The Transformative Role of Norms: From Values to Behavior and Back
Norms play a key role in organizations, defining what is considered a desirable and
appropriate behavior in a particular organizational setting (e.g., Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill,
Lawrence, 2001; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Employees are exposed to various organizational
contexts and are mindful to the normative knowledge prompted by context. Consequently
employees aim to adapt their behavior to fit the norms salient in a specific context. This
symposium sheds new light on the interplay between the organizational context, norms and
behavior, by combining two perspectives of norms. The first two presentations focus on the way
cultural and professional values are translated into norms,influencing behavior. Taking a "topdown" perspective, these presentations describe how norms transform the abstract into the
concrete. Taking a "bottom-up" perspective, the second two presentations focus on the way
behavioral norms emerge from the immediate context of the task.
The first two presentations focus on well defined contexts with established normative
knowledge: Arieli, Elster and Sagivhypothesize and confirm that cultural mindset impacts how
people approach a problem (i.e., their working norms), which in turn influences performance.
They study different problems that call for different working norms. Rubel- Lifschitz and
Sagivdescribe how the norms of a professional environment (the extent to which they legitimize
power) moderate the impact of power differences within dyadic teams on creative performance.
The last two presentations show that individuals are likely to consistently act according to
desirable norms even when it is no longer beneficial: Nakashima, Halali, Samson, and Halevy
show that a third-party intervention establishes cooperative norms even following a history of
competition or when incentives are no longer used to enforce cooperative behavior. Similarly,
Vashdi, Bamberger and Erez, show that action teams are prone to employ supportive
communication norms even when it actually interferes with the performance-oriented behaviors
of at least some team members.
Varying in methods and participants, the four presentations in the proposed symposium
offer rich evidence for the complex associations between organizational context, norms, and
performance. The combination between field studies and cutting-edge lab experiments promotes
a deeper understanding of the key role norms play in the performance of individualsand teams.
Cultural Mindset, Norms and Problem-Solving: The Role of Language in Facilitating
Problem-Solving
Sharon Arieli1, Andrey Elster2, and Lilach Sagiv2
1
The Open University of Israel, 2The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
A cultural mindset is a sense-making framework containing the norms, procedures, and
goals of a specific cultural orientation(Oyserman, 2011). Thus for example, the cultural mindset
of individualism evokes norms of standing out, whereas the cultural mindset of collectivism
evokes norms of assimilation. In this research we study the impact of cultural mindset on
performance in problem solving.We propose that cultural mindset influences how people
approach a problem (e.g., the normative context), which in turn impact performance. To test this
proposition we studied various types of problems, including problems that are more likely to be
solved under individualistic norms (e.g., requires originality) and problems that are more likely to
be solved under collectivistic norms (e.g., requires context-based thinking).
People have a chronic tendency to employ an individualistic or collectivistic mindset,
depending on the type of culture they grew in. However, since cultures are not strictly
individualistic or collectivistic, but are rather composed of both orientations, individuals can shift
from one mindset to another, depending on the situation (Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, & Chen,
2009; Schwartz, 1999; Triandis, 1995). Researchers used various situational cues to
experimentally prime individualistic versus collectivistic mindsets (Oyserman& Lee, 2008). In
this research we used language as a prime for cultural mindset. For that aim, we studied Arab
citizens in Israel who are fluent in both Arabic and Hebrew. Relatively to the dominant Israeli
culture, the Arabic culture endorses collectivism more that individualism(Cohen, 2007;
Oyserman, 1993; Schwartz, 1999). We therefore expected the Arabic language to prime a
collectivistic mindset and the Hebrew language to prime an individualistic mindset.
Study 1 focused on problems that require novelty and originality, and are thus congruent
with the norms elicited by the cultural mindset of individualism. The participants (81) were
presented with a problem in the domain of new product development and were asked to propose
novelideasfor how it could be solved. As hypothesized, the results indicated that language has a
direct effect on the originality expressed by the participants, such that participants in the Hebrew
condition generated ideas that are more rare (i.e., original) than those in the Arabic condition (M
= 7.61 vs. 9.22), F(1,70) = 4.58; p = .036.
Study 2 investigated two types of insight problems: Rule-based and context-based. Rulebased problems are problems in which a solution is more likely to emerge by identifying a rule
and applying it. These problems thus require analytical, systematic thinking. Context-based
problem, in contrast, are more likely to be solved by considering the context and the relationships
between elements. These problems thus require holistic, associative thinking. Research has
shown (Arieli&Sagiv, 2015) that individualism facilitates success in solving rule-based problems,
whereas collectivism facilitates success in context-based problems. Results of an experiment
among 102 Arab citizens in Israel showed that problemtype (rule-based vs. context-based)
moderates the association between language (Arabic vs. Hebrew) and performance:Arabic
facilitates performance in context-based problems, whereas Hebrew facilitates performance in
rule-based problems.
This research shows the power of language as an unobtrusive cultural prime. Pointing to the
role of language in inducing the norms of the cultural mindsets, our findings provide a new
perspective to evaluate organizational policies that aim to establish lingual homogeneity (e.g., "one
language fits all"). Switching from one language to another may change the cultural mindset of
employees and managers, and consequently affect their performance. By matching the language
with the task in question organizations may improve performance of employees.
The Normative Context of Power: Implications for Dyadic Creative Performance
Tammy Rubel – Lifschitz and LilachSagiv
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dyadic power relations are inherent in various work processes. Planning a new project with
your manager, co-counseling with a senior partner or writing a paper with your adviser all
include power differences. Cross cultural studies suggests that the normative context of power
plays an important role in the way power is perceived (Zhong et al., 2006; Torelli and Shavitt,
2010) and exercised (Kopelman, 2009). The current research contributes to the existing literature
by examining how the normative context of power influences dyadic creative performance.
Organizations and organizational units differ in the extent to which they transmit, promote
and legitimize power values (Sagiv& Schwartz, 2007). Business schools, for example, endorse
power values such as wealth, dominance and control. In this normative context, power
differences are considered highly legitimate. Social work schools, on the other hand, endorse
universalism values, such as equality and social justice. In this normative context, power
differences are something that should be challenged and overcome (Knafo&Sagiv, 2004; Arieli,
Sagiv, & Cohen-Shalem, 2015). We suggest that the normative context of power will interact
with actual power differences in affecting dyadic creative performance.
Study 1 was designed to investigate a preliminary hypothesis that power differences within
a dyad will hider mutual creative performance. Past research suggests that though power can
increase creativity among individuals (Galinsky et al., 2008), it harms communicative processes,
and could consequently impair dyadic creative performance (for reviews see Anderson & Brown,
2010; Galinsky et al, 2014; Magee and Smith, 2013; Keltner et al, 2003). We therefore
hypothesized that power will have a negative effect on dyadic creative performance, which will
be stronger in tasks that require extensive social interaction.
Participants included 148 university students, randomly assigned into dyads. Dyads created
either a poster (high-social interaction) or a slogan (low social interaction) advertising their
institution. To manipulate power, half of the dyads were told that in case they win, they could
decide together how to divide a cash reward (equal-power). The rest were told that in case they
win s/he would decide how to divide the reward (power differences). Following the task
completion, the participants voted for the most creative product, and two expert judges rated the
creativity of each outcome. As hypothesized, the products of equal dyads were rated as more
creative in the highly interactive poster task - but not in the less interactive slogan task, among
expert judges (F (1, 74) =4.008, p<0.05) and among students (F (1, 74) = 5.08, p<0.05).
Study 2 was designed to investigate whether the detrimental effect of power on dyadic
creative performance depends on the normative context of power. We hypothesized that the
detrimental effect will decrease when power is legitimized, and increase when power is delegitimized. Participants were 88 MBA students at the business school (a normative context that
legitimizes power) and 64 MA students at the Social Work school (de-legitimacy of power).
Procedure was the same as in the poster condition in Study 1. Results replicate the detrimental
effect of power on dyad’s creativity: Expert judges rated the posters of equal dyads as more
creative than those of dyads with power differences (F(1,74)=7.28, p<.01). Also as hypothesized,
this detrimental effect of power was larger among social work students than among business
students. The difference between the creative performance of equal and unequal dyads was
significant for social work (t=2.704, p<.01) but not for business students (t=.996, p=ns).
To manipulate the normative context, the students in Study 2 were asked to advertise their
school. Consequently,their personal value priorities were confounded with the normative context
of the organization. To overcome this limitation, in Study 3 the same students (business) were
asked to advertise one of two targets, that differ in their normative context. Thus, all students had
similar value priorities, but the normative context differed. Participants were 130 BA business
students, randomly assigned into dyads. Power was manipulated using a recall task (adapted from
Galinsky et al., 2003). Dyads were then asked to produce a poster advertising either the business
school (a normative context that legitimizes power) or the university (control). As expected,
dyads primed with equal-power were more creative when they were asked to advertise the
university, whereas dyads primed with high-power or low-power were more creative when they
advertised the business school. This pattern was consistent across expert judges (F(1,82)=2.67,
p=.10) and student ratings (F(1,84)=4.02, p<.05).
Overall, the three studies suggest that power has a detrimental effect on dyadic creative
performance, whichdecreases when the normative context legitimizes power. The study
contributes to our understanding of the conditions that contribute and hinder dyadic creative
performance, and may be useful in designing fruitful collaborative efforts in organizations.
Third-Parties as Norm Changers: Third-Party Intervention in Repeated Conflicts
Nathaniel Nakashima, EliranHalali, Ophir Samson, &Nir Halevy*
Stanford University, Graduate School of Business*presenting author
Third-parties have played a pivotal role in peacemaking since the dawn of history. Yet,
little is known about how voluntary, informal third-party intervention in conflict influences
disputants’ behavior or when and why third-parties choose to intervene in others’ conflicts.
Recent research introduced the Peacemaker Game to study the interdependence between
disputants and third-parties in conflict (Halevy &Halali, 2015). The Peacemaker Game involves
two disputants and a third-party. The disputants choose to cooperate or compete; the third-party
chooses whether or not to intervene in the conflict. A third-party’s decision to intervene
introduces side-payments (rewards for cooperation, punishments for competition) that transform
the conflict from a highly competitive situation, captured by a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, to a
highly cooperative situation, captured by a Maximizing Difference game. To reflect real world
tradeoffs between intervening and not intervening in a conflict, a third-party’s choice to intervene
in the Peacemaker Game is risky: Not getting involved in a conflict results in a fixed, but small,
payoff to the third-party, whereas choosing to intervene makes the third-party vulnerable to the
choices of the disputants. If the disputants choose to engage in conflict, then the third-party loses
the resources invested in intervening. However, if the disputants behave cooperatively, the
benefits of peaceful coexistence shared by the disputants also produces gains for the third-party.
Research using a one-shot version of the Peacemaker Game demonstrated that the mere
possibility of third-party intervention significantly increases cooperation among disputants.
Conflict, however, is seldom a one-time occurrence; rather, conflict is often experienced in the
context of on-going, long-term relationships between parties. In this paper, we focus on repeated
conflicts and investigate: (a) How introducing the possibility of third-party intervention after a
history of conflict influences disputants’ tendencies to cooperate and third-parties’ own
tendencies to intervene in the conflict; and (b) How removing the possibility of third-party
intervention influences disputants’ tendencies to cooperate (i.e. whether and to what extent
cooperation is maintained after the possibility of third-party intervention is no longer available).
We introduce a repeated-game version of the Peacemaker Game in which parties make
decisions and receive real-time feedback on everyone’s choices and outcomes for 60 rounds. We
employ a between-subject design with two conditions. In the Early Intervention condition, thirdparties can only intervene in rounds 1-30 of the game; in the Late Intervention condition, thirdparties can only intervene in rounds 31-60 of the game.
Our sample consisted of 48 3-person groups, 24 in each of the two experimental
conditions, resulting in a total of 7,200 decisions by disputants and third-parties. Disputants in the
Late Intervention condition cooperated approximately 47% of the time in rounds 1-30 of the
game; introducing the possibility of third-party intervention increased their cooperation rates to
79% in rounds 31-60. Third-parties in the Late Intervention condition intervened at relatively
high rates (85%) despite observing a prior history of conflict between disputants. Disputants in
the Early Intervention condition cooperated approximately 92% of the time in rounds 1-30
(during which third-parties intervened 99% of the time); they continued to cooperate at high
levels (85%) even after the possibility of third-party intervention was removed in rounds 31-60.
Our research advances knowledge of peacemaking in repeated conflicts by third-parties.
First, third-parties appear to be willing to assume the risk associated with trying to promote
cooperation despite observing disputants’ prior history of conflict. Second, third-party
intervention has a lasting effect on disputants’ maintenance of cooperation even after third-parties
no longer have the ability to intervene. These findings highlight the potential benefits of
constructively engaging third-parties in conflict as game changers who alter preferences and
behavior, thereby transforming harmful competition into collectively beneficial cooperation.
Is supportive communication always effective? The moderating effect of task complexity on
the relationship between supportive communication and performance in healthcare action
teams
Dana R. Vashdi1, Peter A. Bamberger2 and Miriam Erez3
1
The University of Haifa, 2Tel Aviv University, 3Technion
Communication has been theorized as the essence of social systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
and at the heart of group behavior (Shaw, 1981). Empirical studies have shown team
communication to play a critical role in enhancing team performance (Dionne, et al., 2004;
Gardner, Gino, &Staats, 2012; Smith et al., 1994). Most studies of team communication focus on
the frequency or quality of the team communication. Yet, communication scholars, have claimed
that beyond its actual content every message communicates about itself (Pearce and Conklin
1979; Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson 1967). This has been called the communication form.
Thus, beyond frequency and quality of communication, it is likely that the form of the
communication will also impact team performance.
In the current study we introduce supportive communication which delineates a general
form of team communications that is accepting and appreciative and propose that it will be
related to team performance as apparent in the team members behaviors.In the current study we
concentrate on a specific type of team, action teams, and propose that while supportive
communication may be an important influence on team performance generally, it is particularly
important for the performance of action teams. Action teams are defined as "teams whose highly
skilled members cooperate to perform urgent, unpredictable, interdependent, and highly
consequential tasks while simultaneously coping with frequent changes in team composition and
training their teams’ novice members” (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006,p. 590). Thus, the
communication form between team members may be of special importance in action teams in
that the more positive and supportive the communications between team members are the better
the team performance will be, as such communications are likely to “kick start” the kind of
reciprocal, pro-social inter-relating behaviors that in long term teams result from well-established
team norms (Nielson et al., 2010; Grant, 2007). However, while intuitively one would assume
that supportive communication is likely to have positive effects for action teams in any context,
the intense nature of activity characteristic of some of these teams, may actually create a situation
in which such communication does more harm than good. Specifically, as such action teams are
often performing highly complex tasks, which demand extreme amounts of focus, as lives may be
at stake (Vashdi, Bamberger &Erez, 2013), such supportive communication may actually hamper
performance as it draws members’ attention away from the tasks at hand. Accordingly, the
performance-related impact of supportive communication may be equivocal. We propose to
solve this conundrum by taking the nature of team tasks into account, positing that team task
complexity moderates the relationship between supportive communications and performance.
Using a sample of 409 surgical teams from a healthcare center in Israel we find that while
the extent to which the communication among team members is supportive does not have a main
effect on such teams’ performance, such a relationship is apparent when tasks are relatively
simple. In contrast, under conditions of high task complexity, supportive communication actually
interferes with the performance-oriented behaviors of at least some team members.
As research on communication has emphasized that the content of any communication
only provides a low percentage of the message with nonverbal aspects actually conveying most
of the message (Mehrabian 1972, Guerrero & Floyd, 2006; Burgoon et al., 1996) this study
emphasizes the need for more overarching theories of team communication including more than
content and frequency. In addition, this study stresses that beyond including more aspects of team
communication when theorizing regarding enhanced team performance, context is also critical.
Leaning on theories of emotional and cognitive resources we contribute to mid level team
theories by suggesting an offset effect of supportive communication in regard to its contribution
to team performance. When cognitive load is high people are less likely to be involved in
perspective taking (Roβnagel, 2000), making team members less aware that their fellow team
mates are in need for help or information. Thus, even if supportive communication is high, in
highly complex situations, team members may not benefit from it.