12 4

Roloff 12 4

The last day ought to be fun, so Roloff will talk about tricking people into doing things. Some are illegal; most are questionable in their ethics.

The Foot in the Door Technique: If I want you to do something, I should first ask you for something small, then ask for something larger. If you give a first yes, the second yes will come easier. 4 conditions. Called housewives: first group was asked if they’d be willing to give information about household products; second was asked if they would give the information at a later date; third asked 10 easy questions. In another week, all are called and read a statement that asks if they will allow 5 or 6 men to examine the house and list all products. If the women answered the 10 questions, 53% said yes to the home invasion. Group 2, 33% said yes to home invasion. Group 1, 27% said yes. 22% with no prior contact allowed the home invasion.

Another study, knocked on doors, claimed to be a safe driving committee, asked to put card in door; a beautification group asked the same. Another group was asked to stuff envelopes for either group. In a week, safe driving group asked all of them to put an ugly sign on lawn, which required a hole be dug in yard. If a different group and different group, 48% complied, different task same group, 48% did; different task same group, 48% complied. Same task same group, 75% complied. 48% is significant; the reason is a self-perception phenomenon; if I am the type of person that does this sort of favor, I will do both tasks. Incentives, like money, made some less likely to comply; self-image was more compelling.

Limitations: There must be a delay between the first and second requests, so that demands don’t appear to be too great all at once.

No one has been able to duplicate these results since this study.

Door in the Face Technique: Make a large request, then ask for less when turned down. University students asked to work 2 hour/week job for two years as a “big brother” to juveniles center residents. Second was serving as a chaperone for same kids on a single occasion. 50% volunteered under theses circumstances. Asking the two options as an either/or got 25%, asking only for chaperone opportunity was 17%. Why does it work? Explanations: It’s like a negotiation…probably not valid. The second request seems more reasonable after the second…doesn’t work. Fear of looking bad if turndown the second option…doesn’t work. Door in the face is motivated by Guilt, and only works when a pro-social cause is promoted. Time span, unlike foot in the door, requires requests to occur in the same conversation. Door in the face, must be the same source.

Which is more effective? Foot in the door condition: asked college students to take a card with blood donation group logo and display it somewhere. Most did; second request was become long-term blood donors, give blood every 2 months for 3 year, all turned them down. The critical request was participation in annual blood drive, asked to give one unit.

For door in face, 50% complied to request to give blood. In foot in door, 32% complied; same 32% if asked without any technique. Door in face, 39% who said they would did show up, for foot in door, 10% actually appeared. Critical request, ask only, 35% of those who agreed showed up.

Multiple De-escalating Request Strategy – Establish categories of giving, ask starting with highest category, kept asking through a $25 gift. Did the technique work? Higher giving when the technique was used, rather than a general request for giving.

Foot in the mouth technique: The theory is that rapport must be established in order to get money. Asked people in call how they were doing vs. call with only pitch. Fewer gave when asked how they were doing (10%), 25% gave on pitch only. It depends on how they are feeling; people feeling shitty were less likely to give than those who felt poorly.

The lowball technique – illegal – done with car sales. Hot car is displayed, people look and are asked if they’d like the car. The salespeople say that dealing is happening, and they take customers to office where list of amenities the customer claims not to want is marked off to reduce the price; deal is run by the sales manager, who yells at salesperson and gives bottom-line price. Consumers often buy the car under these circumstances. The key component is getting a commitment, then raise the price; commitment is the kicker. What about commitment seals the deal? Was it commitment to task (car deal) or commitment to salesperson? Commitment to the salesperson who put him or herself on the line for customer got the customer to accept the deal.

Cousin to lowball – The Lure – Similar to bait and switch, an ad for a too-good-to-be-true deal is placed, product that was advertised is not so great, but a more expensive product, which is better, is offered. This is an effective way to sell the other product, hard to prove illegal.

The Incidental Similarity effect – assumes that we have an affinity toward those who are like us (e.g. People with similar names are drawn to each other). Established similarity between two people on a trivial thing like a name, studied whether it would be easier to sell raffle tickets to people with similar name; it was. The similarity must be unique, e.g. can’t be first name like Mike, but last name like Roloff.

The Dialogue Technique – Before you ask someone for something, chit-chat helps get them to comply. A Monologue vs. Dialogue: did either make someone likelier to donate to a charity? Dialogue worked better than monologue, since person asked participated in the conversation.

The Name Calling Technique – At Ohio State, called people in Columbus at random, told that they were known as kind and caring; second condition, person was known as an unkind and uncaring person. A third were just asked to collect door to door for the charity. When all were asked to go door to door for the charity, people wanted to convince the charity that they were good, so insult was best motivator. The best way to motivate people is to make them feel badly about themselves or point out an inconsistency in their behavior; study done with women who failed a gender roles mindbender; those who weren’t pro-women’s rights weren’t affected, but those who were pro-women’s rights were likelier to give or sign up for women’s group.

Listing Technique – Solicitor showed a list door-to-door, others who give to a cause in the neighborhood who were known to the solicited motivated others to give; unrecognized named didn’t work as well. Could give max, less, or average; average was most common gift.


Fear then Relief Strategy – Arousal level rises with fear; when the thing fears doesn’t happen, we feel relief. Study gave some tickets, some warnings in a parking lot; those who only got warnings were likelier to give money. In a related study, cookies were given to a group, then an unrelated groups asked for money. Cookies made people likelier to give money. In a phone booth, those who find quarter in change slot were likelier to mail a lost letter found in the booth; when a stamp was lacking, the quarter in the slot made people likelier to buy a stamp for the sender of the lost letter.

Can people be made to feel guilty? The effects of guilt - College students were brought into a room and given computer cards, and told not to mess with the cards. A false leg on the table messes up the cards, and the experimenter enters as the students tried to help…asked students if they’d be willing to be in the study, they were more likely. If they were exposed to the person whose cards they had messed up, they were less likely to participate in the study due to fear. Another study, student was asked to watch a radio for another student who went to the bathroom; confederate steals the radio, student asked to watch the radio buys lunch for the victim, who says he is out of money. The second condition the subject stops the theft, doesn’t buy lunch for the poor victim, because good deed is already done. Messages of guilt will motivate people to do what they can to feel better about themselves. Unsolicited gifts will make a person likelier to comply to a request. Is this because of a social exchange notion of indebtedness, or liking people who are nice to you? Niceness, liking someone helps persuade people to comply.

Ways to phrase requests:

Pique Technique – People have rejection scripts or dialogues, one has to break up the rejection script. College students dressed as homeless, made scripted or unscripted requests; scripted were “you go any spare change?” unscripted were “do you have seventeen cents?” A scripted request got a scripted rejection response; a request for seventeen cents got a quarter.

“Even a Penny Will Help” Technique – We’d like you to give, even a penny will help. This works; the average amount of gift doesn’t rise, but more will give. Why? Giving change makes people feel cheap, asking for a penny will takes that feeling away, legitimize a gift of change. “Even a dollar will help” didn’t work because giving a bill exposes a wallet, whereas change can be taken out of a pocket. Even a penny will help doesn’t work via mail, only in person.

Gender – Women who ask for help are likelier to get it than men who ask. A presentation using many appeals to request gifts made by men and women; helplessness and good cause appeals used. Women more effective with helpless appeal; men with same appeal were the least effective group. Women are likelier to hang up on another woman than are men, but everyone will hang up on the man solicitor. Another study, 3 AM call, two scripts: first says sorry, I didn’t mean to do that to you, please don’t be mad at me babe, I love you, don’t leave me, et al; second says you have some nerve, who do you think you are, it’s over, et al. If it was a male voice, people hung up. If the voice was female, she was let finish.

Powerless speech includes tag questions like, “it was really cold out there, don’t you think?” seeks approval, also includes hedges, like, “it was really cold, but what the hell do I know?” and qualifiers, like, “it’s kind of cold.” Linda Carly got men to convince men, women to women, and men to women. If a man tries to convince a man, powerful speech is used; same with woman to woman and man to woman. When a woman tries to convince a man, she speaks powerlessly. She also found that a more powerfully spoken man would be likelier to convince a man or woman, as would a woman convincing a woman. Powerless speech by women was likelier to persuade a man, because such women are smarter and more likeable.

How to get people to buy things?

Was physical attractiveness important in selling a gym membership and stocks? Physical attractiveness matters as long as the product is related to physical attractiveness.

Similarity vs. Expertise – study done in a mall, selling disk washer, demonstrator asks what kind of music the person likes; the personal will either like whatever the customer likes, or doesn’t like anything, but puts it on. At times, the salesperson fumbles or appears adept at using the product. Customer buys from similar expert most often; similarity is more important, a salesperson with similar taste but fumbles does better than the salesman who doesn’t like the music but handle the product expertly.

The “That’s Not All” technique – If you call right now, you’ll get free shipping! The technique works before the consumer can respond to the initial offer, but not if the consumer has already responded; a sense that the consumer got a “deal” was essential.

The “Disrupt then Refrain” technique – If the price was 300 pennies rather than 3 dollars, consumer thought was clever, so more likely to buy.





Tipping


Study done with servers, touching shoulder worked for half the sample; woman touching a man increased the tips most significantly. A brushing against shoulder also increased tip, as did “accidental” hand contact. Kneeling down at eye level to take an order increased tips. “Mimicking study” – server repeated order immediately after it was given increased tips, seen as rapport building/care for customer.

Credit card logo leads on bill leads to higher tips; credit cards set off proclivity to spend. “Standards for tipping” guides that prescribe but don’t demand tip amounts increases the size of the tips. Customer’s feelings before dining affect tips more than quality of service.

Advertisements

A lot of opinion and not much data on whether product placement in movies/tv is effective; consumers think it gives sense of realism to movie or tv. We pick out product/brand under two conditions: if the brand is written into the script, or a prominent visual placement. The impact is limited; the audience won’t run out and buy the product, but will be likelier to go to the fridge if they have the product available.

Humorous ads – study indicate that humor doesn’t affect attitude toward product, though the consumer may appreciate the ad. A longitudinal study found that best-recalled Super Bowl ads were the funniest.

Sex – Decorative model who stands and presents the product. This does sell, people like ads with decorative models, and these ads are recalled better. Another second factor studied was sexual humor; men respond well to it. The third sexual cue was sexual suggestiveness; women favor sexual suggestiveness.

Shock ads – made to violate expectations, push the envelope of appropriateness, include things that disgust, anger or surprise us. What effect do shock ads have? They draw attention and increase awareness, and initial disgust dissipates with repeated viewings.

Subliminal Advertising – The most overrated of all of the advertising effects. Subliminal messages to buy theater concessions study is an urban legend. Subliminal effect is difficult to create. Some people can see subliminals and some can’t; and one must be paying close attention to the screen in order to get the message, so they are often missed. Subliminals also have different levels of saliency; “eat popcorn” only popcorn might be missed. Subliminal might only reinforce an urge; a thirsty person might respond to a subliminal, but an un-primed person might not or if there is no Pepsi in the house.

11 19

Roloff 11 19


Why do employees resist change?

Individual Differences

Cynicism – looking every gift horse in the mouth – cynics were once considered astute critics who held everyone to a higher standard, now has negative connotations. Surveys of CEOs asked what was the biggest barrier to change, the #1 answer was cynical employees. Why is the American workforce so cynical, and becoming more so? (cynics don’t take things at face value, think people act lower than they’re capable) Cynicism is considered a personality variable. Personality cynicism does not correlate with resistance to change. More specifically, cynicism as related to organizations or business in general; one might think people are good but organizations are basically bad. Not a strong correlation either. Even more specifically, company cynics, who think their company is basically bad, but the rest of the world is OK. There is a strong correlation between this specific cynicism and resistance to change. If these people change companies, they are less resistant to change. Over time, one can become cynical regardless the company. Things that feed this cynicism are executive compensation and layoffs.
Dimensions of Resistance – People who like engaging in routines – “I like to do the same old things rather than new and different ones”, “I’d rather be bored than surprised”. Emotional Reaction – When change occurs, these people become stressed out. “When things don’t go according to plans, I get stressed out”. Short Term Thinking – “When someone pressures me to change something, I resist, even if it will benefit me in the long term”. Cognitive Rigidity – Unlikely to change their minds once they have made a decision. Resist changes to office environment; have hard time maintaining quality of work, social habits when change occurs.
Age and Tenure on the Job – The longer one has been on the job/the older, the more resistant to change. Promises of retraining, an assurance that salary and job is safe doesn’t reverse resistance to change. A possible explanation is that change is not as exciting to people who have been through a lot of change…this group can wait-out change.
Accept Change – “Resilient Personalities” – high self-esteem, score high in self-efficacy. These people don’t promote change, but don’t fear it, have been through changes and survived.

Situational Effects –

Stress – Job insecurity – if you know others even outside your company who has been laid off, it can cause stress. Students interning at companies that are laying off employees can experience stress. Role overload – Everyone has to do more work when some are laid off. Work Challenges – If I don’t have enough resources to do my work, I’ll experience stress (this is distinct from mentally stimulating work) Leads to emotional Exhaustion.
Burnout – Three Stages – 1) Emotional Exhaustion – Numbness at the end of the day “job overload” can lead to this. 2) Depersonalization – peers and clients become objects rather than people – correlated to non-contigent punishment…”regardless how well I do my job, everything goes wrong” 3) Feelings of Lack of Accomplishment – “Why am I doing this job?” correlated to non-contingent reward (Rewards do not seem related to work).
Violate the Psychological Contract – Transactional and Relational Components – breech of trust when change leads to violations of psychological contract is difficult to mend.
Fairness – Distributive Justice – Rewards and punishment distributed in a fair fashion. Procedural Justice – “Voice” - do people have input into what affects them. People are more willing to take a hit (accept change) if they felt their voice was heard. How do you make people feel their voice was heard? They can 1) talk to the decision maker, or 2) a representative of a group talk to decision makers. Why is voice valued so much? Three reasons, two of which are valid. 1) Notion of fairness, it’s a societal norm (not a lot of support for this) 2) Validation of respect – face saving process, asking for input indicates respect 3) Feeling of control – voice gives feeling of control. Three groups, 1) not consulted on a change 2) Those with voice with whom many agree 3) Those with voice with whom no one agreed. The angriest after change were those with voice in majority who were defied, even more so than those who weren’t consulted. Interactional Justice – couch decisions in a way that respects those who are impacted.

Workplace Aggression – Homicide is the #1 cause of death among women at work. Within the U.S. Post Office, 500 recorded cases of employees trying to take out supervisors, 200 cases of supervisors trying to take out subordinates. What types of workplace aggression occur? 3 Dimensions of aggression – 1) The degree to which it is verbal vs. physical assaultsm – most aggression on the job is verbal, but there is a lot of it “Incivility on the Job” is a current topic of study, highly correlated with stress and physiological health problems. Research indicates it’s getting worse 2) Active vs. Passive – Active = do something to someone, Passive = withholding support. Most workplace aggression is passive 3) Direct vs. Indirect – confrontation vs. hurting them by damaging their possessions, computer, et al. Most aggression is indirect. What kind of person becomes aggressive? Type A personalities - those who are driven and hostile show the most stress reactions on the job, they are prone to attacks of all varieties. Attributional style – people prone to aggression attribute their problems to others. Revenge Motivation – Those who are prone to revenge will be aggressive on the job Maleness – on the job aggression is a male thing, women studied haven’t gotten angry enough to be aggressive; recent studies show female aggression is verbal and indirect

Workplace situations that lead to aggression – downsizing, budget and pay cuts, reengineering, pay freezes, the greater the use of part-timers and temps, the greater the amount of job-sharing, employee monitoring (computer or otherwise), the greater diversity on the job.

Organizational Deviancy

Four types of deviancy can be arranged in coordinates, organizational vs. individual in direction, and minor to serious in severity.

Production Deviancy – directed at organization – 1) leaving early; minor 2) taking excessive breaks 3) working slow

Property Deviancy - 1) Sabotage equipment 2) Accepting kickbacks (to accept sub-standard equipment purchases 3) Lying about number of hours worked 4) Stealing from the company

Personal Aggression – Verbal abuse, endangering and stealing from coworkers, sexually harassing coworkers

Political Deviancy – showing favoritism, gossiping, blaming coworkers, competing non-beneficially (e.g. sabotaging another’s career rather than competing with job performance for promotions).

Why do people engage in organizational deviancy? Fairness motivates it. If resources are unfairly allocated, or if announcements are made in an unfair fashion. “Psychology of the Leger” – if I am unfairly compensated for my effort, I will cyberloaf. Employee theft correlate to salary cuts and downsizing; those who survive steal like mad! “Getting even”. New people are likelier to engage in organizational deviance when this activity is “normative”, existing employees do it.

What can companies do to discourage organizational deviancy?

1) Establish codes of ethics – makes no difference, they are not read, they are written with a high level of abstraction and they are technical, no time to consider ethics. Most were written for PR or litigation purposes, or to include a snitch clause and to cover whistleblower laws.Fire offenders – 1995 study, none since – interviewed managers, asked them about firing organizational deviants. Most managers hate to fire people; when asked why, they answered (in order of frequency): 1) General dislike for firing; 2) Want to give employee a second chance; 3) Would rather rehabilitate the employee; 4) Too much invested in the employee; 5) Trying to accommodate the employee’s unique needs; 6) I hired them. What finally led to firing? 1) They’ve been given too many chances; 2) I finally have enough documentation to fire; 3) Employee violated the final warning. What happens at the meeting at which the firing happens? 1) The manager asks about the employees performance or conduct (resignation often comes at that time); 2) Manager provides documentation; 3) Employee responds by agreeing, disagreeing, or making excuses; 4) Immediately followed by firing; 5) Employee asks follow-up procedural questions (what do I do next?); 6) The boss offers advice or assistance. Have you ever tried to convince someone to quit instead of firing them? 80% had. What had these supervisors done to convince people to quit? 1) Create an unpleasant work environment; 2) Talk them into it; 3) Give them routine verbal or written warnings; 4) Subtle encouragement to quit (show them alternatives to current job); 5) Encourage their peer group/coworkers to convince them to leave, or ostracize them. “Bullying” at work happens to members of the out-group in public rather than in private by a low self-moniror; others do nothing or encourage it…peers don’t stand up for the bullied out of fear that they will be in the out-group if they do. Bullying happens because of a lack of fit with in-group rather than poor performance.

11 13

Two other perspectives on innovation:

1) What makes an Organization innovative?
A) Specialization – people who know their jobs well will innovate, few generalist-innovators.
B) Functional Differentiation – the greater the division of labor, the greater the likelihood of innovation.
C) Professionalism – the more professional the roles, the likelier they will find innovative ways to do them.
D) Formalization – the more formalized the organization, the less likely it will innovate.
E) Centralization – the more centralized and top-down the firm, the less likely it will innovate.
F) Tenure – the longer the tenure of the manager, the likelier innovation will occur. (New arrivals are less likely to innovate, longer tenured managers may be more secure)
G) Slack resources – enable a firm to innovate
H) Internal Communication – more communication, the greater the probability of innovation. (Top-down is mostly orders, bottom-up is overwhelmingly positive, “the mum effect” of bad news. Peer-to-peer is where innovation happens, though much of the communication is gossip)
I) External Communication –The more permeable the firm, (hiring is one way) the likelier innovation – hire “cosmopolits” or “boundary spanners” have many outside contacts – most want to leave or find a job in the organization that doesn’t involve boundary role conflict because these people have conflicting roles, sometimes have to deliver bad news.

2) What makes Individuals innovate?
A) Individual Difference Characteristics – Personality traits – thinking style (2 types are systematic thinkers, who approach problems in a structured way, the consider costs and benefits or decisions, try to be rational, and intuitive thinkers, who relies on gut feelings about what should be done, they will go on hunches – the more systematic a thinker, the less innovative, the more intuitive a thinker, the more innovative) The more controlling and coercive parents are, the less innovative their children are (though the kids tend to achieve in academics, professionally) Supportive, undifferentiating parents raise the most innovative kids. Conscientiousness is another factor; the more conscientious a person, the less innovative they are. Creative personalities – tend to describe themselves as clever, confident, egotistical, humorous, informal, individualistic, insightful, wide-ranging interests, reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy, unconventional, snobbish – will innovate more than non-creative people.
B) Organizational Setting – Workplace rather than personality traits – how much supervisor support a person gets (immediate supervisor) a supportive supervisor leads a person to innovate. LMX – leader member exchange – makes the argument that in any work setting, there will be an in- and out- group. People will be marginalized, that is acceptable; for those who are in the in-group, employee wants to work hard, be productive for the boss, has personal loyalty to boss, likes the boss. But what allows one into the in-group? Similarity – interests and values are similar to bosses. Extroverted – extroverts get into the in-group. Competence – competent people get into the in-group. Impression management techniques – most common is to try to pretend to be interested in the boss as a person. What’s in it for the employee in the in-group? Access to information before others, they aren’t supervised as closely as others, they get more interesting and challenging jobs than others, the boss will delegate more to in-group members than others. Older employees in the in-group are over-rewarded, get more than they deserve; older employees in the out-group also get more, but because of competence. New employees in the in-group get more than they deserve, but new employees in the out-group get just what they deserve, no more no less. The organization benefits from this arrangement; in-group members work harder, are more committed to the organization, and are more innovative. Psychological Safety – if there is no retaliation for a failed idea, innovation will occur.



Kipnis – How people get their way in an organization

1) Ingratiation – used against coworkers and subordinates more often than boss. The transparency problem of ingratiating oneself to the boss means that it can be obvious, look sycophantic. Ingratiators are better liked by boss, but don’t get better rewards. Why do we ingratiate ourselves to coworkers and subordinates? Because we need their help.
2) Rationality – data driven, facts and figures used to target the boss.
3) Assertiveness – telling people what to do, used against subordinates.
4) Sanctions – bring forth organizational rules to punish someone – used against subordinates
5) Exchange – Let’s make a deal – used against coworkers.
6) Upward Appeal – go straight to the top, complain about subordinates or coworkers. “The Nun Story” – Sister Mary Hanorah, didn’t like new nun fashions the bishop wanted, wanted to maintain the old habits, Mary was selected to lead the group who wanted to maintain the old. Mary got a meeting with the pope to discuss the problem. Pope offered mediation between nun’s order and bishop. Mary Hanorah’s last name was Kroger. If one uses upward appeal on boss, one must have clout. Typically, an end-run around the boss is whistle blowing, and a last resort.
7) Blocking – extortion, preventing them from getting what they want until you get what you want – used on coworkers. Surgeons and their nurses were alienating maintenance workers and diagnostic service pros, a slow down took place. The surgeons would stay late, risked not making quotas…patients would suffer, so this was only done during elective, non-life threatening surgeries.
8) Use of Coalitions – a coalition is formed to exert influence in an organization – infrequently done. Used against subordinates, coworkers, and bosses. It is a hassle to form a coalition; they are only as strong as their weakest links. Unreliable members are worse than enemies, can weaken a coalition. There are a set of ideas that can predict the success of coalitions. One theory says that only a winning coalition will ever be formed; but why form a coalition if you are already going to win, and if one wins with a coalition, one must share the rewards. Another theory form to reach an adequate size to win, but not larger. The spoils of victory are shared among fewer, and a larger coalition is harder to manage. Another theory is that ideological similarity brings coalitions together, regardless the prospects of victory. Sometimes, a coalition has counter-cultural elements.

9) Consultations – tell people what you are doing, ask their advice but not share decision-making.

10) Inspirational Appeals – meant to inspire people to do what you want. Used against everyone.

11) Legitimatising – Blame the government, rules, or other uncontrollables to justify the action – used against everyone.

Which are likeliest to be effective? Ingratiation is a contingent strategy, doesn’t work against boss. Rationality works well, only approach that works against the boss. Assertiveness, sanctions, upward appeal, coalitions don’t work well. Inspirational Appeals seem to work, at least in the short term. Legitimatising doesn’t work well, people comply with letter not spirit of the law.


An alternative to Kipnis – How do organizations implement change? – Nutt identified 4 sets of tactics for change implementation.

1) Intervention tactics – Change agents are very hands-on in their approach. Steps to the intervention approach 1) Change agents must acquire authority to make change 2) Apply norms to identify performance inadequacies 3) Point out feasibility of improving practices 4) Develop concrete plans for closing the gap 5) demonstrate improvement after which performance is monitored. – 19% relied on intervention.
2) Participation – 1) Change agents identify needs to be met 2) Change agent sets objectives 3) Change agent creates task force(s) 3) Taks forces develop alternatives 4) Task forces make recommendations to change agent 5) Change agent accepts changes 6) Change agents monitor performance – 17% relied on participation
3) Persuasion – 1) Change agent stipulates needs or hires experts to stipulate needs 2) Develop solutions 3) Have individuals try to persuade everyone to accept them. External consultants are often used, or internal staff persuade others to accept the changes. – 30% relied on persuasion, but only in 30% of the cases were external consultants used.
4) Edict – Telling people what to do. 1) Change agent determines needs 2) Selects solution 3) Tells employees to implement the solution. 34% relied on edict.


100% of intervention-driven changes were successful. 84% of participation-driven changes were successful. 73% of persuasion-driven changes were successful. 43% of Edict-driven changes were successful.

11 5

Roloff 11 05


More Macro theories

Dialetical – Roloff believes in this one -Thesis + Antithesis = Conflict, which leads to synthesis. If nothing is hidden there is high conflict, but the best solution comes from the process. Downs believes that there are forces for change and inertia in every organization:

Forces for Inertia:

1) Sunk Cost bias – people have a tendency to keep investing in a losing course of action, gamblers keep losing but keep gambling, bad marriages last. Why does this happen? Hope springs eternal, things have to get better is the assumption; another reason is that quitting is an admission of weakness. Losses aren’t often quatified, and considering losses is terrifying.
2) Self Interest – like Downs’ conservers, change will only lead to loss.
3) Real Cost – the cost of change will be high

Forces for Change –
1) We have the desire to do a good job
2) The desire to increase power – “Empire Building” – climbers want gains the changes will bring
3) Self defense – fear appeal, change or die.

Opposing forces probably lead to compromise.

The paradox of decision-making: Anything that leads to a better quality decision makes implementation of the decision less likely.

The number of different solution increases when more people partipate; cognitive conflict leads to emotional or affective conflict, consensus is harder to get because people’s ideas are hacked away. Face is lost by people whose ideas are trashed. Friendships and alliances are also part of the process. The process of deliberation will not lead to synthesis.

The Lifecycle Approach – Different approaches apply at different stages of life. Changes occur even in stable organizations. Two organizational perspectives:

1) Greiner – not a lot of data, mostly theoretical – Change can be charted on based on age and size of change. There are two types of changes, Revolutionary and Evolutionary changes. Evolutionary changes are tweaking, but Revolutionary changes are dramatic. Most organizations go through “Growth through Creativity” early in their lifecycle (evolutionary); the problem is that there is a wall, and the first crisis, the “Crisis of Leadership”, leads to a break in a positively-angled curve. It becomes Revolution time, the dominant personality rises to the forefront. Then there is smooth evolutionary change, “Growth through Direction”. Crisis #2, “Crisis of Autonomy”, people are dissatisfied with the leader. Others are given control, “Growth through Delegation” then there is a “”Crisis of Control”; decentralization leads to autonomy, which takes the organization in different directions. Leads to “Growth through Cooordination”, when processes are standardized. This leads to the “Crisis of Red Tape” bureaucracy slows the oganization. “Growth Through Collaboration”, characterized by teamwork and limiting bureaucracy through collaborative processes, will take care of the red tape crisis…but other crises are sure to follow.
2) Gersik – Thinks the key is to understand evolution vs. revolution, and admits that there is change even during periods of stability. Revolutionoary changes occur when the deep structure of the organization is modified; two elements are differentiation and how work is performed. Organizations reach and equilibrium state, in which they are satisfied with culture, don’t have to make drastic changes, and want to maintain the status quo, make superficial adjustments only. Gersik thinks that there are 3 forces that maintain equilibrium: 1) cognitive forces – everyone in the company is thinking inside the box, there is no encouragement to think outside; 2) Motivation – change is disruptive, which is unpleasant, and so is opposed; 3) Relationships and Obligations to Stakeholders – changes may not allow the organization to meet the needs of its stakeholders, who may abandon the organization; organization may not have another stakeholder group to replace the old. Eventually, an organization will be forced into revolutionary change: 1) internal operation of the organization – groups don’t get along, groups aren’t cohesive 2) External influences. There are a number of manifestations of revolutionary change 1) optimism and enthusiasm 2) They rely on outsiders for what they should do 3) They disperse new ideas throughout the organization. Not all radical changes produce good outcomes (though she has no data to back it up). A study that analyzed revolutionary change discovered 1) it takes time, tipping points are a myth; 2) it isn’t a linear process, it goes through start/stop cycles; 3) it starts at the core of the organization, rather than at the margins, changes can’t happen simultaneously in all areas of the organization; change at the core can also meet with powerful resistance.


The Teleological Approach

The key variable for understanding why organizational change occurs is a Performance Gap. Downs attributes performance gaps to personnel changes, changes in technology, and external factors like crises. When there is a performance gap, only pressure from a significant stakeholder will lead an organization to close the gap, but not everyone will respond; organizations can lie about having made a change or reorganize around a different goal, rather than actually confront the gap. Stakeholder groups are convinced that their interests are being served. Organizations can also find another stakeholder group.



Innovations in Organizations

Literature has its origin in rural innovation, how to get innovations to farmers. The literature has a pro-innovation bias…a new way must be better than the old way. What are the key elements of innovation?

1) Relative advantage – how much better the innovation is compared to the status quo.
2) Complexity – the more complex the idea, the less likely people are to adopt it.
3) Compatibility – change has to be compatible with current practices.
4) Trialability – when people can try a change first, they are more likely to agree to a change.
5) Observability – The sooner improvement can be observed, the likelier they are to adopt a change…people like fast outcomes.

The characteristics of people who innovate: groups derived from rural sociology.

1) The innovators – frist 2 ½ percent to adopt a new idea. Attached to a particular product or idea, innovators use highly specialized media. They are willing to risk resources to make the innovation.
2) The early adopters – next 13 ½ % to adopt a new idea. These people are interested in new ideas, but aren’t as specialized, read summaries of technical reports rather than original research. Early adopters are seen as opinion leaders in their peer groups, are sought for advice.
3) Early Majority – Next 34% to adopt. People who hear about change from the popular press or from early adopters.
4) The Late Majority – Next 34% to adopt. These people adopt because they have to.
5) Laggerts – Last 16%, will never adopt. These people are principled, and isolates.

As people adopted change, there was an s-curve in a graph of the diffusion of change, with axes time and adoption. There will be resistance to change, then acceptance, then a plateau. The influence of interpersonal contacts grows as the diffusion of the new idea grows.

What factors determine whether a company will innovate?

1) Slack resources – this is counterintuitive, but resources used inefficiently that can be shuffled must be there for innovation to occur. Structure – two aspects – degree of formalization (rules and routines) degree of centralization. Companies that rely on rules and routines reduce innovation (but makes a change adoption likelier). The same is true of centralization. Organizations that make innovation likelier make it tougher to implement change, and vice versa.

10 30

Roloff 10 30

This week, we begin to look at macro-approaches to persuasion and resistance.

Organizational change still involved individuals.

In Organizational Change, Burke begins by talking about traditional approaches.

Frederick Taylor – Scientific Management – Early 20th Century – wrote about early industrial problems. Wanted to solve 3 industrial problems:

1) Uneven Quality – variance in the quality of what each employee produces.
2) Systematic Soldiering – People only work as hard as their troop or team works.
3) Health and Safety issues

Taylor’s first principle: There is one best way to do everything. The way to discover the one best way is through the scientific method. Developed time and motion studies to find the one best way. Deleting unnecessary steps through the study eventually distills a process, and then everyone is trained in the one most efficient way to do the job.

Taylor’s second principle: Everyone is paid according to effort. This discriminates against the physically challenged, women. According to Taylor, this would eliminate the need for labor negotiation, because pay would be commensurate with effort, quantified and objective. Job, rather than individual, factors are the reason for pay discrepancies. Companies are absolute meritocracies; only competency is a measurer of a worker’s worth. The most trainable and obedient worker is the most desirable, since there is one best way to do any job. There is a strict difference between management and labor; labor doesn’t think, they are only responsible for performing labor, but management is responsible for planning, coordination, and supervision (Management is the elite, workers have strong backs and weak minds). Individuals can be identified as labor or management candidates, promotion from labor to management wouldn’t happen (In Taylor’s time, people couldn’t easily seek more education in order to advance).

Taylor viewed himself as a reformer; he adjusted the size of shovelheads to reduce workers’ back problems, and credited his adherence to the scientific method for saving workers’ health. He was discredited shortly before his death, and his name now represents outdated, impersonal management practices. Unions didn’t believe there was a one-to-one ratio between movements and effort, and resisted his practices. His practices were demeaning to workers; it treated workers as children, incapable of grasping complex ideas.

Human Relations Approach

In the famous Hawthorne Lighting studies, lighting in a factory didn’t matter to productivity as much as the worker’s thought that he or she was being watched. Elton Mayo believes that the meaning has been taken out of work, nothing personal about one’s contribution to work. Work fulfills a need for social interaction. Mayo suggests that people are more responsive to their workgroups than to management.
SOME BASIC IDEAS OF MAYOISM
1. Supervisors should not act like supervisors - they should be friends, counselors to the workers2. Managers should not try to micro-manage the organization by an overriding concern for product or job quality at the expense of the macro-social, or humanistic, characteristics of work3. People should be periodically asked how they feel about the work, their supervisors, and co-workers4. Humanistic supervision plus morale equals productivity5. Those who don't respond to group influence should be treated with sarcasm6. Workers should be involved or at least consulted before any change in the organization7. Employees who leave should be exit-interviewed - turnover should be kept to a minimum

The Scanlon Plan creates cross-functional teams that can make decisions without consulting management. The limitations are:

1) Monetary cap;
2) Must have permission of another unit if changes will affect that unit.

According to the Scanlon Plan, if you do something that increases profits, part of the profits go to your group and not the company as a whole. This puts teams in competition, but creates a group incentive, rather than an individual incentive. This gives individuals an incentive to be members of more than one group.

Like Scientific Management, the goal of Human Relations is to make a worker more productive, not the self-actualization of the worker. In studies of what made an effective WWII combat unit, camaraderie was the most important factor; unfortunately, not all work teams are buddies. Management never thought the Human Relations approach would work; the model was never adopted, decision-making authority was given on matters of little importance to workers. Some jobs, done only for the money, don’t lead to self-actualization of workers, and the Human Relations Approach is meaningless to people whose only interest in their job is money.


Industrial Relations Approach

Fleishman’s study at Westinghouse - front line supervisors were trained to treat workers with respect, but after the study, they reverted back to inconsiderate ways of interacting. Fleishman found that the front line supervisor’s own supervisors were not part of the study treated them poorly. Fleishman believed that changing both the system and the individual was needed.



Evolutionary Approach to studying Organizational Change

Evolution suggests adaptation that results in progress. The process is cyclical. When you look at a market, you’ll find many competitors; over time, selectivity shrinks variety, and remaining competitors will resemble each other. Is an evolutionary model that leads to less competition good for customers?

Variation ------à Selection -------à

One way to discover why a company survives is to examine its culture. In Leading Change, Kotter observed three cultural approaches:

1) Strong Culture – the founder is still running the company, there is a consensus about what culture should be, there is a strong mission statement and values, and only people who fit the culture are hired. IBM was the epitome of strong culture. Often, strong culture is successful but only for a short period of time, because the founder started the business at an opportune time; the downside of the strong culture is that it is not adaptable or innovative (IBM was slow to respond to changes in the market).
2) Strategically Appropriate Culture – there isn’t one best type of culture, it depends on the market a company is in at the time. This approach was popular during the dot-com era. Old cultures weren’t appropriate for new companies; a fast approach was better for new companies. Studies showed that these cultures were as likely to fail as old cultures in the long-term, because the assumption is that the market in which the culture exists is static. There was less consideration, and a trail-blazing hubris that was maintained because of past success.
3) Adaptive Culture – People value change, and accept the fact that what is done today may not be sustainable in the future. This is a market-driven culture; a company should do what the market requires. This requires expert analysts, who are less reliable than horse-handicappers. Constant retooling is required to meet new demands of the market.

How to create an Adaptive Culture? Kotter divided people who advocated change into three types:

1) Externals – advocates of culture change from outside – ineffective because externals don’t understand existing politics, inspire resistance and alienation because of “arrogance”. External have two biases: the current culture is bad; there is not enough internal communication.
2) Internals – promote culture-changers – ineffective because they make small internal changes rather than sweeping changes. Negative frames are brought from past experiences with coworkers. External who has internal resources/internal who has an outsider’s view – these are the most successful culture changers because they have an outsider’s view and can influence and mobilize internals without alienating them

10 22

Roloff - 10 22

Classical Approaches to Persuasion

1) Individual Differences – a) Gender – in 50s and 60s studies, men were more resistant to persuasion. Studies were designed poorly, men were better informed about topics discussed – tires for car, life insurance – didn’t mean that women were more persuadable. In 70s gender specific topics were added “female topics” – roles reversed. Gender and persuasion studies have been dropped because differences can’t be easily explained. b) Age – Older were expected to be less persuadable, young easier to persuade. Young = 18-25, so recent study banded ages, 18-35, 36-50, et al, and elderly. There wasn’t a linear relationship between age and persuadability. Young are easier to persuade than 18-35, 36-50. Middle age (36-50) are the hardest to persuade, harder than the elderly. There isn’t a definitive explanation for this, but it may be because the elderly are looking for stimulation. (Kate Peters suggested a cohort effect, whereby a group stays skeptical throughout life, not change with age). c) IQ – Dumb people are easy to persuade – mixed results, no consistent finding on IQ. d) Self-esteem – no clear differences.
2) McGuire – provided an inconsistent model of persuasion – Stages referred to as probabilities: 1) Probability that a message will be sent – Dating couples didn’t tell each other what bothered them about their partners. 2) Probability that the message will be received – that the message arrives, not necessarily read/processed 3) The probability that there will be attention – not necessarily detailed attention, but the message is processed. 4) The probability of comprehension 5) The probability that the message will be accepted - agreement. 6) The probability that the message will be translated into behavior – that the message will be acted upon. 7) the probability that the change will be remembered or retained. The probabilities can break down at any one of the steps. Individual characteristics can influence the steps, e.g. a high-IQ individual will get more messages, read and process it, but will be more critical (step 5) Low IQ people will get and process fewer messages, but may be more inclined to uncritically accept them. Moderate IQ in mid-self-esteem (intelligence and self-esteem are correlated) are the easiest to persuade, because of their mix of reach-ability and critical assessment of the message.
3) Social Judgment Approach – The reason persuasion fails is that the person asking for change is asking for too much. For any issue, we have a favorite, or Anchor position, and latitude of acceptance, or all of the other positions we’d be willing to accept. There is the latitude of non-commitment, which are positions we don’t either favor or disapprove of, or issues about which we’re ambivalent. The latitude of rejection are the positions we are opposed to. The contrast effect suggests that the stronger one feels about a position, the wider the differnce between oneself and a differing position seems. Ego-involvement makes it harder to persuade.
4) Attributional Approach – When someone asks me to change, I ask myself what’s in it for them; we look for their biases. Shaken and Eagley suggest that there are people whose motives we’d be inclined to automatically judge because we know they seek an angle, but we do it automatically. Two biases – 1) Knowledge Bias – persuader believes that they are telling you the truth, but really isn’t 2) Reporting Bias – knowledge that there is something to gain by persuader, tactic by persuader is to mitigate the idea that they are pursuing their own self-interest. Deception is suspected when the persuader has something to gain.
5) Katz’s Functional Theory – 1) Instrumental – my attitude allows me to get rewards and avoid punishments. 2) Social Adjustment – I hold my attitude because it allows me to fit in. 3) Ego Defense – I hold my attitude because it enables me to avoid something bad about myself. 4) Knowledge Function – I hold my attitude because I am competent, familiar when I hold the attitude. 5) Value Expression – I hold my attitude because it is consistent with my values. Ego-involvement is an example. Persuasion fails when it doesn’t match the function that is the source of the resistance. Cialdini research on the theft of Petrified Forest wood, a sign that gave the number of pounds of petrified wood was posted, and it had no effect on behavior of visitors to the park. A sign asking them not to steal the wood didn’t help. Injunctive norms, a message suggesting that people disapproved of theft, were effective. Another of Cialdini’s studies gave advantages of recycling at hotels, one said that most people approve of recycling; another listed the advantages of recycling. The sign that suggested that the norm was recycling was the most persuasive. “Bandwagon Effect”. Descriptive norms alone weren’t effective, because they lack consequences.

Contextual Models of Persuasion

Anthony Downs – Research for Rand Corp., (govt.) all employees are to some degree self-interested, but some people consider what’s good for the organization. There is a typology:

1) Purely Self-Interested – don’t care about the organization – two types: A) Climbers – wants to maximize his or her salary, power, and prestige. They get what they want by: 1) rapid promotion 2) aggrandize – gauges what’s valuable to the organization, move to get it 3) Jump – they leave the organization and take a job elsewhere. Climbers are inherently pro-change, because it disrupts the existing power and influence structure. B) Conservers – keep their salary, power, and prestige. Most are trapped in middle managements and are middle-aged. Conservers follow rules, resist change. As a group, they can stifle change. Many were once climbers, but are becoming irrelevant, and resist. “Age lumps” – air traffic controllers, NASA are examples, many are hired with same age and credentials, leads to a large number of conservers, first are those in the age cohort who don’t get promoted. Mixed Motives – Three types of mixed motive employee 1) Advocate – When it comes to dealing with one’s unit, you are politically neutral on the inside, promote every specialty within his or her unit, but biased when they deal with administrators from different units. 2) Statesman – committed to the overall organization, not own unit. 3) The Zealot – Highly committed to and idea, practice, or policy. They have many contacts, lots of energy, but become tiresome, annoy and alienate others…wanted during change because of their contacts and energy. Conservers must be persuaded to change over time, “Behavioral Drift.”

Interview with Robert Cialdini

http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~schwartb/booknotes/Cialdini_interview.html

Theories of Pesuasion and Resistance

A great summary from "Steve's Primer of Practical Persuasion and Influence."



http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/primer.htm