Costello Research Careers

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Accounting Faculty Research

The work-from-home blues have a secret source: nostalgia

Jennifer Anzaldi — Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:25:23 +0000

The work-from-home blues have a secret source: nostalgia Jennifer Anzaldi Thu, 09/19/2024 - 10:25

For at least two years, CEOs have been trying to bring employees back to the office, citing remote work’s supposed negative effects on productivity, morale, and creative collaboration. Managers, we’re told, are having a hard time monitoring and motivating dispersed teams. But what if bringing employees back to the office won’t put the genie back in the bottle?

Kevin Rockmann, professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, argues that the furor over remote work masks deeper cultural issues at play in many organizations. This cultural malaise has employees pining for an imagined past where they felt grounded and connected with their colleagues. In short, remote workers aren’t unmanageable—they’re suffering from pangs of nostalgia.

Kevin Rockmann

Rockmann’s recently published research paper in Journal of Management (co-authored by Jessica Methot of Rutgers University and Emily Rosado-Solomon of Babson University) documents the results of surveys conducted during the height of Covid (September 2020). The thrice-daily surveys were delivered over a two-week period to 110 full-time professionals. Respondents were asked to report on their feelings of nostalgia, as well as emotional coping strategies, task performance, and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g. withholding support from colleagues and stealing time from their employer).

The overwhelming majority of participants (98 out of 110) admitted to experiencing nostalgia for life before Covid. And these feelings could have either positive or negative outcomes, depending on how the respondents dealt with them. Rockmann points to two pathways that showed up across the surveys as a whole, which he labels “approach” and “avoid.”

One way respondents reacted to nostalgia was to use so-called “cognitive change” strategies, which help regulate emotions through shifts in perspective. For example, someone feeling sad about being trapped at home during the pandemic could think to themselves, “It could be so much worse. At least I don’t have Covid like so many others.” These strategies seemed to evoke empathetic responses, leading the survey participants to reach out to colleagues to check in or offer assistance.

Equally prevalent in Rockmann’s results, however, was a much darker pathway. Instead of reaching out to others in response to nostalgia, respondents tended to turn inward in an attempt to minimize the emotional discomfort. Psychological researchers call this sort of reaction “attentional deployment.” “It’s a defense mechanism whereby you don’t feel you have the means to really connect with others, so you leverage your attention away from the source of pain,” Rockmann explains. This pathway led to incidents of “acting out”—the above-mentioned counterproductive work behaviors.

Rockmann says these Covid-era findings remain relevant for at least two reasons. First, survey respondents’ written comments sound like they could have been written yesterday, rather than four years ago. Common nostalgic themes revolved around co-workers, the structure of co-located work, etc.—all oft-heard plaints of remote workers in 2024. Second, the normalization of remote work well predated Covid—as Rockmann’s past research on the topic has documented. Covid accelerated an inevitable transition that was already well underway. Therefore, workers of a certain age would likely be feeling some nostalgia, even if there had never been a Covid pandemic.

“While return-to-office may make sense for some companies, I would emphasize that nostalgia cannot be fixed that way. Nostalgia is about longing for the past—or, more accurately, longing for a return to how we remember the past, usually through rose-colored lenses.”

How can organizations help employees conquer nostalgia, or at least encourage healthier ways of coping with nostalgia? The obvious answer might be what CEOs are trying to do—end remote work altogether. “While return-to-office may make sense for some companies, I would emphasize that nostalgia cannot be fixed that way. Nostalgia is about longing for the past—or, more accurately, longing for a return to how we remember the past, usually through rose-colored lenses,” Rockmann says.

Any political demagogue will tell you that people are most susceptible to nostalgia when they feel isolated and afraid. The fact that nostalgia is so widespread in today’s workplace would seem to confirm Rockmann’s past research showing how organizational cultures fail to promote positive relationships among employees.

Combating the nostalgia epidemic will require a cultural reset for many organizations. “Managers will need to engage much more closely with employees, asking sensitive questions (e.g. “What do you miss about working here before Covid?”) and co-creating individualized solutions to help employees fully adjust to the major changes in their working environment,” Rockmann says.

Explore research at Costello College of Business

In This Story

Kevin Rockmann

Topics

Costello Research Managing Change

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

Costello Research Social Influence

When expressing gratitude, it’s all in the timing

Jennifer Anzaldi — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 14:42:32 +0000

When expressing gratitude, it’s all in the timing Jennifer Anzaldi Wed, 09/04/2024 - 10:42

Thanks so much for reading this article all the way to the end! No, that wasn’t an editorial error. It’s a savvy managerial motivation strategy lurking somewhere in almost every employee’s inbox or Slack channel.

Mandy O’Neill, an associate professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, has discovered a potential new addition to the annals of managerial motivation techniques: anticipatory gratitude.

Mandy O'Neill

We all know that thanking people for a job well-done, or a much-needed favor, is an effective form of positive reinforcement. Psychology researchers classify gratitude as a “socially engaging emotion” that promotes prosocial behavior and strong interpersonal relationships. In the course of exploring how employees cope with high-stress or frustrating work situations, O’Neill and her co-author Hooria Jazaieri of Santa Clara University discovered an interesting wrinkle in what we thought we knew about this popular emotion: Gratitude can be used as a form of emotion regulation and, when expressed ahead of time instead of after the fact, can produce that extra “oomph” when it comes to employee resilience and persistence.

Their paper is in press at Academy of Management Discoveries.

The researchers stumbled upon the power of anticipatory gratitude while researching organizational culture and change within the intensive care units of a leading U.S. hospital. It’s difficult to imagine a more gut-wrenching, high-stakes work environment: The ICU units in question receive what one employee called “the sickest of the sickest” from throughout the region. To decompress and process their emotions after especially difficult shifts, employees routinely emailed the group using an internal listserv. O’Neill and Jazaieri were forwarded four years’ worth of messages, which they analyzed with the help of direct experience gained from extensive site visits to the hospital.

In addition to writing heartfelt outpourings of post facto gratitude, ICU colleagues thanked one another for rising to occasions that had not yet occurred. Some of these emails were pre-emptively apologetic (“I may have to take a day or two off from time to time…Thank you for your patience and understanding”). Others seemed to function as pep talks, inspiring teams to keep up the good work (“Thank you…for bringing your a-game to work every day”).

As O’Neill describes it, “The ‘thanks in advance’ phenomenon involves an awareness that you’re going to be annoyed or upset by what I’m asking you to do, so I infuse you with the positivity of that feeling you get when someone expresses gratitude to you. Think about it as an emotional buffer. It helps with the inevitable distress of the task that’s going to happen later. It makes those negative emotions less salient, less powerful, and less insidious.”

The researchers launched several follow-up studies to learn more about the effects of anticipatory gratitude. They chose a context—Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) gig-work platform—that was in many ways the polar opposite of the ICU. “You go from the ultimate interdependent work environment to the ultimate transactional work environment,” O’Neill explains.

“The ‘thanks in advance’ phenomenon involves an awareness that you’re going to be annoyed or upset by what I’m asking you to do, so I infuse you with the positivity of that feeling you get when someone expresses gratitude to you. Think about it as an emotional buffer."

The MTurk workers were assigned to solve extremely difficult puzzles. After completing the paid task, they received negative feedback about their performance and were offered the opportunity to do additional puzzles without being paid. MTurkers who had seen a message of gratitude before the main task voluntarily took on significantly more unpaid work than those who received a similar message after the paid exercise.

“What’s so compelling and surprising for us is that anyone who does work with experienced online gig worker populations knows it’s nearly impossible to induce workers to go beyond their assignment, even by 30 extra seconds, which is about what we were asking for,” O’Neill says.

Questionnaires administered during the study revealed that anticipatory gratitude enhanced feelings of communal self-worth, which contributed to the participant’s resilience, that is, their ability to “bounce back” after the initial failure. In a third study, the researchers found anticipatory gratitude was better than a related positive affect—anticipatory hope—at motivating MTurkers to persevere at (i.e., spend more time on) a different set of challenging puzzles.

At this point, the potential for managerial manipulation should be crystal clear. Indeed, it was evident even to some of the gig workers, who wrote private messages such as, “It may be partial trickery for academic purposes but it was still nice to hear.”

"Gratitude can’t be a substitute for fair pay and decent work conditions...But our findings are clear: anticipatory gratitude works; it is effective.”

For O’Neill, these findings show that gratitude is more complicated than we previously thought. “This paper is one of the very few to show that gratitude isn’t always authentic and prosocial. It can be used strategically, especially for managers,” she says.

Sincerity and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Empathic managers whose feelings of gratitude are so strong that they have to be expressed beforehand could still be taking advantage of the “thanks in advance” phenomenon.

“In all organizations, you need people to stick with difficult or thankless or boring tasks. The challenge, of course, is how to do so ethically. Gratitude can’t be a substitute for fair pay and decent work conditions, for example. But our findings are clear: anticipatory gratitude works; it is effective,” O’Neill says.

Explore Costello College of Business graduate education programs

In This Story

Olivia (Mandy) O'Neill

Scared to negotiate job offers? Do it anyway. Here’s why.

Jennifer Anzaldi — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:17:48 +0000

Scared to negotiate job offers? Do it anyway. Here’s why. Jennifer Anzaldi Tue, 07/16/2024 - 10:17

Getting a job offer can be a joyful experience. Often, however, the elation quickly gives way to a state of anxiety, as candidates agonize over whether to accept the terms on the table, or negotiate for better ones. After all, it’s commonly believed that job candidates who negotiate, risk losing the opportunity.

Einav Hart

Einav Hart, assistant professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, challenges that assumption in a recent research paper for Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Her findings suggest that the expected worst-case scenario—having a job offer rescinded—may be a much more remote possibility than most job candidates believe.

The paper was co-authored by Julia Bear of Stony Brook University and Zhiying (Bella) Ren of University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers conducted seven studies involving more than 3,000 participants. To start with, they surveyed job candidates, hiring managers, and experienced professionals. These surveys showed that job candidates thought it highly likely that negotiating would lose them the job offer, while managers took a more flexible view. The hiring managers reported extending an average of 26.9 job offers during their careers, only 1.73 of which were withdrawn after a candidate negotiated.

In subsequent studies using in-person and online negotiations, Hart and her co-authors found that even taking on an imaginary role changes how one views the negotiation and its risks. They randomly assigned participants to play either a “job candidate” or a “hiring manager,” with real money at stake based on any agreed-upon job offer.

The researchers found that two psychological mechanisms were particularly relevant to explain job candidates’ exaggerated risk estimation: zero-sum perceptions, or the idea that parties in a negotiation are fighting over a fixed and finite resource, and power perceptions, i.e., how much candidates felt they had the ability to influence the hiring manager. Moreover, because of their concern about losing the deal, nearly half the candidates chose to accept the offer as is and not to negotiate.

All else being equal, candidates tended to take a much more competitive (i.e., zero-sum) view of negotiations and a less optimistic view of their power than did the “managers.” This may help explain why so many of us shy away from bargaining for better job offers, to our own detriment.

Hart says that “negotiating is not just zero-sum. Besides negotiating salary, maybe you care more about teleworking than a small signing bonus. The hiring manager might really appreciate the savings and be flexible about how often you come into the office. Thus, this negotiation (and many others) can have a win-win, mutually beneficial solution.”

Indeed, candidates primed to consider negotiation as a potential win-win interaction (as opposed to zero-sum) were less likely to fear losing the deal entirely, and by extension to forgo negotiations. Likewise, candidates primed to have higher power perception were less concerned about jeopardizing a deal and less likely to forgo negotiation. However, even with low zero-sum or power perceptions, candidates still overestimated their risk of losing the deal.

“Besides negotiating salary, maybe you care more about teleworking than a small signing bonus. The hiring manager might really appreciate the savings and be flexible about how often you come into the office. Thus, this negotiation (and many others) can have a win-win, mutually beneficial solution.” —Einav Hart

At the same time, Hart’s prior work suggests that negotiation is a decision that should be made carefully by each party. A previous paper introduced the concept of “Economic Relevance of Relational Outcomes” (ERRO), which points to the fact that there is often a long-term financial advantage in preserving strong relationships, over and above incremental gains to be won in any one negotiation.

Hart says, “Consider negotiating for a babysitter’s rate. What use is negotiating for a great deal on the rate if the babysitter feels bullied in the negotiation and is not excited to take care of your kids?”

Negotiating a job offer is tough and there is a legitimate risk that negotiating can jeopardize the deal. However, Hart’s research suggests that job candidates overestimate this risk and can often obtain better outcomes through negotiating a job offer—at least if they preserve a good relationship.

Looking for more advice? Check out Career Services!

In This Story

Einav Hart

Topics

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Women’s empowerment in the workplace starts with smarter networking

Colleen Rich — Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:13:51 +0000

Women’s empowerment in the workplace starts with smarter networking Colleen Rich Mon, 03/11/2024 - 13:13

Women’s History Month offers a chance to examine the gender leadership gap. According to a 2022 World Economic Forum report, just 31% of global leadership roles are held by women.

Sarah Wittman. Photo provided

Networking is one effective way to bridge the gap, but research shows that women are at an unfair disadvantage in this area. Sarah Wittman, an assistant professor of management at Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, unpacks this complex problem and proposes some potential research-based solutions.

Why is it important for women to network as much—and as strategically—as men?

To rise to the top, you have to be known and known of. You have to have social capital—and a social network that makes a difference. Of course, nobody likes to be thought of as “that person”: the person who uses other people for their own advancement. Yet research suggests that in professional networks women are less likely than men to network instrumentally, accumulate instrumental ties and, thus, less likely to have within their networks the powerful people who can help them advance and get things done. Over time, women’s network deficits accumulate: especially in an age of online social media including LinkedIn, if you didn’t connect with colleagues in your last job, you likely aren’t connecting this job. And those people are the ones who know you and could help you land your next job.

What, then, can women do to build useful career networks?

One piece of advice is, of course, to change your mentality—so that networking becomes relationship-building not just contact-accumulation. That fits better with what is expected of women and is less likely to receive backlash. Where networking is “just” relationship-building, it becomes less intimidating and, quite frankly, less grossly utilitarian. Especially when you’re not needing anything now, you can creatively focus on what you might give. Rather than thinking about the resources you might need, think about what resources you might represent for others. The universe repays, and having established contacts when you do need to leverage them is invaluable.

Second, make network-building easy on yourself. Just do it. LinkedIn particularly and other similar online social media are amazing tools because they are both personal and surprisingly impersonal. These days, people link with people they don’t even actually know—but perceive as working in the same industry, or in a relevant function. Linking with those possibly relevant others will not only be low risk (the “no,” if there is one, doesn’t come face-to-face), but where you engage with the platform, the professional content that you produce will allow you and your resources to become known, and known of, across your contacts’ feeds.

It’s easier to start with networks that you legitimately belong to alumni of – your high school, university, or sorority, and people who share some element of your professional past or present (ex- or present colleagues). You never know who is doing what, and how that might be related to your own career.

Unbeknownst to you, you may already have valuable social capital at your fingertips, in so-called “multiplex” ties—ones that can serve multiple ends. Do you know what your neighbors do for work? What about your children’s friends’ parents? Or your spouse’s co-workers’ spouses (or children)? But, again, the more of a decent human being you are in these relationships, the more likely they might be willing to provide professional value as well.

So the networking gap boils down to women being “too nice,” not aggressive enough to put themselves out there?

No! Scholars have written extensively on the so-called “double-bind” for women, especially those in leadership positions. Research shows that—regardless of what they do—they will be judged negatively based on warmth versus competence. Too nice? Not smart, and disrespected. Too strategic? Cold and conniving, and disliked. This goes for networking, too. Women who “reach for the top” in their networking are not seen as team players (violating feminine norms of communalism) and may suffer a status penalty versus women who have less instrumental networks. But women who don’t have those instrumental ties aren’t able to advance.

“Fixing women” is not the answer. In the C-suite, empowering words for women must be matched by action. Senior leaders must be ready to appoint capable and deserving women to positions of organizational relevance.

Closer to home, men who love women and have seen women’s challenges firsthand tend to be some of our biggest allies. CEOs with daughters, for example, are more likely to have women join their boards. Men: Understand that the women whose advancement you empower today will—en masse—be the role models that pave the way for the advancement of your own daughters, nieces, and granddaughters.

Topics

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Costello College of Business

Women's History Month

networking

What’s worse than a ‘toxic’ workplace? One that gaslights employees

Marianne Klinker — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:15:18 +0000

What’s worse than a ‘toxic’ workplace? One that gaslights employees Marianne Klinker Mon, 09/11/2023 - 15:15

When it comes to relationships between co-workers, organizations’ stated priorities must match what’s happening under the hood.

These days, we hear a lot about “toxic bosses,” “toxic companies,” and the like. It’s easy to forget that non-toxicity is not all we want from an employer. If we’re really honest, most of us want to be part of an organization where working relationships are consistently healthy and supportive. Our dream company would also be a place where advancement opportunities were available to all, not only those who regularly have lunch or go golfing with the right people.

It might not shock you to learn that few companies have fully achieved this sort of actively anti-toxic as opposed to superficially non-toxic working culture. Those that have, though, tend to be more resilient when crisis hits, according to Kevin Rockmann, professor of management at �鶹��Ƶ School of Business.

Kevin Rockmann

“If even one person is an isolate, that’s a problem,” Rockmann says. “That’s information you’re not benefiting from…It’s not about everybody being best friends, it’s just about having productive working relationships that are characterized by respect, so that when the [expletive] hits the fan, people are going to step up.”

In a recently published paper for Strategic Organization, Rockmann and co-author Caroline A. Bartel (of University of Texas-Austin) theorize that such working cultures require concerted and sustained attention at all organizational levels—especially the top. Unstinting focus from above spurs the creation of structures and practices for supporting positive interpersonal relationships, which the paper terms “systems for relational advocacy.”

Rockmann’s theory adopts the attention-based view of the firm as an interpretive framework for organizational activity, as opposed to its chief competitor, the resource-based view. While the latter, according to Rockmann, centers on “the resources that an organization has or can access,” the former recognizes that “Resources are important, but it’s really about how we leverage those resources. What are organizational leaders paying attention to?” His paper forms part of a special issue of Strategic Organization devoted to the attention-based view.

Outside of relational advocacy—which relatively few firms actually practice—the paper identifies two main types of relational systems, reflecting different ways senior leaders can manage their attention.

Relational antipathy describes organizations that have made a strategic decision to deprioritize relationship-building among employees. This may be because senior leaders believe that a culture of competition rather than cooperation would be better for their firm, or because the business model is thought to lend itself to more transactional relationships (e.g. gig economy start-ups). In any case, Rockmann emphasizes that relational antipathy can be a workable system, especially when characterized by fairness as opposed to exploitation.

Rockmann reserves his strongest criticism for systems of relational indifference, where lip service may be paid to the importance of positive relationships (“we care about everyone!”), but senior leaders do not allocate the attention needed to create and maintain those relationships long-term.

“I was talking to an HR person at this company, who said, ‘We started this awards program to recognize employees who helped each other out.’ I asked them, ‘That’s great, so how many people are getting awards?’ They said ‘Well, no one’s been getting the awards recently. We keep forgetting to send the announcement out and the rewards behind it are pretty minimal.'”

To Rockmann, this is a quintessential example of the dangers of relational indifference because it shows how espoused good intentions become mere gaslighting without organizational follow-through. “Nobody was told that part of their job evaluation that year was to make sure they do that awards program,” he explains. “What could have been a way to bring people closer together and incentivize stronger relational connections falls by the wayside. And that weakens the organization, because relationships are how we’re going to solve crises.”

Instead of a tightly woven, resilient network of relationships, relationally indifferent organizations are susceptible to cliquishness and a social order split into in-groups and out-groups. As with any laissez-faire system, the concentration of capital—in this case, social capital—is much less democratic. This can torpedo morale throughout the organization, as mutual resentment and incomprehension sets in among outsiders and insiders.

Due to these dynamics, leaders of relationally indifferent organizations cannot necessarily trust what their own employees are telling them. “Typically, what happens is you do a survey and the people that feel like they aren’t going to be listened to don’t fill it out. And so you get results that are positive or very positive, and you think, well, our workplace is great.”

Rockmann therefore advises that leaders should “realize that they are products of the clique-ish system, so they need objective data. Be willing to listen to ombuds or consulting companies who come in to assess your workforce.”

If they find there’s a need to move from relational indifference to relational advocacy, what should leaders pay attention to first? “To me, the lowest-hanging fruit are the job descriptions. Put in the manager’s job description that part of their incentive is how well-connected their people are. Put in the employee's job description that ‘part of your job is helping other people do theirs’.

“A lot of people are not intrinsically motivated to form supportive working relationships,” Rockmann summarizes. “So if they’re not relationally motivated, you have to be explicit.”

Topics

Strategy - Costello

More School of Business Faculty Research

Are there upsides to “overboarding”?
July 14, 2025
“Doing well by doing good”? There’s a framework for that
July 2, 2025
In the workplace, relationships equal reality
May 28, 2025
Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO
May 7, 2025
Study: Left-handed CEOs are more innovative
April 29, 2025

In This Story

Kevin Rockmann

Should you always negotiate? Not always, according to this �鶹��Ƶ expert

Colleen Rich — Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:09:34 +0000

Should you always negotiate? Not always, according to this �鶹��Ƶ expert Colleen Rich Tue, 02/28/2023 - 15:09

In This Story

Einav Hart

Negotiation is a critical skillset in business and in society. Negotiation is a complicated, joint decision problem where parties can, potentially, make each other better off—but also have some competing interests. For example, you might want a higher bonus while your boss wants to keep expenses low.

Einav Hart. Photo provided

Much of the advice about how to negotiate focuses on the terms of the negotiated deal. You might think, then, that more—and more aggressive—negotiations would always lead to better outcomes. Einav Hart, assistant professor of management at �鶹��Ƶ, suggests that our relationships and context influence how we should negotiate—and even whether it is a good idea to negotiate at all.

“The idea that we can ‘win’ a negotiation reflects a belief that we are competing and need to take as much as we can,” said Hart, “but focusing on the short-term gains might lead to worse outcomes in the long term.”

For example, negotiating aggressively with a new hire might cause them to agree to a lower salary, but it might also harm their morale, their commitment to the organization, and their work effort. As a result, your outcome—even if you saved a few thousand dollars on salary—may be worse than it would be if you had built a relationship through a more collaborative negotiation process.

Hart’s research introduces the concept of “ERRO”—the “Economic Relevance of negotiators’ Relational Outcomes”—to help us decide when and how to negotiate. These decisions should depend on how much your relationship with your negotiation counterpart matters economically.

“When you buy a barbecue grill, for instance, the price you pay may determine your economic outcome more than your relationship with the seller,” said Hart. “However, when you hire a service provider—such as a babysitter, a caterer, or a contractor—a poor relationship following the negotiation may harm the economic value you derive from the agreement, and a positive relationship might increase the economic value you derive.”

Thus, buying a grill has low ERRO, but hiring a babysitter has high ERRO.

In a low ERRO context (like that BBQ grill), aggressive or competitive negotiation tactics that sacrifice relational outcomes may work just fine. But in high ERRO contexts (think babysitter), negotiating aggressively is likely to backfire in the long term. Collaborative tactics ,such as asking questions, expressing empathy, and making concessions (or even not negotiating), may get you the best outcome overall—even if you seemingly leave some money on the table.

In most cases, Hart said, the real value of a negotiation is created after parties leave the bargaining table. Thus, the decision to enter a negotiation is a decision that should be made carefully and strategically.

Hart’s research on organizational behavior and decision making explores how people communicate about conflict and sensitive topics, and how negotiating affects people's future, post-agreement relationships and performance. Her work integrates insights from psychology, and game theory. Prior to joining �鶹��Ƶ, Hart was a data scientist at Uber and a visiting scholar at Wharton.

To reach Einav Hart directly, contact her at ehart8@gmu.edu.

For more information, contact Benjamin Kessler at bkessler@gmu.edu.

�鶹��Ƶ George �鶹��Ƶ
�鶹��Ƶ is Virginia’s largest public research university. Located near Washington, D.C., �鶹��Ƶ enrolls nearly 40,000 students from 130 countries and all 50 states. �鶹��Ƶ has grown rapidly over the past half-century and is recognized for its innovation and entrepreneurship, remarkable diversity and commitment to accessibility. Learn more at www.gmu.edu.

Topics

Costello College of Business

Strategy - Costello

Tip Sheet

negotiations

When It Comes to Innovation, More Is More

Jennifer Anzaldi — Mon, 02 May 2022 14:40:33 +0000

When It Comes to Innovation, More Is More Jennifer Anzaldi Mon, 05/02/2022 - 10:40

In This Story

Sharaya Jones

We tend to believe great innovations speak for themselves. Once they’ve connected with the marketplace, successful innovations acquire an aura of inevitability. It’s easy to forget that they were once only an idea on paper, competing with others for buy-in and resources.

In this earliest stage of innovation, creative proposals are judged according to their perceived novelty and usefulness. Sharaya Jones, assistant professor of marketing at �鶹��Ƶ, has a simple yet counterintuitive rule for would-be innovators hawking their ideas: More is more.

Her recent paper in Marketing Science, co-authored by Laura J. Kornish of University of Colorado Boulder, pits verbose and detailed idea descriptions against terse ones. Over several studies, participants were shown random selections from a pool of descriptions—including short, very short, long-winded and highly specific versions of the same basic idea (all of which came from an actual crowdsourcing platform). They then scored each proposal for creativity, market uniqueness, and intent to purchase the hypothetical product. The longer and more specific they were relative to the others viewed by the participant, the higher their creativity score.

Subsequent studies revealed how this maximalist bias works. When participants were surveyed on their experience of reading the descriptions, a chain of associations surfaced between how easy it was to keep track of a description’s central concepts (which the researchers termed “fluency”), perceived complexity and the creativity score. Longer text that ventured into the weeds was harder for the reader to follow, which made it appear more complicated and thus more creative.

“When you have all these different pieces and you’re trying to fit them together, that’s basically the definition of complexity. And there’s a body of research linking complexity and novelty,” said Jones.

Remember, though, that novelty is only one of the two chief creativity criteria—the other being usefulness. When developing products and services for sale to consumers, it’s crucial to keep usefulness in mind, lest you end up with a cool innovation that has no clear practical purpose. The researchers used participants’ purchase intent as a rough indicator of perceived usefulness, as the two qualities are closely related. The correlation between length/granularity and purchase intent was slight to non-existent. Elaborate, highly specific descriptions may have been deemed more creative, but they did not induce readers to open their wallets.

“The more fluent an idea is, i.e., the easier it is to interpret, the more purchase intent increases,” explained Jones. “So that’s why there’s this balance, where novelty and usefulness are kind of at odds with each other.”

Ideally, there would be an equilibrium of novelty and usefulness criteria. But prior research finds that usefulness is often undervalued. Or, as the paper states, “Novelty is a much bigger driver of perceived creativity than usefulness is.” In Jones’s research, extreme length differences between the descriptions magnified this effect.

Therefore, one of Jones’s main takeaways is that in early-stage innovation contests, length requirements for entries should be kept within a fairly narrow range—long enough for evaluators to get the picture but not so long that innovators can start piling on the distracting detail. Indeed, in one study the length/creativity correlation disappeared when the researchers grouped the descriptions by length.

Absent a reasonable maximum length, innovators would obviously want to write more rather than less, throwing in specifics where possible. Jones suggests that the same recommendation may apply to everything from job descriptions (especially if you’re trying to attract millennials or Gen Z candidates looking for a creative workplace) to certain types of product marketing. (i.e., brand extensions where the usefulness of the item is already well-established).

The research also suggests that innovations that are mainly about usefulness—the proverbial better mousetrap—may be very marketable but still have a tough time competing with very novel concepts.” Innate pro-novelty bias can be compounded by dazzling descriptions of bright shiny objects. A good way to cut through the noise may be to augment text with visuals or even physical prototypes to render the proposal’s unique value more tangible.

“Putting a little bit more emphasis on usefulness is definitely something that organizations should be doing,” Jones said. “Figuring out other ways to convey usefulness, outside of the written description, could be very helpful, especially for marketers."

Topics

Costello Research Innovation Strategy

Marketing Faculty Research

How Negotiators Should Decide Whether to Play Nice or Rough

Jennifer Anzaldi — Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:55:45 +0000

How Negotiators Should Decide Whether to Play Nice or Rough Jennifer Anzaldi Fri, 04/29/2022 - 12:55

In This Story

Einav Hart

Playing hardball in a negotiation may help attain better deals in some situations, but often results in damaged relationships. Should you care? The standard view of negotiations and most negotiation advice leaves relationships out of the equation. It ignores the fact that value is created throughout the life of a business relationship, not only at the negotiating table. For example, if your negotiation counterpart feels strong-armed or upset with you, they may come away from the deal never wanting to see you again. Or, worse, their resentment could develop into a spiteful determination to harm you after an agreement has been reached—such as by slacking off on the job or leaving work earlier.

Einav Hart, an assistant professor of management at �鶹��Ƶ’s School of Business, shows the economic implications of negotiators’ relationships, and how these economic implications affect how people negotiate. Her recent paper in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (co-authored with Maurice Schweitzer at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) introduces the construct “ERRO” (the Economic Relevance of negotiators’ Relational Outcomes) to shed light on when negotiators should consider their future relationships.

In an online essay for Psychology Today, Hart and Schweitzer summarize their research that “underscores the importance of post-negotiation behavior, to identify when you should negotiate aggressively—and when you should not."

“ERRO reflects the extent to which a negotiator’s relational outcomes impact their counterpart’s post-negotiation behavior in a way that ultimately impact their final economic outcome,” the researchers write.

The laboratory experiments conducted for this paper were among the first to include a post-negotiation stage (see also Hart and Schweitzer’s 2020 paper). The dual-phase structure enabled the researchers to distinguish high-ERRO contexts (in which damaging relationships to ensure short-term negotiation wins could harm your bottom line) from low-ERRO contexts (in which relationships are less economically significant).

For example, participants in one of the experiments played the role of a boss, negotiating salary with a new sales employee. The bosses’ payoff would depend on either the employee’s effort (reflecting a high-ERRO context), or on luck (reflecting a low-ERRO context). Participants not only rated their relationship with the employee as more important in the high-ERRO context, but also chose to negotiate less aggressively in the high-ERRO context than in the low-ERRO context—sometimes leaving money on the table in favor of building better relationships. This “softer” strategy paid off: Employees exerted much less effort for bosses who were aggressive. In the experiments, participants’ payoffs were dependent on their decisions. In real life, these decisions would have meaningful consequences for employee productivity, and thus economic outcomes for the company.

“Our research shows that in high ERRO contexts, better economic outcomes require better relationships. That is, in high ERRO contexts, the best way to obtain high economic value is to build a great relationship with your counterpart,” Hart and Schweitzer write.

In Psychology Today, the researchers describe the main implications of their research for negotiators.

The first step, they write, is to figure out whether you’re in a high-ERRO or low-ERRO context. To accomplish this, ask yourself how economically important it is that your counterpart walks away from this encounter with high morale. “Would [developing a great relationship] improve the value of the outcome you receive? If instead, you had developed a poor relationship with your counterpart, would that diminish the value you receive?”

The next step is to tailor the strategies you use to your assessment of ERRO. In a low-ERRO context, aggressive tactics may work fine, because they are less likely to detract from the desired outcome. In high-ERRO contexts, collaborative tactics, relationship-building and even bending a little on some key demands may generate more value in the end—while competitive tactics may harm the relationship and, in turn, the economic outcome.

When you negotiate, you should also remember that the same situation could be low-ERRO for you and high-ERRO for the counterpart(s), or vice versa. Think of a relationship with a service provider such as a dry cleaner or auto mechanic. You might want to establish a warm relationship with them, in hopes that they’ll take special care of your delicate possessions. This is even more crucial when it comes to housekeepers, caterers, and babysitters. But if the provider’s own economic outcome does not depend on their relationship with you (e.g., if you’ve agreed to a fixed price), they might view exchanges with you as a low-ERRO context. In this case, they may negotiate more assertively and not value the relationship themselves.

Assessing ERRO accurately for both yourself and those you negotiate with will help you figure out whether you should be fighting a battle or forging an alliance, and even whether you choose to negotiate at all.

Topics