watching similar others Factors: similarity to reference group is key Defense: probe for validity; even if evidence is valid, don't need to comply with crowd

Reciprocation

Influence tactic We comply more after we've received something; we want to repay the giver Why it works: a seemingly universal norm of turn and exchange; often rewarded The power of giving a small gift: Disabled American Veterans address label campaign Hidden rule of accepting gifts: it's hard to say no... and very hard to refuse to reciprocate, which can let the initial giver to choose both the original gift (which can be small, or less valuable to him/her) and the request for reciprocation (big, more valuable) Examples: - Samples in food court - Will you complete a survey? -- $5 gift check (feel obligated to return) ~3x as effective as $50 payment for returning a completed survey - Waiters giving candy with the check: -- One piece: tips increased by 3.3% -- Two pieces (one of which was a surprise): 14% - U.S. doctors who received a single free meal from a drug company were more likely to prescribe the drug the company was promoting than doctors who received no such meals Examples: preprinted labels; favor exchange Factors: can be resources, services, or even concessions According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human culture is embodied in the rule for reciprocation (the rule requires that one person try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided) Defenses: consider refusing initial gift, reframe to see gift as sales ploy

Commitment and consistency

Influence tactic We comply more to positions that seem consistent with our prior commitments Why it works: norms of consistency; easier to fall back on previous positions Good personal consistency is highly valued by society I.e. those who agreed to watch someone's bag were much more likely to run after stealer Generally consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life Consistent orientation affords a valuable shortcut The desire to be (and look) consistent is a central motivator of behavior I.e. toy stores understock popular toys that parents promised kids -> parents buy different one then go back and buy popular one as well More likely to work if commitment is public and concrete - Juries who take initial public votes are more likely to end up as a hung jury (deadlocked) - Woman who quit smoking: handed out cards saying "I will never smoke again" to people she cared about I.e. hazing, foot in the door, public positions during conflict Factors: commitments that are public, effortful, and internally motivated Defense: recognize sunk costs; consistency for consistency sake isn't always wise (esp. if you get sick after saying you will run marathon)

Liking

Influence tactic We comply more with requests from people we like (and who seem to like us) Why it works: we're often well-served to trust the people we like I.e. tupperware parties, attractive models Predictors/factors of liking: - Attractiveness -- Political elections (attractive candidates receive 2.5x votes of less attractive ones) -- Criminal defendants (attractive defendants 2x as likely to avoid incarceration) - Similarity (opinions, personality, background, or lifestyle; we are more likely to help those who dress like us) - Ingratiation (we like people who compliment us) Defense: separate the person from the request

Authority

Influence tactic We comply with people who appear to be authorities or have expertise Why it works: authorities are often right; facts or expertise often indicate knowledge Clothing: more likely to follow a jaywalker across the street if wearing a suit Cars: honking behind someone at a green light is much less likely if it's a luxury car Has a lot of advantages in our society, but can also lead us to do things we shouldn't (i.e Milgram -- complying with shocks) I.e. spokespersons, management consultants Factors: appearances of authority (titles, clothing, cars) Defense: is this person a real expert?

Scarcity

Influence tactic We tend to prefer something that is limited, disappearing, or unavailable Why it works: lack of availability signals higher quality; we hate to have choice limited I.e. buy now while supplies last (3 seats left); the Disney vault (stock up before they disappear), exploding job offers A beef importer tried three versions of a sales pitch: Standard pitch < standard pitch and scarcity (beef was going to be scarce) < standard pitch, scarcity, and info scarcity (this information was generally not available) Factors: goods as well as info (even info about scarcity); newfound scarcity is potent Defense: use your panic as a cue to reconsider why you need what's offered

12 Angry Men (basics)

Influencing and negotiation in action (influencing others when you're in the minority) Background: young man accused of killing his father, jury deliberation about to begin, before juries were required to be representative (12 white males), must be a unanimous vote Juror #8 in the minority; begins by keeping morality on his side (wants to discuss before death sentence, he's just a "boy") Hard to disagree with "just wanting to talk" and "it's possible" What should you look for in a potential ally when you're in a weak minority position? Similarity, sympathy, lack of conviction (wavering), dissatisfaction with majority Team gets started with public vote, which is problematic The defendant claims that the knife used to stab his father isn't his own, although the murder weapon appears to be identical; however, the boy can't produce his own knife because he claims that he lost his knife days before the killing One of the other jurors, the stockbroker, asks the bailiff for the murder weapon so that he can argue his case more forcefully and more vividly Symbolism and timing: knife comes to represent the first seed of doubt As he gains support, #8 concentrates on informational, emotional, and physical (stands up) strategies #8's soft shell: calm, not defensive; apparently no personal agenda; building and bridging, not attacking anyone Emotional appeals: - Ineffective: "he's an old man, he's confused - how can he be sure about anything?" - Effective (#8): public executioner, claiming higher moral ground; baiting the messenger getting him to say "I'll kill you" 8 continues to build trust and rapport through competence and benevolence; also uses social proof (people switched, why don't you?)

Integration vs. compromising

Integration is NOT just compromising Compromising: splitting the difference; meeting partner halfway; relatively mindless Integration: trading your priorities and your partner's priorities; effortful, active, creative

Powerlessness

Is a consequence of inhibition Can more accurately infer others' thoughts and emotions Affects life outcomes: 18,000 British Civil Servants Mortality 3x higher for men in the lowest grade (i.e. messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) compared to the highest grade (administrators) Higher rates of coronary deaths Even after controlling for other factors

Enron (basics)

Kenneth Lay: found guilty, 11 counts (conspiracy, fraud, making false statements) Jeffrey Skilling: found guilty, 19 counts (conspiracy, fraud, insider trading, making false statements) Fastow: plead guilty, 2 counts (wire and securities fraud) Immense narcissism

Artifacts of culture

Language: can symbolically represent values - Charles Schwab: "clients" vs. "customers" - Disney: "costumes" vs. "uniforms" - Target: "guests" vs. "customers" Rituals: the routines of daily organizational life that express and reinforce the organization's key values - How visitors are greeted - How often senior execs visit subordinates Ceremonies: planned, formal activities that express and reinforce the key values of the organization - Corporate events (e.g., holiday parties, promotions, award ceremonies, earning reports)

Why are experiences more satisfying? (happiness)

Less conducive to adaptation and social comparisons Social bonding When people spend money on life experiences, whether they also take someone with them or buy an extra ticket or whatever, most of our life experiences involve other individuals People feel a greater sense of vitality or "being alive" during the experience and in reflection If people get more enduring happiness from their experiences than their possessions, at a policy level, we might want to make available the resources that enable people to have experiences

Milgram's small world experiment

Letters given to people in Omaha -- 96 randomly selected Task: get to a stock broker in Boston You may only forward the letter to people you know on a first name basis Took 5.5-6 contacts until letter reached target Email studies suggest that 5-7 degrees of separation are sufficient for connecting any two people through email "Connectors" are people who link to many other people ½ of the stockbrokers letters were delivered by 3 people 6 degrees of separation doesn't simply mean that everyone is linked to everyone else in just 6 steps, it means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those few

Harnessing the power of persuasion (reading)

Liking: people like those who like them - Application: uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise - If you want to influence people, win friends - Do so through similarity (age, religion, politics, etc.) and praise (charms and disarms) Reciprocity: people pay in kind - Application: give what you want to receive - I.e. asking for donations by giving you small gift (i.e. free address labels) Social proof: people follow the lead of similar others - Application: use peer power when available - I.e. door-to-door fundraising campaign -- showed list of neighbors who already donated; the longer the list, the more likely to donate - I.e. testimonials from satisfied customers work best when they have similarities to prospect customers Consistency: people align with their clear commitments - Application: make their commitments active, public, and voluntary - Avoid using threats or pressure tactics Authority: people defer to experts - Application: expose your expertise; don't assume it's self-evident Scarcity: people want more of what they can have less of - Application: highlight unique benefits and exclusive information - Power of "loss language" -- one-of-a-kind offers, limited time, limited supply, etc.

Organic model (no specified structure)

Loosely defined roles Flat, decentralized hierarchy More flexible work practices Less role definition Advantages: - More flexible, adaptable, and innovative - Works well in uncertain environments (e.g., young industry with many competitors) - Employees are more satisfied, creative Disadvantages: - Potential for redundancy or some work not getting completed - Doesn't work well if tasks are large, complex, and require substantial integration of resources and personnel to accomplish strategic goals ... Organic management structures are useful when the environment in which an organization operates is highly uncertain, unstable or subject to vary rapid changes in market conditions Also used in situations where personnel are empowered to make decisions and resolve problems, such as in professional consulting firms

Things than can change happiness: actions (40%)

Many intentional activities can affect happiness (i.e. exercise, optimism, volunteering, goal setting) Social connections and using money more effectively are two of focus

What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (reading)

Many of today's most valuable firms have come to realize that analyzing and improving individual workers — a practice known as ''employee performance optimization'' — isn't enough As commerce becomes increasingly global and complex, the bulk of modern work is more and more team-based Groups tend to innovate faster, see mistakes more quickly and find better solutions to problems People working in teams tend to achieve better results and report higher job satisfaction Five years ago, Google became focused on building the perfect team The company's top executives long believed that building the best teams meant combining the best people In 2012, the company embarked on an initiative — code-named Project Aristotle — to study hundreds of Google's teams and figure out why some stumbled while others soared Norms are the traditions, behavioral standards and unwritten rules that govern how we function when we gather: One team may come to a consensus that avoiding disagreement is more valuable than debate; another team might develop a culture that encourages vigorous arguments and spurns groupthink After looking at over a hundred groups for more than a year, Project Aristotle researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Google's teams. The researchers eventually concluded that what distinguished the ''good'' teams from the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another The right norms, in other words, could raise a group's collective intelligence, whereas the wrong norms could hobble a team, even if, individually, all the members were exceptionally bright On the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ''equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking" Good teams all had high ''average social sensitivity'' — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues Within psychology, researchers sometimes colloquially refer to traits like ''conversational turn-taking'' and ''average social sensitivity'' as aspects of what's known as psychological safety -- shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking Google's data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything else, was critical to making a team work The behaviors that create psychological safety — conversational turn-taking and empathy — are part of the same unwritten rules we often turn to, as individuals, when we need to establish a bond By adopting the data-driven approach of Silicon Valley, Project Aristotle has encouraged emotional conversations and discussions of norms among people who might otherwise be uncomfortable talking about how they feel In the best teams, members listen to one another and show sensitivity to feelings and needs Project Aristotle is a reminder that when companies try to optimize everything, it's sometimes easy to forget that success is often built on experiences — like emotional interactions and complicated conversations and discussions of who we want to be and how our teammates make us feel — that can't really be optimized

Low Goals and Safe Targets (reading)

Men acquire more economic resources than women; women also fare badly when it comes to non-economic resources, such as leisure time Negotiation also plays a critical part in this seemingly universal phenomenon Not only are women less likely than men to ask for more than they have— they usually come away with less than men even when they do negotiate - Particularly true in single-issue, or "distributive," negotiations, in which only one item, such as a salary increase or the price of a car, is being discussed Women can lose tons over the course of their careers by neglecting to negotiate their starting salaries; however, just negotiating isn't always enough— how well they negotiate and how much they're able to get also make a big difference Accumulation of disadvantage phenomenon: small differences add up to huge differences over time Why do men outperform women in negotiations? Targets— the goals taken into negotiations— have been shown to make a critical difference Setting concrete, challenging goals consistently improves results People who go into negotiations with more ambitious targets tend to get more of what they want Higher targets have been shown to improve negotiation outcomes for two reasons: they influence the "first offer" a person makes in a negotiation and they influence how quickly or slowly a person concedes from his or her opening position Setting high goals is also important because a lack of ambition is another negotiation misstep - Particularly common among women: conceding too quickly In contrast, people who go into a negotiation focusing on the top amount they'd like to earn or the best possible outcome tend to hold out longer People who go into a negotiation thinking only about their "bottom line"—the minimum they will accept— may concede as soon as they receive an offer equal or close to bottom line Women typically set less aggressive goals than men, make more modest first offers, and concede more rapidly Causes: - Women frequently feel unsure about what they deserve, worry that asking for too much may threaten a relationship, or fear that the people around them will react badly if they ask for too much - Women tend to be less optimistic than men about what they can get from a negotiation - Women also feel less comfortable than men with risk taking and often lack confidence in their negotiating ability— making them ask only for things that will be easy to get This greater optimism about what is available and possible gives men a powerful advantage at the negotiating table Because they believe (rightfully or wrongfully) that they are in a better bargaining position than women feel themselves to be, men often develop more aggressive targets, present more extreme first offers, and make fewer concessions Men view things as less risky than women (risk assessment); however, men's optimism may lead to outrageous ideas and notions Research finds that using market information and other externally set guidelines to set goals can improve women's negotiation results substantially The use of external guidelines not only increases women's goals and helps them achieve better negotiated settlements— it may even eliminate the gender gap in outcomes Gender differences in outcomes may be eliminated if male and female negotiators are working toward identical goals Women can improve the results of their negotiations by spending more time researching aggressive yet potentially obtainable goals before they begin If optimism is about how much we believe is available, risk-taking is about "going for it"—taking a chance to get as much as we can— and men seem to be more comfortable than women taking risks Arch argues that women's fear of taking social risks prompts them to behave more cautiously than men If this is true, their greater sense of caution may prevent girls and women from breaking rules and challenging the status quo while growing up Several recent studies have shown a correlation between testosterone levels in men and dominance behaviors -> primes men to take risks Once the negotiation has begun, if man is negotiating effectively, each perceived "win" in the interaction may serve to keep his testosterone elevated, maintaining his optimistic outlook, improving his cognitive functioning and concentration, and helping him continue to a more aggressive target settlement Women also set lower targets and settle for less in their negotiations because confidence in their ability to negotiate effectively; assuming that they're no negotiating, they conclude that they won't be able to attain higher goals Since women as a group feel less self-confident about negotiating abilities, they not only attempt fewer negotiations, they also try to influence the decision of the opposite negotiator fewer times: their lack of self-confidence impels them to try only once or twice to get what they want The researchers concluded that changing the women's feelings of control over the negotiation process eliminated the gender gap in performance -- self-management training Sometimes a woman sets a low target for a negotiation not because she lacks self-confidence or perceives asking for more to be too risky, but because she has other goals for the negotiation— goals that are not less important than a man's goals, just different These may include getting a flexible work schedule or shorter hours so that she can fulfill some of her personal goals, such as being a good mother Although it's important to recognize that women may bring a broader array of personal goals into their job negotiations, in many cases women probably don't need to sacrifice as much as they think they do Women can achieve more in a negotiation if they walk in with more ambitious goals

What leads to mistrust?

Miscommunication: - Particularly likely when partners are not in continual contact - Strategic Alliances game is rigged for mistrust Inconsistency (subset of miscommunication): - Huge group size can cause this, as seen in Strategic Alliances - Desperation: groups often change their offer to make the deal terms more favorable to the other side, but, though this is meant as a token of trust, it actually undermines trust in most cases because you look inconsistent Inequity: those with greater resources are typically mistrusted - Trustworthiness of A vs. C: A has more resources and distributional power, which might make them sympathetic; however, C becomes skeptical

Money and moral justification

Moral justification is aggravated by myopic (short-sighted) focus on money Experimental studies: Money -> self-interest - More likely to choose to work/play alone - Less sensitive to social rejection Money -> less helpful - Adults who have just handled money are less likely to return a bus pass - Kids (3-6) who handle money less helpful afterwards Students asked to report their own scores on an anagram task were 2x as like to cheat in presence of money - Business students more likely to cheat than non-business students - Business students "see cheating as more acceptable or necessary in order to get ahead" Merely thinking about money leads people to be less helpful and fair in their dealings with others, less sensitive to social rejection, and to work harder towards personal goals

The Incalculable Value of Finding a Job You Love (reading)

More money doesn't provide a straightforward increase in happiness Jobs that offer more attractive working conditions — greater autonomy, for example, or better opportunities for learning, or enhanced workplace safety — also tend to pay less One of the most important dimensions of job satisfaction is how you feel about your employer's mission When most people leave work each evening, they feel better if they have made the world better in some way, or at least haven't made it worse You'll be more likely to land a job that offers attractive working conditions and pays well if you can develop deep expertise at a task that people value highly Becoming an expert is so challenging that you are unlikely to expend the necessary effort unless the task is one that you love for its own sake If it is, the process will be rewarding apart from whether it leads to high pay One of the most deeply satisfying human psychological states is called "flow," which occurs when you are so immersed in an activity that you lose track of the passage of time By choosing to concentrate on a task you love, you'll enjoy the considerable proportion of your life that you spend at work, which is much more than billions of others can say Resist the soul-crushing job's promise of extra money and savor the more satisfying conditions you'll find in one that pays a little less

Personalization (Kidney Case)

Names, photos Save the Children Campaign: when victim is identifiable, 2x as many people give and 2x as much money is raised

Trickle down narcissism

Narcissism at the top often creates culture of self-focus, self-interest Cost of employee theft and fraud in the workplace: $600 billion Combined financial cost of robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and automobile theft: $16 billion

Executive narcissism: excessive risk taking

Narcissism/overconfidence -> risk taking Narcissists gamble more frequently, drive more aggressively, and risk more financial investment strategies Skilling and risk taking: by age 20 had lost a small fortune twice Narcissism predicts overconfidence (despite no greater accuracy) At Enron, risks on the individual level were seen by thrill-seeking and clubs At the organizational level, a few businesses entered between 1996-2001 (trading water, weather derivatives, bandwidth, coal) Risk, narcissism, and overconfidence lead to unethical behavior due to myopic (short-sighted) focus on rewards and a sense of entitlement, self-aggrandizement, denial, and rationalizations to justify anything they do White collar criminals are higher in narcissism due to sense of entitlement/deservingness and diminished concern about effects of others Narcissism is an individual predictor of unethical behavior

10 Myths About Negotiating Your First Salary (reading)

Negotiating your salary is extremely important, especially in your first job Your starting salary serves as an anchor throughout your career, with raises, bonuses, and even retirement savings influenced by that initial amount Myth #1: This is my first job — I don't have experience, so I don't have any bargaining power - Employers are extremely invested in the chosen candidate, entry-level candidates have some bargaining power Myth #2: I don't have another offer, so I can't negotiate - Ask (rather than demand) whether the employer can increase the offer Myth #3: The offer is more than what I was expecting, so there's no need to negotiate Myth #4: I shouldn't negotiate if I'm a woman — people won't like me - This presumption often holds women back from negotiating, and it isn't necessarily true Myth #5: The economy isn't great, so it's a bad time to negotiate - Despite the challenging economy during the past decade, good talent is still hard to find and valued by employers Myth #6: An online search will provide the salary data I need before the negotiation Myth #7: Preparation doesn't really matter — it all boils down to how I present myself during the negotiation - What you do prior to the negotiation matters more than you think and dramatically affects your negotiation performance Myth #8: Ask for what you want. - No! Ask for more than you want Myth #9: If your new boss says yes immediately, go celebrate - Although getting an immediate yes is great for a marriage proposal, in a salary negotiation an immediate yes probably means you didn't ask for enough Myth #10: Being told no means negotiating was a mistake - By negotiating, you've shown your employer that you are willing to be assertive and that you know how to negotiate — a valuable skill Negotiation skills are crucial for your career success, so don't buy into these myths If you do your homework and negotiate for what you want, you will reap significant benefits for years to come

The power of norms

Norms: socially shared standards of appropriate behavior; affect the way one behaves in public Difference between norms and rules? Advantages of norms vs. rules: - Lower costs - Autonomy on how to achieve objectives - Costs of violations?

Paul Revere and William Dawes (general info)

Not all networks produce the same results Diffusing a message: April 18, 1775 Both rode on horseback from Boston on April 18th and sounded the alarm that the Rev War had begun Dawes rode south, Revere rode north, but the towns they travel through were demographically similar Both also came from the same social class and had similar educational backgrounds Only Revere became famous Alerted their social network: who you know, who you have known, everyone who knows you

Perpetuating culture: employee selection

Often easier to teach people new skills rather than try to force a cultural fit I.e. after 1 week on the job: "If you quit today, we will pay you for the amount of time you've worked, plus we will offer you a $1,000 bonus" -- prunes out people not committed to organization

Groupthink and conformity

One consequence of conformity is groupthink The tendency of highly cohesive groups to value consensus at the price of decision quality When group members are very similar, isolated from outsiders, charismatic and opinionated team leader, and/or the team is under stress, groupthink is likely to occur Avoiding groupthink: - Assign a devil's advocate to uncover every negative possibility - Bring in outsiders to introduce new perspectives - Construct more diverse groups I.e. Bay of Pigs

Apology

One method of trust repair Southwest apologizing for skidding that killed boy; Antenna Gate (short circuited phones) didn't apologize for problem -> stocks plummeted Ebay customers more likely to remove negative feedback when offered short apology, compared to cash rebate

Goals and incentives (moral neglect)

Organizational aggravators of moral neglect Goals at Enron: - 1992: Lay promised investors 15% annual return every year... - Motto: From "World's Leading Energy Company" to "World's Leading Company" How goals were met: accounting irregularities and earnings manipulations Tunnel vision

Organizational culture

Organizational culture: system of shared values and norms that define what is important and appropriate in an organization Signals: - How everyday business and decisions get done - What's important and valued - How organizational performance is attained - How individual performance is assessed I.e. Amazon's frugality vs. SAS's valuing of employees Elements: artifacts (buildings, language, rituals, stories; high visibility and awareness), espoused and enacted values, and underlying assumptions (low visibility) I.e. Southwest's individuality and uniqueness The greater the match between self-descriptions and organizational culture, the greater the job satisfaction, the greater the organizational commitment, and the lower the turnover intentions

External pressures for organizational change

Organizations today are under continual pressure to change Rapidly evolving technology (want to stay ahead of game; email, websites, etc.) Economic shocks (financial sector collapse; global recessions) Changing workforce (aging population, immigration, outsourcing) Competition (globalization, mergers, consolidations) Social trends (increased environmental awareness - plastic straws - and changing attitudes)

Why do we adapt? (expectations)

Our baseline expectations change - Your first cell phone - American's rising expectations Adaptation level theory: our tendency to form judgments relative to a neutral level I.e. if our current GPA increases, we feel an initial surge of pleasure; however, we then adapt to this new level of achievement, come to consider it as normal, and require something even better to give us another surge of happiness Having adapted upwards, I now feel deprived with a situation that once would have been simply glorious

Happiness and adaptation to improved conditions

Our life circumstances have only a small influence on our happiness, primarily because we so rapidly adapt to any circumstantial change We acquire income and consumer goods and our aspirations rise in turn Wonderful things are especially wonderful the first time they happen, but their wonderfulness wanes with repetition Marriage bolsters happiness for about 2 years before returning to set point Winning the lottery initially boosts happiness levels, but, a year later, winners are no happier than others Aka habituation or declining marginal utility We adapt to bad experiences too (i.e. lives improve and positive affect returns to initial levels one year after losing all four limbs or losing a loved one)

Foot in the door

Part of commitment and consistency influence tactic Compliance established with initial small request Refusing second larger request would feel inconsistent I.e. group asked if they'd display large "drive carefully" sign agreed 17% of time vs. 76% agreeing after displaying smaller sticker

Reducing resistance: employee involvement

Participation increases commitment to change effort When it works: - Change efforts need more employee commitment - Employee ideas would improve change efforts When it doesn't work: - Change must occur quickly - Employee interests are highly incompatible with the organization's needs

Making concessions (negotiations)

Partners who "get concessions" feel greater buy-in and responsibility for settlements Allow yourself room to make concessions Be flexible on issues that are less important to you Signal information with your concessions Size and sequencing: make your concessions smaller as you approach your goal Develop a rationale around each of your concessions

Reciprocation and concessions

People feel obligated to reciprocate concessions; pressure the recipient of the concession to respond in kind I.e. college students asked to volunteer at zoo declined, but those who were asked to volunteer every day and then just once were more likely to accept But if the first offer is seen as unreasonable, it can backfire Gordon Liddy's "stupid" idea about Watergate was actually a concession

Push (interpersonal influence)

Persuading -- proposing and reasoning Asserting -- directing conversation, evaluating, pressure Used in majority position Techniques: becomes more confrontational, connects emotionally, use majority status as a source of influence

12 Angry Men (takeaways)

Persuading from the minority position: - Look for allies: similarity, lack of conviction, on the periphery - A private vote can encourage dissent - Dissent must be framed as attacking the issue (not the people); plant a seed of doubt - Must be hyper-rational (emotion must be simultaneously appropriate and professional) - Use a pull (vs. push) approach until you achieve a majority When in the minority, private vote can be used to encourage dissent When in the majority, public vote can be used to discourage dissent (commitment and consistency because it is harder to get people to back down from public commitment)

Legitimate power

Position of authority Formal authority to control and use organizational resource Traditional -- could be manager, executive, or leading official in a company

Antidotes: moral examplars

Positive in-group members to emulate Negative out-group members to differentiate from: role model Choosing the right exemplars of moral behavior - either positive in-group members to emulate or negative out-group members from which to differentiate oneself - may strengthen the magnet inside one's moral compass Indeed, in their study of rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, Oliner and Oliner found that, compared to non-rescuers, rescuers had more models in their close social circles who demonstrated similar altruistic behaviors Our role models need not be aspirational (such as Ghandi or Mother Theresa) to be effective Simple role model primes, such as thinking of one's parents, have been shown to help people improve their moral judgment and regulate their moral behavior

Power of process (Strategic Alliances game)

Power derives not only from control of resources, but also from the process In this case, the order of the negotiations Team C had more time at the outset and the last meeting at the end C's resource disadvantage is offset by negotiating order (C gets more time by going last) and having time to plan strategy at the outset (when A and B are negotiating in Round 1) -> C is usually in the coalition Relationship and process influence each other

Power reveals the person

Power frees people from external constraints, people feel more free to act like themselves, reveals personality Self-focused personality traits are associated with increased likelihood of using power for self-serving purposes (i.e. narcissism) Some evidence that those with more self-focused personality traits are more likely to use power for self-serving purposes (narcissism, low agreeableness, entitlement) Power is positively associated with speaking time and speaking out of turn Those with greater power are more likely to express their private opinions and true attitudes

Power and perspective talking

Power reduces perspective talking (seeing the world from others eyes) Powerful people do a poorer job of taking others' perspectives Result: less likely to accurately infer others thoughts and emotions, remember individuating information about others, or take visual perspective of others Argument that younger siblings can more accurately assess others' mental states because they have been in a powerless position Consequences of diminished perspective talking (being less dependent -> more psychologically distanced): - Reduced compassion (less emotional and physiologically reactive when hearing about someone else's emotional distress) - Less social inhibition (more likely to speak out of turn, interrupt others, be rude, eat "freely"; the powerful remembered less correct information about their subordinates and were less able to distinguish their unique characteristics) - Susceptibility to stereotyping others There are, however, potential upsides to reduced social attention: - Less likely to be unduly influenced by others (less susceptible to influence appeals) - High power people are less likely to conform to the opinions of others I.e. draw E on forehead -- outwards (take perspective of others) or facing self (powerful, less able to take perspective of others)

Power and social attentiveness

Powerful people are less dependent on others (give you independence) and are more capable of satisfying their own needs and controlling others outcomes Result: less concerned with how others see them and less attentive to others' internal experiences

Power and action orientation

Powerful people are more action oriented in that they are more likely to take practical action (do something) to deal with a problem Positive and negative implications People in high power positions were 3x as likely to remove an annoying fan Powerful people are also more likely to make the first offer in negotiations Power -> action because it removes constraints (when you have power, you are less reliant on others for important resources - confidence, emotional support - because you have those resources; those in power get more powerful because have ability to capture more resources for themselves and status hierarchies are self-reinforcing) Although power can certainly impose influence and constraints on others, possessing power can also be conceptualized as freeing people from the influence of external forces Less constraints frees people from the influence of external forces (power can impose influence and constraints on others, but can also be seen as this) and increases ability to make snap judgements How might this perpetuate resource imbalances... because powerful people are more likely to claim additional resources for themselves (take limited supplies), perpetuating powerful advantages

Power and instrumentality

Powerful people view team members as an ends to a mean (instrumentally) Power holders show remarkable focus on individual tendencies that would be useful to the power holder (target as tool for one's own purpose) Executives more likely to describe people in instrumental terms, especially subordinates I.e. "I contact this person only when I need something from her" We defined objectification as a response to power that involves approaching social targets more when they are useful in terms of an active goal, regardless of the value of their other human qualities There are some advantages to instrumentality, such as efficiency: - Better at selecting candidates who are a good fit for a job - In a medical simulation, senior surgeons took a more object-like view of patients and were more willing to administer painful but effective treatment, but nurses/junior surgeons were less likely to administer the treatment

FBI example

Pressure to change after 1993 WTC attacks never took hold; considered one factor in failure to prevent 2001 terrorist attacks New goal: refocus from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive intelligence agency The FBI and the CIA "seem to be working harder and harder just to maintain a status quo that is increasingly irrelevant to the new challenges" Sources of resistance at the FBI: - Habits: agents accustomed independent work; counterterrorism required more collaboration and info sharing - Fear of the unknown: agents uncertain how the changes would affect them - Organizational systems supported old way: -- Managers were trained law enforcement -- Hired and promoted similar others -- Allocated resources to crime

Ethics

Psychological mechanisms that enable unethical behavior: - Moral neglect: social norms, goals, money - Moral justification: social comparisons, inequity, anonymity - Moral inaction: authority What can be done: - Moral reminders - Moral exemplars - Transparency/ checks and balances

QWERTY (basics)

QWERTY is designed to slow typists down, but was the layout of the first commercially successful typewriter (early dominance -> commitment) Dvorak has an efficiently organized home row, focuses alternation, and there's less hurdling Dvorak keyboard failed to take hold because there was widespread resistance to adoption by teachers, typers, manufacturers, and consumers Commitment shapes the history of technology and culture, often selecting which innovations become entrenched and which are rejected

Bargaining zone

Range between buyer and seller's reservation prices

Rewards: rank and yank (Enron)

Rank and yank system: - Each employee reviewed every 6months - Score 1-5, 15% had to be a 5 - Bottom 10-15% of people had to be cut every year Could get fired or could get $5 million bonus Every 6 months, 15% of all employees were ranked in the lowest category and then had a few weeks to find another position in the company or be let go Workers in the next higher categories (3&4) were in danger of falling into the lowest quadrant during the subsequent review. Result: - Cutthroat competition - Silenced dissent - Followers afraid to question unethical or illegal practices for fear of losing their jobs; rather, rewarded for unthinking loyalty to their managers (who ranked performance)

Countering (negotiation)

Re-anchor: make an equally extreme counter-offer (final agreement is usually close to the midpoint of the two opening offers) Use your target price (not reservation price) to construct this offer Ask counterpart to try again Threaten to walk away (but only if you're willing to do it)

Paul Revere network

Reached more people, and more people from different cities Revere occupied a key role in a social network by connecting disparate groups of people Revere targeted other well-connected people during his ride, so his news spread widely and quickly More contacts, more contacts who don't know each other, greater diversity of contacts (across parts of firm, across hierarchies, and outside of firm), and greater source of autonomy and influence With weak ties, you can still reach people An efficiency network: sparse, large, diverse, weak ties

Refreezing

Realign all systems in ways that support the desired changes (i.e. hiring, promotion, resource allocation, rewards) At FBI: - New career paths for intelligence officers - Financial rewards for succeeding in intelligence - New information systems to support intelligence sharing

Influence tactics

Reciprocation, liking, commitment and consistency, authority, social proof, and scarcity 6 widely recognized building blocks... potency increases when multiple tactics are used

Overcoming problems with hierarchies

Reject self-serving attributions and perceptions of deservingness - Does A really deserve to be in their position? Engage in perspective-taking - Consider how those low in power perceive the rules of the game - Are you motivating the desired behavior? Reduce inequalities: - Status symbols (remove)

Talk About Pay Today, or Suffer Tomorrow (reading)

Research shows that even when economic conditions are good, women tend to be more reluctant than men to negotiate for a salary higher than the one initially offered Because most raises are based on percentage increases, she notes, all of your future raises — along with contributions to your retirement account — are likely to be lower than if you had negotiated a higher salary at the start Generally, if employers try to broach the salary issue early in the interview process, you should do everything possible to defer this discussion, and, if pressured to give numbers, be as vague as you can And once you get an offer, don't accept it on the spot Websites like Salary.com, Glassdoor.com and PayScale.com list salary ranges within an industry, company and geographic location Don't rely on these sources completely, as they may depend on self-reporting, some of it anonymous; however, they can give you a benchmark And talk to any people you know within that company, or other ones like it In general, when you are ready to negotiate, "don't ask for what you want, ask for more than you want" Sometimes, though, employers have a salary limit they cannot exceed You could seek a bonus at the end of the first year if you meet performance goals, he says, or, depending on the industry, try to arrange for an equity stake in the company You may also be able to negotiate a signing bonus, additional time off (paid or unpaid), parking privileges, expanded benefits, relocation expenses, work hours or job title and responsibilities Do not bluff by saying you won't accept a certain salary when you actually will If you state honestly and politely that the pay isn't enough, that may be a catalyst for the employer to offer more Done correctly, negotiation can strengthen the relationship between applicant and employer, but, too often, women are unwilling to try it at all

Rank ordering (integrative technique)

Reveal priorities among issues - Share relative importance: "Salary is most important to me, then location, and then signing bonus" - Ask counterpart to rank order as well Advantages: signals interests to counterpart, protects you from becoming vulnerable, encourages reciprocation, and creates opportunities for tradeoffs

Moral inaction at Enron

Reverence (appreciation) for Skilling-"Jeff was like the prophet; Fastow named his son after Skilling; leaders wielded tremendous power (rank and yank system) During the company's 15 years of rapid growth, few stopped to question the company's tactics; they were "bought off" by the generous perks and the thrill of being part of one of the most sophisticated and innovative companies in the world The constant threat of termination undoubtedly convinced others to keep their doubts to themselves and to support their bosses Implications for ethics: - Silences dissent: followers afraid to question unethical or illegal practices for fear of losing their jobs; rather, rewarded for unthinking loyalty to their managers (who ranked performance) - Diffusion of responsibility: Arthur Andersen signed off at Enron; tobacco executives ("we're not breaking rules or regulations"); fault is placed of regulations - Moral disengagement: I was just doing what I was told

Grogan Air team decision-making hiring exercise (basics)

Sarah: 4 positive (3 shared), 4 negative (1 shared) Katherine: 5 positive (5 shared), 3 negative (1 shared) Janet: 7 positive (2 shared), 1 negative (1 shared) With complete information, almost everyone chooses Janet (recent exercise: Of 15 MBA students who got full information on all candidates, all 15 chose Janet) But when information is divided up as today, about 75% pick Katherine... virtually no one picks Janet

Science and power

Science shows that power is much more likely to be conferred to those who enhance value to the group (are agreeable, extroverted, conflict negotiators, and act in group's interest), not to those who bully or intimidate others; should pair good character with power Science also shows chimpanzee politics -- politics not just limited to humans; chimpanzees form rivalries and coalitions to achieve goals

Texoil case (basics)

Seller: the husband-wife owners of a service station near the Port of Los Angeles are looking to sell their station - Reservation price: $553k Buyer: Texoil, a large petroleum refining company - Reservation price: $500k Compatible interests but (apparently) negative bargaining zone Suboptimal deals: beyond reservation price - Texoil reps: paid more than $500k - Sellers: accepted less than net of $553k Integrative solutions: - Offer employment to married couple upon return from sailing trip -- Sellers need income of at least $80k, and Texoil needs good managers for expansion -- Money does not come out of acquisition budget, but from payroll - Trade fuel, provide health care, line of credit for boat repairs - Offer Texoil ads on sailboat

How to expand the pie (negotiation)

Share information If you disclose what you know, you can learn what each side needs and values This creates the possibility to "expand the pie" into a win-win integrative solution But sharing information is risky, as it creates vulnerability Look for creative ways to increase resources available to both sides - Perspective taking: What does the situation look like from the other party's perspective? - Analyze interests: own goals and values, and counterpart's goals and values - Ask questions about interests and priorities: "why is this important to me/you?" - Extend the time horizon: "could I give/get more if this were a longer-term relationship?"

Antidotes: moral reminders

Signing ethics statement at beginning - Insurance forms: what's your odometer reading? - Lower mileage = reduced premium - People signing at the bottom reported ~2500 fewer miles - Religious - Mirrors We propose that with the current practice of signing after reporting information, the "damage" has already been done: immediately after lying, individuals quickly engage in various mental justifications, reinterpretations, and other "tricks" such as suppressing thoughts about their moral standards that allow them to maintain a positive self-image despite having lied In court cases, witnesses verbally declare their pledge to honesty before giving their testimonies—not after, perhaps for a reason

2 strong network predictors

Similarity: people who are similar tend to like each other and spend more time together Propinquity: people who are in close proximity tend to spend more time together (creates opportunity and repeated exposure -- i.e. like music after listening to over and over) Proximity -> interaction -> familiarity -> liking Mere exposure effect is enough to increase liking Geographic proximity still factor, but Internet is creating psychological proximity Name 3 closest friends: most in same building Who we date is also based on proximity

William Dawes network

Social network was dense, small, non-diverse, but strong ties An affiliation network High trust, strong social support, and ease of coordination, but redundant information and risk of monopoly (being surrounded by similar others)

Happiness and genetics

Stability in happiness scores over time Minnesota Twin studies (2,300 twins raised apart) of predictors of life satisfaction Identical twins: similar happiness levels Fraternal: little relationship Identical twins were extremely similar to each other in their happiness scores, and remarkably, the similarity was no smaller in the twins had been raised apart For fraternal twins, happiness is uncorrelated Happiness, it seems, is like our cholesterol levels: genetically influenced yet also influenced by factors under our control

Deciphering and spreading culture from stories

Stories: anchor the present in the past; explain and legitimate current practices Organizational stories can tell us: - How do people rise to the top? - How much help can employees expect? - How does the organization reacts to mistakes? - What gets people get fired? - Who, if anyone, can break the rules? If you want to get a sense of culture, ask for a story of something that happened there that wouldn't happen elsewhere Can provide human realism to individual performance standards and use role models to demonstrate that organizational objectives are attainable IBM story encourages employees to do job well, while Revlon scares people into doing job well

Aligning culture and strategy (Southwest)

Strong cultures improves performance if it's well adapted to its industry and reinforces strategy Southwest strategy: - High volume - Short, convenient flights - Using the most fuel efficient jets - Quick turnaround time (15mins vs. industry avg 35 mins) Culture reinforces their strategy through teamwork

Social connections and happinesss

Strong relationships are very influential in determining happiness levels People with 5 or more friends they can can confide in are much more likely to report being very happy During most activities, people report feeling happier if others are around Humans are powerfully motivated to seek out and maintain strong, stable, and positive interpersonal relationships Humans would not have been able to survive or reproduce without such a motivation

Underlying assumptions (culture)

Taken for granted assumptions about the ways things are Often not readily visible to outsiders Members sometimes aren't consciously aware of them Very difficult to change

Getting the best from teams: conflict

Task conflict: disagreements about the task Moderate levels boost performance Fosters information and opinion exchange Relationship conflict: interpersonal disagreements -> reduced team effectiveness Dissociate task and personal conflict: - Sharpen and dampen conflict at appropriate times... how do you prevent task conflict from becoming personal? Preventing task conflict from turning into relationship conflict: - Task conflict is less likely to turn personal when teams trust each other, don't fear backlash - Invest in good relationships early -- they can cushion against conflict and facilitate information sharing

What influences the construction of rapport?

Team A usually says, "Your best option is to make a deal with us" -> Teams B and C resent display of power Team A often invites others to "make us an offer... we're in a strong position, you're dependent on us," thereby inducing resentment and undermining rapport

Power

The ability to make things happen or get things done the way you want Bases: legitimate, referent, expert, reward, coercive There are never enough resources (money, people time, or authority) to meet everyone's needs Managers may see a power gap as they constantly face too many competing demands There are winners and losers in the battles for resources and rewards One source of power is networks

Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg (reading)

The people who know everyone, in some oblique way, may actually run the world -- they make the world work; they spread ideas and information; they connect varied and isolated parts of society Six degrees of separation doesn't simply mean that everyone is linked to everyone else in just six steps; it means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those few We're friends with the people we do things with, not necessarily with the people we resemble We don't seek out friends; we simply associate with the people who occupy the same physical places that we do Lois Weisberg does not merely know lots of people; rather, she belongs to lots of different worlds Lois has belonged to to 8 worlds: the actors, the writers, the doctors, the lawyers, the park lovers, the politicians, the railroad buffs, and the flea-market aficionados But if you looked harder at Lois's life you could probably subdivide her experiences into fifteen or twenty worlds There is power in relationships that are not close at all "Weak ties" greatly contribute to finding job People getting their jobs not through their friends but through acquaintances When it comes to finding out about new jobs -- or, for that matter, gaining new information, or looking for new ideas -- weak ties tend to be more important than strong ties Your friends, after all, occupy the same world that you do. Mere acquaintances, on the other hand, are much more likely to know something that you don't -- "the strength of weak ties" The most important people in your life are, in certain critical realms, the people who aren't closest to you, and the more people you know who aren't close to you the stronger your position becomes "Chain lengths" -- that is, the number of people who had to pass along the news about your job before it got to you - A chain length of zero means that you learned about your job from the person offering it - A chain length of one means that you heard about the job from someone who had heard about the job from the employer - The people who got their jobs from a zero chain were the most satisfied, made the most money, and were unemployed for the shortest amount of time between jobs -People with a chain of one stood second in the amount of money they made, in their satisfaction with their jobs, and in the speed with which they got their jobs If you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who has lots of acquaintances, in other words, you have a leg up. But if you know someone who has lots of acquaintances -- if you know someone like Lois -- you are still more fortunate, because suddenly you are just one step away from musicians and actors and doctors and lawyers and park lovers and politicians and railroad buffs and flea-market aficionados and all the other weak ties that make Lois so strong The old idea was that people got ahead by being friends with rich and powerful people -- which is true, in a limited way, but as a practical lesson in how the world works is all but useless the key person at that breakfast in downtown Chicago is not the Mayor or Al Friedman but Lois Weisberg, because Lois is the kind of person who it really is possible for most of us to know

Anchoring (negotiation)

The person who makes the first offer often "wins" the negotiation Recipients use the first offer as an anchor, and don't adjust enough First offers account for more than 50% of variance in final outcomes (every $1 increase in the first offer -> approximately $.50 in the final agreement) Making a strong first offer sets tone to claim more of the pie and gives you more flexibility to make concessions When you're knowledgeable and well-prepared, you can estimate counterpart's BATNA or reservation price and the long-term relationship is not very important to you (unlikely to work with them again) Rely on strong opening offers, to a point If partner is not well-prepared and/or the issue is ambiguous, consider a first (anchoring) offer Extreme offers can backfire, best with good BATNA If partner opens, consider immediate reanchoring How to anchor: prepare and share a legitimate rationale (a credible reason or explanation to justify your anchor) and use precise numbers Final prices are closer to anchor when first offers are precise (i.e. $488 vs. $500) Actual real estate sales in Florida: sellers who listed homes more precisely ($494,500 vs. $500,000) got closer to their asking price

Order effects (Kidney Case)

The power of going last Even though the ordering system is entirely random. Why: - Our memory fades - People are tough at the beginning and like to give themselves room to adjust for later candidates - Also performers may see what the norms are and be motivated to perform better First 111 episodes of American Idol, the singer who went last was only voted off the show 9% of the time Later skaters receive higher scores Movie producers who hope to win an Academy Award release their movies late in the year, which explains why vast majority of Best Picture winners come from movies released between October and December

Social loafing

The tendency for people to put less effort into a task when they are in a group than when they are alone The more people were in the group, the less they individually pulled on a rope Decreased personal accountability Will effort translate into performance? Don't want to be the one person who does all the work More common in individualistic (than collectivist) cultures due to self-interest and maximizing individual's personal gain Social loafing is likely in large teams where individual output is hard to identify and when the team is judged as a whole More likely in crew (harder to identify individual effort) than baseball Don't want to be the sucker; people contribute to the extent that they think others will; if they think others will work hard, they will too Assure they will be personally monitored and evaluated on their contributions to the group The more someone thinks they will be judged personally, the less social loafing you have What can be done: - Make each team member's contribution more noticeable (inputs identifiable; brainstorming task: putting name on idea increased quantity of ideas 26% - Clear roles - Use social proof (everyone else is doing work you should too); showing average neighborhood energy rates decreased energy use - Bolster importance of team membership

Advocacy effect (Kidney Case)

The tendency to have more positive attitudes toward something as a result of advocating for it While preparing, we search for positive arguments (not negative), we are motivated to be consistent (if I said it, I must believe it), and we often change criteria used to make evaluation after advocacy We often come to believe what we say Pharmaceutical companies have invited doctors to lead presentations to other doctors because they are "thought leaders," but they are actually the target of the marketing appeal - It is hoped that by advocating for a particular drug to other doctors, they will become convinced THEMSELVES of its quality - Actual criteria used - based on compatibility and need (not social or economic factors) Companies also spend billions paying doctors to speak to their peers at lectures and conferences, conduct industry studies and sit on advisory panels; many of the doctors that receive industry money also write guidelines for drug treatments and professional associations

Reducing resistance: coercion

Threats of transfer, loss of promotions, replacing resisters When it works: other strategies have failed or change is needed quickly Disadvantages: can lead to more subtle forms of resistance; long-term antagonism with change agents

Perpetuating culture: socialization

Transmitting values, expected behaviors, and social knowledge New employees stand up on a chair at their first staff meeting and share embarrassing story -- once people disclose something embarrassing about themselves, asking questions won't be so embarrassing Goal is to clarify cultural values and promote social bonds (shared experiences)

Distributive bargaining

Typically involves a single issue (i.e. price) Fixed-sum structure: one party's gain is another party's equivalent loss Directly conflicting interests: each party is trying to maximize their share

Influence and power

Unavoidable facts of organizations While they make some of us uncomfortable, we ought to be students of them for at least two reasons To use influence for good: CDC persuaded US blood banks to take AIDS seriously by proving 12,000 died from transfusions To avoid being influenced for bad: Jim Jones led 910 members to their deaths You can use influence honestly... or dishonestly and run the risk of spoiling your reputation and integrity

Perpetuating culture: rewards and punishments

Underscore what's valued at the organization Meetings: sales managers sit according to sales numbers; name tags include shrinkage numbers High earners: public cash rewards Aggressive cultures might offer more performance-based individual incentives Paternalistic cultures might offer employee assistance, benefits that support employee well-being Reward systems strengthen corporate culture when they are consistent with cultural values

Hierarchical group structures

Unequal power distribution has advantages: - Can reduce conflict by providing rules and criteria for decision-making - Can increase efficiency by facilitating coordination or increasing motivation (to climb the hierarchy, at least among career-oriented employees) And disadvantages: - Induces resentment (challenge for A) - Can promote competition vs. cooperation - People behave differently depending on their power position

Lewin's 3 step change model

Unfreezing status quo (decrease resistance and increase impetus to change) Movement to desired state (establishing new ways of doing things) Refreezing new change (reinforcing and supporting the change)

Expert power

Unique knowledge or skill Very valuable to have a skill that is in demand but that no one else in your firm has Could be knowledge/experience (i.e. executive with 20 years of experience has more power than post-grad hire)

Decreasing resistance (unfreezing)

Upsetting the status quo and decrease resistance; could also increase driving forces Resisting forces: hinder movement from the existing equilibrium between driving and resisting forces Strategies for reducing resistance: - Communication - Involvement - Coercion

Artifacts of culture: buildings

We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape us I.e. Oakley, Inc's "interplanetary headquarters:" metallic walls; oversize bolts; secure; protective and secretive cult like culture Another example: Walmart (Contracts negotiated in small rooms, with one fluorescent bulb) Bloomberg: the transparency we bring to the financial markets is integral to our culture, our offices and our interactions with one another; we sit in open work spaces, shoulder-to-shoulder; glass conference rooms accentuate the open flow of ideas

Strong cultures (pros)

What makes a culture strong? - Agreement about what's valued - Intensity about these values Benefits of a strong culture: - Ability to attract and retain employees - Energizes employees - Greater commitment, less turnover - Social vs. formal control (e.g., norms vs. rules) Benefits: attraction, motivation, retention, fit, strategic advantages

Compatible issues

When you and your partner both want the same thing: the same outcome is good for you both I.e. continuing education and training in job negotiation 2 ways to approach compatible issues: - Cooperative: build common group (want long-term relations) - Competitive: strategically demanded concessions Workforce example: Seltek wants to retain workforce to avoid paying $1M in severance BioPharm wants benefits of experienced workforce without hiring/training time/cost

Integrative issues

When you and your partner have different priorities (which is almost always the case), you can trade what you want less for what you want more Here, you can give in on Issue A to gain ground on Issue B Creating win-win solutions that meet the interests of both sides -- typically multi-issue in long-term relationship Techniques: expanding the pie, sharing information selectively, and rank ordering I.e. Southwest: Southwest introduces slogan "just plane smart" Violates copyright held for "plane smart" by Steven Aviations, who plans to sue CEO Herb Kelleher proposes a celebrity arm wrestling match, "Malice in Dallas" Creates national publicity for both companies Stevens gladly signs over the rights to Southwest Generates $15,000 for charity

Distributive negotiation techniques

When you value things in exactly the inverse way as our partner: the more your partner gets, the less you get (and vice versa) I.e. salary in job negotiation Anchoring, counter-anchoring, making concessions, identifying compatible issues, and sharing (strong) BATNA / protecting reservation price

Negotiations

Whenever two or more parties make joint decisions on how to arrange resources or obligations, or to make amends Are everywhere: billion-dollar mergers, salary negotiations, planning a vacation with your spouse

Group construction

Who is on the team, how large is it? Teams often function better with slightly fewer members than the task requires Problems with teams that are too large: - Coordination loss without increased information gain - Greater likelihood of social loafing - Greater pressure for conformity Self-selection: people often gravitate to people who are like themselves; managers often put similar others in teams But, similar teams are more susceptible to conformity/groupthink

Moral inaction

Why didn't people speak up? Failure to act even when we recognize unethical behavior Psychological mechanism that enables unethical behavior Conformity- others are likely to cheat when they think that others are cheating Low-power individuals obey the explicit demands of high-power individuals and are also easily influenced by their more subtle attempts at persuasion Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority Obedience to authority: - Following directions without questioning: Milgram's obedience studies (2/3 went to "xxx") - Holocaust: Adolf consistently maintained that he would only ''have had a bad conscience if he had not done what he had been ordered to do—to ship millions of men, women and children to their death''

Conformity (weakness of groups)

Why people conform: - Normative social influence: desire to fit in with the group -- Fear of looking silly, being rejected by the rest of the group - Informational social influence: utilizing others as a source of information -- Are others better informed? Eating at fancy restaurant, full tip jar, etc. Weakening conformity: presence of an ally - The presence of a true partner reduces conformity by 80% - Any dissent drastically reduces the normative pressures to conform One consequence of loafing and conformity - Bystander effect: a person needing help is less likely to get help the more other people are present (someone else will take care of the problem) Line test: 95% of participants got all the answers correct Series of experiments; included 1 participant, 5-8 confederates Participants gave their judgement after several confederates shared their incorrect judgement How often would the naive subjects conform to a majority opinion that was obviously wrong? Results: ~75% yielded at least once; 58% more than once

Collective intelligence

Working in groups is a ubiquitous and unavoidable part of organizational life The majority of U.S. companies depend on group-based work, and more than half of all U.S. employees currently spend at least part of their day working in a group setting Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often more accurate than the smartest people in them Able to guess more accurately Weaknesses of groups: common knowledge effect, social loafing, conformity, and polarization Ways to improve groups: size, diversity, foster appropriate conflict

Reservation price

Worst offer you're willing to accept