Summary
Summary Organizational Psychology articles
- Course
- Institution
Organizational Psychology articles summary
[Show more]
3 reviews
By: wishaanmanichand • 2 year ago
By: tamaraprokic • 3 year ago
By: benjaminochmann1 • 4 year ago
Seller
Followmereldelaat
Reviews received
Content preview
Artikelen1. Attitudes and emotions
Brescoll
Can angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace
Men who expressed anger in a professional context were conferred higher status than men who
expressed sadness. However, both male and female evaluators conferred lower status on angry
female professionals than on angry male professionals. This was the case regardless of the actual
occupational rank of the target, such that both a female trainee and a female CEO were given lower
status if they expressed anger than if they did not. Whereas women’s emotional reactions were
attributed to internal characteristics, men’s emotional reactions were attributed to external
circumstances. Providing an external attribution for the target person’s anger eliminated the gender
bias.
Displays of certain emotions, such as anger, can communicate that an individual is competent and is
entitled to high social status. In another study was found that men who expressed anger in
professional settings were more likely to be hired than men who expressed sadness and were also
given more status, power, and independence in their jobs.
Professional women who express anger may experience a decrease, rather than an increase,
in their status. Women are expected to be kinder and more modest than men, and they evoke
negative responses from other people if they fail to conform to this prescriptive stereotype. Female
professionals who express anger violate this feminine norm and therefore may not experience the
boost in status enjoyed by angry men.
In Rudman an Fairchild’s integrative model of stereotype-based backlash,
counterstereotypical actions are expectancy violations that provoke negative reactions from social
perceivers. However, this backlash occurs only if a justification for derogating the
counterstereotypical individual is available. In typical workplace situations in which a woman has
expressed anger, there is probably enough ambiguity about the reason for her anger that some basis
for derogation can be found.
Kelley’s attribution model stipulates that when a person’s behavior is characterized by low
consensus, social perceivers are likely to attribute the behavior to internal characteristics. According
to this model, because anger and pride are the only emotions that people believe men express more
than women, a woman’s anger should be seen as internally caused rather than externally instigated.
People should view a man’s anger as a response to objective, external circumstances, but a woman’s
anger as a product of her personality.
- Study I examined whether participants conferred lower status on a angry woman than on an
angry man and whether attributions for emotional reactions underlay the relation between
expression of anger and conferral of status.
- Study II examined whether any low-status individual, and not just women, would be given
low status after expressing anger and whether the internal attribution that angry female
targets were ‘out of control’ mediated the relation between expression of anger and
conferral of status.
- Study III examined whether an angry woman who offered an external attribution for her
anger would be accorded status as high as that of an angry man. People should view a man’s
anger as a response to objective, external circumstances, but a woman’s anger as a product
of her personality. As a result, a woman who expresses anger in the workplace will be
accorded lower status than a man who does the same, unless she emphasizes the external
circumstances that caused her anger.
,Study I
Status conferral: four items assessing how much status, power, and independence the candidate
deserved in his or her future job. Participants conferred higher status on the angry male target than
on the sad male target. Participants also conferred significantly higher status on the angry male than
on the angry female. Participants conferred significantly higher status on the sad female than on the
angry female.
Salary: yearly salary they would pay the target. Participants were willing to pay the angry male more
than the sad male, and significantly more than the angry female. Participants were willing to pay the
angry female marginally less than the sad female.
Competence: rating the target on the trait dimensions of competent-incompetent and
knowledgeable-ignorant. Participants viewed the angry male as significantly more competent than
the sad male. Participants also viewed the angry male as significantly more competent than the angry
female. The sad female was not seen as significantly more competent than the angry female.
Attributions: two questions assessed internal and two questions external attributions. Participants
attributed the woman’s anger more to internal factors and less to external factors than the male’s
anger. Attributions partially mediated the effects of expressing anger on the status accorded female
professionals. When controlled for attributions, the coefficient reduced, but the effects of anger
remained significant, which suggests that attributions partially accounted for the observed effects.
Hypothesis: an interaction between emotion and the target’s gender.
Expected to find that an angry man receives higher status, a higher salary, and higher competence
ratings than a sad man. Also that participants would give the angry woman lower status and lower
salary than the angry man, would perceive here as less competent than the angry man, and would be
more likely to attribute her anger than his to internal, dispositional causes.
Expressing anger is an effective means of attaining higher status for professional men, but not for
professional women.
Study II
Comparing anger and expressing no emotion. Varying the target’s occupational rank. Perhaps angry
women are given lower status than angry men simply because women, on average, have lower status
than men initially. Attempting to clarify why angry women are accorded low status by employing a
more targeted measure of internal attributions. To the extent that anger is attributed to the
individual’s personality rather than external circumstances, expressing that anger is likely to be
perceived as a self-regulation failure.
Hypothesis: participants would view an angry woman as being out of control, and that this internal
attribution would help explain why angry women are accorded low status.
Competence, status conferral, and salary allocation. In addition an ‘in control’ or ‘out of control’
person.
Status conferral: women were accorded lower status when they expressed anger than when they
were unemotional. For the male targets, only a main effect of target’s occupational rank emerged.
Salary: salary for the female targets was not based on their occupational rank, but rather was based
on whether the targets expressed anger or remained unemotional. Participants were willing to pay
the unemotional female targets more than the angry female targets, even when the targets were
high-rank CEO’s. Participants were willing to pay the male CEO’s more than the male trainees,
regardless of their expression of emotion.
Competence: two-way and three-way interaction.
Perceptions of angry women as out of control would explain their failure to attain high status. For
female targets, expression of anger was significantly related to the internal attribution of being out of
control and status conferral. Internal attribution was related to status conferral.
Angry women are accorded lower status than angry men, and indicated that this is true regardless of
the woman’s actual function. Attributions appear to play a role in this phenomenon: people may
confer low status on an angry woman because they see her behavior as arising from something deep
,and inherent – from her being an angry and out-of-control person. if inherent, internal attributions
underlie this phenomenon, then an intervention designed to direct attributions away from internal
factors and toward external factors might be effective at mitigating the bias.
Study III
Hypothesis: if an angry female professional provides an objective, external reason for being angry,
she should evoke less negative reactions. The potential effectiveness of such an intervention is also
supported by Rudman and Fairchild’s integrative model of stereotype-based backlash.
Status conferral: angry male without an external attribution received significantly higher status than
the unemotional male, and the angry male with an external attribution. The angry female target who
provided an external attribution for her anger received significantly higher status than the angry
female target who did not provide an external attribution, but did not receive higher status than the
unemotional female target.
Salary: although having an external attribution for her anger gave the angry female target a boost in
status, it apparently did not influence perceptions of her competence.
For men, expressing anger may heighten status: men who expressed anger in a professional context
were generally conferred higher status than men who expressed sadness.
For women, however, expressing anger had the opposite effect: professional women who
expressed anger were consistently accorded lower status and lower wages, and were seen as less
competent, than angry men and unemotional women. Women’s occupational rank did not influence
status conferral, salary allocation, or judgments of competence, as it did influence for men. The
derogated status of angry women appeared to be due to the degree to which their behavior was
seen as internally motivated – in particular, to the perception that they were out of control. But
when an angry woman offered an external attribution for her anger, she did not suffer the same loss
in perceived status and competence.
Women who promote their abilities are perceived as less likeable and less hireable than
women who do not promote their abilities – but they are still seen as competent. The explanation for
why self-promoting women are seen as competent, but angry women are seen as relatively
incompetent, may be that women who self-promote are explicitly asserting their competence,
whereas angry women are not – they are simply emoting.
Although women’s anger appears to be sanctioned in a professional context, it may not be
sanctioned in a family context.
2. Psychology of teams
Allen
The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and
implications
A belief in the effectiveness of teams – among mangers, employees and the general lay population –
seems very strong.
Romance of teams is defined as a faith in the effectiveness of team-based work that is not supported
by, or is even inconsistent with, relevant empirical evidence. ‘real’ interacting groups are believed to
generate more ideas than do several individuals working alone, whose ideas are merely combined
after the fact. Numerous studies provide strong evidence that interacting groups actually generate
far fewer or, at best, the same number of ideas, as compared with the combined efforts of several
individuals working alone.
The goal of this paper is to provide a psychological account of the development and
maintenance of this puzzling faith in the effectiveness of teams. A secondary goal is to outline the
implications that this faith might have for organizations, research and employees. Supporting the
claim that this romantic view of teams actually exists is a necessary first step.
, The romance of teams: juxtaposing beliefs and evidence
Two lines of evidence were considered in order to make the case that a ‘romance of teams’ exists.
One addresses current faith in the effectiveness of team-based work; the second examines the actual
effectiveness of teams. When juxtaposed, these lines of evidence illuminate the romance of teams.
Beliefs about the effectiveness of team-based work structures
The first evidence that there is a strong belief in team effectiveness, particularly among managers, is
that teams are used very widely. The implementation of teams is one of the most common
organizational changes over the last 20 years. Those who implement teams, believe they are highly
effective.
The second piece of evidence regarding a belief in the effectiveness of teams, among
managers, employees and the general population, has to do with the strong positive social value that
seems inextricably linked with teamwork. Teams seem to have ‘irresistible social appeal’. This social
appeal is captured in two powerful themes that emerge from the rhetoric on teams. One is the idea
that everyone is unique and, hence, has something unique to contribute to team performance.
Together Everyone Achieves More. Another theme is that people should be involved in decisions that
affect them – clearly, a socially attractive notion and one that resonates with the ideas of
empowerment, participation, democracy, grassroots involvement, and the like.
Evidence regarding the effectiveness of team-based work structures
A team is considered to be two or more people working interdependently toward the achievement of
a common goal.
- Laboratory research
Two general questions. The first is whether a group’s performance exceeds that which could be
accomplished by any given individual member working alone; the second is whether the combination
of work done by several people, working alone, is better or worse than accomplished by several
people working together.
Are two (or more) heads better than one? It appears that group performance often exceeds
that of individuals. By itself: compared with one person, ‘N + 1’ people represent a greater
investment of time and effort and, potentially, more task-relevant resources. This effect is not always
observed. One could argue that comparing one individual’s performance with that of a group is not
the fairest test of team effectiveness. More appropriate is a comparison of the performance of
groups in which members work together (interacting groups) with the combined performance of the
same number of individuals working alone (nominal groups). In existing literature it has been well
documented that interacting groups produce the same number or, typically, significantly fewer
creative ideas and ideas of lower quality, than do nominal groups.
Comparisons of nominal and interacting groups have also been made with respect to several
decision-making/judgment tasks. Most of this research shows that interacting groups perform either
no differently or significantly worse than nominal groups on a variety of such tasks. Interacting
groups recall significantly less learned material than do nominal groups.
Overall, there appears only minimal evidence that group activity offers performance
advantages compared with combining the performance of the same number of individuals working
alone or, even, by a single talented individual.
- Field research
The comparisons made in the field research differ from those made in lab research. Field research
examining team effectiveness relies either on comparisons made before and after teams are
implemented or on comparisons made between traditionally designed work and team-based work.
However, in many cases the implementation is bundled with several other management practices,
making it difficult to determine whether the results observed are attributable to teams per se.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mereldelaat. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.21. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
49497 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now