OB 206 Organizational Behavior Slides PDF

OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Or...

OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 1 Class Structure Making Good Getting People on Building Managing Decisions Board Community Relationships Negotiation Decision Making Persuasion Culture Day 7 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Mediating Conflict Judging Others Motivation Social Networks Day 8 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6 Communication Day 9 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 4 Contact Ashley Martin Information Office: Knight, E210 [email protected] Jack Lin [email protected] Sophia Rivera [email protected] Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 5 Class Structure Making Good Getting People on Building Managing Decisions Board Community Relationships Negotiation Decision Making Persuasion Culture Day 7 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Mediating Conflict Judging Others Motivation Social Networks Day 8 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6 Communication Day 9 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 6  CLASS 1 Making Decisions OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 8 Today's Essential Questions How do individuals make (good) decisions? What are the most common decision- making traps? How do you overcome them? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 9 Agenda Discuss Debrief Speed Ventures Analysis of Individual Understanding how Discussion Debrief Exercise & Team Performance team composition & processes affect performance Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior  Speed Ventures To race or not to race? Do you know this case? ꟷ Find a space (classroom or close outside) ꟷ Reach a group decision (20 minutes) ꟷ Nominate one person to be spokesperson (“Pat”) Feel free to invite Jessie the mechanic (me), if you have any difficulties Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 11 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 16  To race or not to race? YES or NO? Let’s Discuss! Pats, raise your hands! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 17 RACE? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 18 To race or not to race? Don’t Race Race Withdraw (100% chance) Finish in top 5 (50% chance) Partial Refund to entry fee: $15,000 Goodstone: $2,000,000 x.5 = $1,000,000 Return part of the Goodstone money: -$25,000 Blow Engine (29% chance) Lost Oil sponsorship: -$800,000 x.29 = -$232,000 Replace engine: -$50,000 x.29 = -$14,500 TOTAL (Expected Value): -$10,000 TOTAL (Expected Value): $753,500 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 19 NOT RACE? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 20  Races with gasket failures 4 Breaks in Head Gasket during Each Race 3 2 1 0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Ambient Air Temperature (F) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Races without gasket failures 4 3 Number of Races 2 1 0 60 65 70 75 80 85 Ambient Air Temperature (F) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior  Races with and without gasket failures 4 Breaks in Head Gasket during Each Race 3 2 1 0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Ambient Air Temperature (F) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Chance of gasket failure using combined data Races with Percentage of Temperature (F) Total races gasket failures races with failures 80 1 0 0% Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 24 To race or not to race? Don’t Race Race Withdraw (100% chance) Finish in top 5 (50% chance) Partial Refund to entry fee: $15,000 Goodstone: $2,000,000 x.5 = $1,000,000 Return part of the Goodstone money: -$25,000 Blow Engine (29% chance) Lost Oil sponsorship: -$800,000 x.29 = -$232,000 Replace engine: -$50,000 x.29 = -$14,500 TOTAL (Expected Value): -$10,000 TOTAL (Expected Value): $753,500 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 25 To race or not to race? Don’t Race Race Withdraw (100% chance) Finish in top 5 (0% chance) Partial Refund to entry fee: $15,000 Goodstone: $2,000,000 x 0 = $0 Return part of the Goodstone money: -$25,000 Blow Engine (100% chance) Lost Oil sponsorship: -$800,000 x 1.0 = -$800,000 Replace engine: -$50,000 x 1.0 = -$50,000 TOTAL (Expected Value): -$10,000 TOTAL (Expected Value): -$850,000 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 26 You Need All Four Cells! Cold Hot Temperatures Temperatures Gasket Failures No Gasket Problems ? ? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 27  You need all four cells! Decisions made with only half the data are inherently flawed “Sampling on the Dependent Variable” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 28 Lung Cancer Lung No Lung Cancer Cancer.056% of Smoker 56 99,944 Smokers Get Lung Cancer Non- 8 99,936 Smoker 88% of Lung Cancer Patients are Smokers Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Per year/100,000 people 29 Sampling on the Dependent Variable in Paractice Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 30  What situation was the case based on? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 33 Challenger disaster Jan 28, 1986 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 34 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 35 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 36 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 37 Fallacy: Smart people makes smart decisions Reality: Powerful brains have powerful biases Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 38 Cognitive Heuristics ꟷ Confirmation (sampling on DV) ꟷ Consistency (Dissonance/Escalation) ꟷ Over Confidence ꟷ Default (Status-Quo) ꟷ Framing (Loss Aversion) ꟷ Availability Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 44  Confirmation “I’ll believe it when I see it” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 45 We seek out confirmatory information...and ignore disconfirming information We seek information supporting our existing beliefs We avoid/dismiss information inconsistent with our beliefs Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 46 We seek out confirmatory information Results of fictitious “death penalty study” reviewed by those for vs. against Information Condition (Does vs. Does not prevent crime) For Against Focused on shortcomings Pro-Capital Maintained Strengthened (Pro- vs. Anti CP) Individual Punishment Beliefs Beliefs Beliefs Focused on shortcomings Anti-Capital Strengthened Maintained Punishment Beliefs Beliefs Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 47 Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979  Consistency “You can count on me” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 51 We like to be (and be seen) as consistent Cognitive dissonance ꟷ When two things are inconsistent, it creates discomfort ꟷ People seek to reduce inconsistency Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 52 Three ways of reducing cognitive dissonance: Adjust your behavior Adjust your belief Rationalize (stop smoking!) (“research has not definitely proven (“a short life filled with smoking is that smoking causes cancer”) better than a long healthy one”) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior We like to be (and be seen) as consistent Cognitive dissonance ꟷ When 2 things are inconsistent, it creates discomfort ꟷ People seek to reduce inconsistency Escalation of commitment ꟷ Because we want to be seen as consistent, we will continue on a course of action consistent with initial decision...even in the face of negative prospects Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 54 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 55  Over-confidence “I’m pretty great” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 56 Overconfidence Bias 93% of American drivers rate themselves as better than the median. “The most significant of the cognitive biases” ꟷ Daniel Kahneman Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Svenson, 1981 Who's going to heaven? Bill Clinton Michael Jordan Mother Theresa Yourself 52% 62% 76% 87% yes yes yes yes Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior (US News & World Report survey) 58  Default (Status Quo) Bias “go with the flow” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 62  Default Bias Organ Donations 99.98 98 99.91 99.997 99.5 99.64 100 90 85.9 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 27.5 20 17.17 12 10 4.25 0 Denmark Netherlands United Germany Austria Belgium France Hungary Poland Portugal Sweden Kingdom Opt-In Countries Opt-Out Countries Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 63  Opt-Out = Increased Participation Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 64  Framing “It’s all about how you spin it” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 66 Pandemic – AGAIN! America is preparing for the outbreak of a disease expected to kill 600k people. Two alternative strategies are considered, which one would you choose? STRATEGY A: ꟷ 200k people are saved STRATEGY B: ꟷ 33% probability that everyone is saved ꟷ 67% probability that no one is saved Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Tversky & Kahneman, 1981 67 Pandemic – AGAIN! America is preparing for the outbreak of a disease expected to kill 600k people. Two alternative strategies are considered, which one would you choose? STRATEGY A: ꟷ 400 people will die STRATEGY B: ꟷ 33% probability that everyone is saved ꟷ 67% probability that no one is saved Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Tversky & Kahneman, 1981 68 Pandemic – AGAIN! FRAMING STRATEGY A STRATEGY B 33% positive 200K everyone is saved people survive 66% no one is saved 72% 28% 33% negative 400K no one dies people die 66% everyone dies 22% 78% Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Tversky & Kahneman, 1981 69 Loss Aversion People tend to weigh losses (or perceived losses) more than gains (or perceived gains) when making decisions. REFERENCE POINT Value + THAT’S GOOD! OUTCOMES -$50 Losses - $50 Gains + Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences MUCH MORE PAIN Tversky and Kahneman 1981 Value - Framing Bias / Prospect Theory Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 70  Losses are more painful than gains are pleasurable Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 71 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 72  Help Prevent Death Help prevent someone’s death today! help prevent death. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 73 Blood Donations 1.4% 1.34% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.81% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% Gain Loss Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 74 Chou & Murningham, 2013; Plos One  The Endowment Effect Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 75 76 Endowment Effect $7.12 $2.87 Sellers Buyers SELLERS BUYERS (Have a Mug) (DON’T have a Mug) How much would How much would you SELL it for? you BUY it for? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 77  Availability “I’ve heard of this before...” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 78 Availability Heuristic Which events kill more people... War/civil conflict vs. diabetes 10x more death from diabetes Shark attacks vs. falling coconuts 30x more death from coconuts Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 79  Cognitive Heuristics ꟷ Reduce chaos and enhance coherence ꟷ Use mental resources efficiently ꟷ Create and maintain a positive sense of self ꟷ Avoid (costly) losses and increase gains Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 83...Back to the Challenger Disaster Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 85 Cognitive Biases − Engineers’ warnings were ignored Confirmation − Critical memos were not shared Consistency − NASA publicly announced the launch (Dissonance/Escalation) − “You’re going to change the decision the night before?!” Over Confidence − Smart people: “literally rocket scientists” − 100% success rate to date Availability − Under-estimated chance of disaster (no history of crashes) Default − NASA’s original plan assumed one flight per week (Status-Quo) − Classified as “operational” Framing − Morton-Thiokol concerned about the LOSS of future contracts (Loss Aversion) − Weaning interest in space program Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 87  Key Takeaway: “Good enough” decision-making is not good enough for important decisions But how do we overcome them? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 88 Recognize: When are biases most likely to occur? Time pressure Pressure from above Resource constraint Public commitment Threat of loss(es) Defaults are set Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 89 Overcoming Cognitive Biases Confirmation Request disconfirming info Consistency Don’t reveal preferences / Match actions to beliefs (Dissonance/Escalation) Over Confidence Devil’s advocate and diversity Availability Get (representative) data Default Be careful with the default (Status-Quo) Framing Frame strategically (Loss Aversion) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 90  Make sure you have all the data you need Key Takeaways Look out for biases for Making ꟷ Confirmation Decisions ꟷ Availability ꟷ Default ꟷ Framing ꟷ Consistency ꟷ Over-confidence Look out for factors that may amplify biases Impose structural solutions (...Friday) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 91 A bit more about the course... ꟷ Norms & Expectations ꟷ Grades & Exam Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 98  Participate (Dare to be wrong!) Don’t look the cases up Class Read the readings Norms Be on time No electronics Absences (Report to GSB/TAs, not to me) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 99  OB206: 2023 Edition 100 multiple choice questions 42 quiz questions Grading and 58 exam questions Exam Feedback More ways of assessment Applied demonstration of knowledge Participation Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 100  OB206: 2024 Edition Exam: Multiple choice (53%) Grading and Exam Application of knowledge: Case assignment (24%) Reflections (9%) Participation/Engagement Engagement (9%) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Case participation (5%) Let’s have a great class! Thank you! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 102 Three things (before you go) READ PRE- & RE-flections SHHH... Readings on Canvas Please do not discuss Before next class case Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 103  See you Friday! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 104  CLASS 2 Judging Others OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 1 Section 3: 8am Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Section 4: 10am Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Section 1: 4:25pm Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Class Structure Making Good Getting People on Building Managing Decisions Board Community Relationships Negotiation Decision Making Persuasion Culture Day 7 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Mediating Conflict Judging Others Motivation Social Networks Day 8 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6 Communication Day 9 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 5 Today's Essential Questions What are common biases that occur when evaluating others? How can we structure evaluations to overcome them? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 6 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 7 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 8 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 9 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 10 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 11  We make up our minds quickly Really quickly Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 12 Thin Slicing Participants watched a short clip of an unfamiliar teacher with the sound turned off They evaluated the teacher. Their evaluations were very similar to those made by those who had studied for an entire semester under that teacher. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 13 Who is more competent? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 14 Who is more competent? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 15 What’s in a face? r =.46, p <.001 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Todorov et al., Science 308, 1623 -1626 (2005) 16 Thin Slicing Salary Elections Sales Teacher ratings Divorce rates Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 17 First Impressions Impressions form quickly ꟷ We make assessments about others very quickly Impressions are hard to override ꟷ Once made, these assessments are hard to disrupt Impressions are consequential ꟷ First impressions affect a host of important consequences (e.g., hiring, salary) Take-Away: Nail the First Impression! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Impressions If first impressions were accurate, it’s not a problem that they’re fast, rigid, and powerful First impressions are systematically biased Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 19 Take a Guess... What am I like? ꟷ (A) Energetic vs. (B) Calm? ꟷ (A) Lenient vs. (B) Firm? ꟷ (A) Quiet vs. (B) Talkative? ꟷ (A) Serious vs. (B) Lighthearted? ꟷ (A) Optimistic vs. (B) Pessimistic? ꟷ (A) Introverted vs. (B) Extroverted? -3 0 +3 Ashley Much more Depends on Much more Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 20 Trait A Situation Trait B Tell me about you... What are you like? ꟷ (A) Energetic vs. (B) Calm ꟷ (A) Lenient vs. (B) Firm? ꟷ (A) Quiet vs. (B) Talkative? ꟷ (A) Serious vs. (B) Lighthearted? ꟷ (A) Optimistic vs. (B) Pessimistic? ꟷ (A) Introverted vs. (B) Extroverted? -3 0 +3 “You” Much more Depends on Much more Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 21 Trait A Situation Trait B Ratings More “Trait” 2 Fundamental Attribution Error 1 0 Me (Guess) You Me (Actual) Depends on Situation Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 22  Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) The tendency to exaggerate the role of internal characteristics (vs. situational factors) when explaining others behavior. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 23 Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) 607 Participants read either a 506 pro-Castro or an anti-Castro essay. Fundamental Pro-Castro Attitude 405 They were told the author could Attribution Error freely choose or was told to write it. 304 203 Participants then asked to judge Anti-Castro Anti-Castro Pro-Castro Pro-Castro author’s sentiment towards Castro. 102 01 Freely Chosen Assigned Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 24 Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) 90 Random role assignment for 80 “questioner” and “contestant” Perceived Intelligence 70 Questioner gets to choose 60 whichever questions they 50 want 40 30 Observers then rated the 20 intelligence of each 10 0 Ratings of questioner Ratings of contestant Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, JPSP 25 Self-serving bias Twist on Fundamental Attribution Error We tend to take the credit for our successes (high FAE), We blame situational factors for our failures (low FAE) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 26 Similar-to-me bias Tendency to perceive people similar to us more positively Bosses rate subordinates who are similar to themselves more positively than they deserve Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 27 Halo Effect 20 18 Students read an essay — 16 either well or poorly written 14 Halo Essay Quality 12 The essays were accompanied Effect 10 by authors pictures: attractive or 8 unattractive 6 Unattractive Unattractive 4 Students were then asked to rate the Attractive Attractive quality of the essay 2 0 Good Essay Poor Essay Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 28 Halo Effect Attractiveness is related to perceptions of... intelligence mental health kindness self-confidence success popularity sociability friendliness … trusworthiness Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 29  A quick test... Read these names Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 31 Who do you like better? Iktitaf or Jandra? Dilikli or Cividra? Enanwal or Kadirga? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 32 Mere Exposure Effect 40 Low Frequency Iktitaf Iktitaf High Frequency Afworbu Afworbu Saricik Saricik Biwojni 35 Biwojni Favorability of Attitude Nans… Nansoma Kadirga Kadirga Enan… Enanwal 30 Dilikli Dilikli Zabulon Zabulon Lokanta Lokanta 25 Jandra Jandra 0 1 2 5 10 25 Cividra Cividra Frequency 1 3 5 1 3 5 Rated “goodness” of Rated “goodness” of meaning Average Attitude towards meaning Photographs as a function of exposure Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 33 OB205 Flashback: Composition problem Strongest Predictors of interaction Physical Familiarity Similarity Proximity Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 34 Representativeness We evaluate people and events based on how closely they fit the most salient dimension of our stereotype(s) ꟷ Stereotypes guide our perception Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 35  A quick test: How many words can you remember? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 36  Write down as many names as you can recall Go! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 37  Recency and Primacy 100% Probability of Recall 50% 0% … i er r li c na w ol er la d ar in at o ot pl e at o ng a a flo c b a P e pk t arr p Gi G Ba n u li r oc um S m Po C A To m Ca B c Pu Cu Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 38 Last performer advanced 91% of the time Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 39 Candidates more likely to be voted for when listed first on ballot Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 40  Primacy and recency at work Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 41 Self-fulfilling prophecy We form certain We communicate People tend to Original beliefs of others our expectations respond to these expectation with various cues cues by adjusting becomes fulfilled their behavior Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 42 Self-fulfilling prophecy at work Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 43 Shifting Standards Participants (Men) must decide on best candidate (man vs. woman) Condition 1: Condition 2: Man has more Woman has more education education Woman has more Man has more experience experience 75% rated 43% rated education as education as more important more important Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 44 Why are these biases bad for business? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 45 When judging others, we: Cannot distinguish between situational influences and one’s character (FAE) Mistake beauty for talent (halo effect) Prefer those whom we have known for longer (mere exposure effect) Value those similar to us more (similar-to-me-bias) Unconsciously help those we are rooting for (self-fulfilling prophecy) Forget about those “in the middle” (recency and primacy biases) Cannot escape the first impression (first impression error) Rely on stereotypes (representativeness) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 46  Examples you’ve seen at work What might correct them? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 47  How to be fair and efficient when hiring, firing, and promoting? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 48 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 49 Validity Work Sampes Tests 0.54 Ability Tests 0.51 Structured Interviews 0.51 Job Knowledge Tests 0.48 Personality Questionnaires 0.4 Assessment Centres 0.37 Biodata 0.35 References 0.26 Unstructured Interviews Unstructured Interviews 0.18 Years Job Experience 0.18 Years Education 0.1 Interests 0.1 Graphology 0.02 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Predictive Validity (Actual Job Performance) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 50 Work Sample Tests Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 51 Work Sample Tests 1. Identify 2. Create the 3. Validate the competencies assessment assessment Careers Benefits + Perks Life at Facebook University Events Puzzles Do you like puzzles? So do we. If you love puzzles like we do, become a fan of the new Puzzle Master Facebook Page. Notes are regularly posted to answer questions, explain puzzles, and announce new things. While you’re here, try your hand at the following puzzles. The larger the difficulty, the harder it gets (hors d’oeuvres are simple tests to help you out). Puzzles Difficulty Keyword Hoppity Hop! Hors d’oeuvre Hoppity Meep meep! Hors d’oeuvre Meepmeep Liar, Liar Snack Liarliar Breathalyzer Snack Breathalyzer Gattaca Snack Gattaca Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 52 Work Sample Tests Position Recruiting Coordinator Goal Hiring Accuracy Target KSAs Format Free Response Position Accounts Payable Goal Hiring Accuracy Target Accounting Knowledge Format Multiple-Choice Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 53 Internships Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 54 Tests and Questionnaires Neither Phrase Very Moderately Inaccurate Moderately Very I… inaccurate Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate Accurate I am creative O O O O O I am compassionate O O O O O I am confident O O O O O I am extraverted O O O O O I am open-minded O O O O O I am self-aware O O O O O Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 55 Tests and Questionnaires Neither Phrase: Very Moderately Inaccurate Moderately Very I... inaccurate Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate Accurate Have a vivid O O O O O imagination Hold a grudge O O O O O Do not mind being the centre of O O O O O attention Do not like poetry O O O O O Complete tasks O O O O O successfully Believe that others O O O O O have good intentions Avoid philosophical O O O O O discussions Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 56 Tests and Questionnaires: Reference Points Compared to Neither Very Moderately Inaccurate Moderately Very others in OB206, inaccurate Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate I... Accurate Have a vivid O O O O O imagination Hold a grudge O O O O O Do not mind being the centre of O O O O O attention Do not like poetry O O O O O Complete tasks O O O O O successfully Believe that others O O O O O have good intentions Avoid philosophical O O O O O discussions Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 57  Tests and Questionnaires: Social Desirability Choose the response that best describes you... I would do almost anything on a dare O I tend to be a fairly cautious person O I try to accept the consequences of my O I can talk my way out of anything O behavior I will usually show off if I can O I try not to be a show off O I depend on people to get things done I rarely depend on people to get O O things done I like to do things for others O I expect a lot from others O Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 58 Tests and Questionnaires: Other Ratings Compared to Neither Very Moderately Inaccurate Moderately Very others in OB206, inaccurate Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate Sarah... Accurate Has a vivid O O O O O imagination Holds a grudge O O O O O Does not mind being the centre of O O O O O attention Does not like poetry O O O O O Completes tasks O O O O O successfully Believes that others O O O O O have good intentions Avoids philosophical O O O O O discussions Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 59 Tests and Questionnaires: Common-Rule How many times has Sarah done the following behaviors in OB206 N (9 classes) Been late to class ______ Raised their hand ______ Been absent ______ Submitted her reflection on time ______ Asked a question ______ Challenged the professor ______ Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 60 Structured Interviews Decide what you want to test ꟷ Knowledge, skills, abilities Design the assessment/interview ꟷ Questions, rating scales, train the interviewers Pilot the assessment/interview ꟷ Inter-judge agreement, validity, bias Administer structured interview protocol Gather at the end to share to make a selection Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 61  Solution: Use objective systems and assessment procedures Balance out the weaknesses of one, with the strengths of others Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 62 But you will judge anyway… Determine clearly whether it’s the person or the situation Do other people in Does this person act Does this person act the same situation this way toward this way in other act this way? others? situations? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 63 De-Biasing your evaluation You ask a colleague for help with an unusual problem. She declines to lend a hand. Is she a helpful person? What do others do in What has she done this situation? in other situations? It’s not her … it’s something No one else helps She’s never helped about this request (or situation) with this kind of with this kind of request request before...she may not be that helpful Everyone else She’s never (or it may be something else...) helps you helped you before Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior #AllFourCells 64 De-Biasing your evaluation Are any of the biases at play? Halo effect? Similar-to-me? Stereotypes? Familiar? Self-fulfilling prophecies? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 65  Best Practice: Rely on Structure We are not very good at de-biasing judgment naturally Rely on structural solutions ꟷ Decide on evaluation criteria ꟷ Ensure validity (and neutrality) ꟷ Commit to criteria De-bias evaluation ꟷ Gather objective information ꟷ Blind demographics on objective criteria ꟷ Try to de-bias when using subjective criteria - E.g., Consider whether subjective assessments are susceptible to stereotypes - E.g., Language used to describe different groups Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 66 De-Biasing the Evaluation PROCESS Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 67 Blind Auditions Women are 50% more likely to be hired in blind auditions. Three important lessons: ꟷ Discrimination was overt — everyone could see it. ꟷ Bias was unconscious (judges refused to believe that they were biased). ꟷ Easy to fix (install a curtain). Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 68 Blind Recruiting Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 69 Hiring Decisions: Tryouts and Internships Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 70 Resume Evaluation: Representativeness A longer shortlist increases the consideration of female candidates in male-dominant domains Brian J. Lucas, Zachariah Berry, Laura M. Giurge & Dolly Chugh Nature Human Behaviour volume 5, pages736–742 (2021) Abstract Making it onto the shortlist is often a crucial early step toward professional advancement. For under-represented candidates, one barrier to making the shortlist is the prevalence of informal recruitment practices (for example, colleague recommendations). The current research investigates informal shortlists generated in male-dominant domains (for example, technology executives) and tests a theory-driven intervention to increase the consideration of female candidates. Across ten studies (N = 5,741) we asked individuals to generate an informal shortlist of candidates for a male-dominant role and then asked them to extend the list. We consistently found more female candidates in the extended (versus initial) list. This longer shortlist effect occurs because continued response generation promotes divergence from the category prototype (for example, male technology executives). Studies 3 and 4 supported this mechanism, and study 5 tested the effect of shortlist length on selection decisions. This longer shortlist intervention is a low-cost and simple way to support gender equity efforts. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 71 Commit to Criteria: Avoid Shifting Standards Pre-commitment to evaluation criteria improves decision-making Linda W. Chang, Mina Cikara May, 2023 Abstract Discrimination in employment contexts has been widely studied and documented. While various interventions have successfully decreased the impact of group-based bias in hiring, these interventions can have mixed results and may only apply to a limited set of scenarios. Across two experiments (N = 1200), we examined whether asking evaluators to pre-commit to evaluation criteria—by ranking criteria from most to least important prior to evaluating candidates—would decrease discrimination based on irrelevant information, such as the candidate’s place of birth and body weight. When participants pre-committed to their criteria, they made better decisions (compared to control participants): specifically, they made more fine-grained distinctions between the different levels (e.g., very experienced vs. somewhat experienced) of the relevant criteria (e.g., previous experience). The results of these experiments have practical implications for how we structure decision-making processes in consequential social choices, including hiring and promotion, in pursuit of less discriminatory outcomes. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 72 Judging Talent Align evaluation with De-bias evaluation Structural solutions are performance criteria ꟷ Find ways to inoculate best at mitigation ꟷ Judge based on valued against most likely ꟷ Managing the process metrics biases is often best for managing bias Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 73  We will judge Key Takeaways Others… Ourselves… for Judging Others Impressions... Form quickly Are hard to change Influence our decisions Impressions are biased and error-prone ꟷ Requires structural solutions to mitigate them Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 74 Three things (before you go) READ PRE- & RE flections WATCH Case Assignment Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 75  See you next week! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 76  CLASS 3 Influence and Persuasion OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 1 Today's Essential Questions How do you (use cognitive heuristics to) effectively persuade others? How do you influence without authority? How do members with divergent perspectives get their voices heard? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 2  A group situation where you have no real power. How can you influence a group that is moving in the wrong direction? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 3 Our main character (for today)... Your job: imagine yourself as Fonda What are the group dynamics? How does Fonda persuade? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 4 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 5 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 6 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 8  The Audience Debrief Friends Foes how Understanding Fringe team composition & processes affect performance Ffffff Publicly support your position Publicly oppose your position Undecided or indifferent voters Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Being “the lone wolf” Identify allies Target fringe, not foes. ꟷ Similarity (sympathy) ꟷ Lack of conviction (wavering) ꟷ Dissatisfaction with the majority (periphery) Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 11 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 12 Conflict Dichotomy Option C “Let’s talk” A B Innocent Guilty Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 14 Tactics Find Option C: Not “definitely innocent” but “reasonable doubt about guilt.” Foot in the door: Get jurors to accept small request; “I just want to talk” Reduce antagonism: “I’m not trying to change your mind” Build similarity: Not “you” but “we”; highlight shared values Shift burden of proof: Instead of trying to convince the opposition, get the opposition to try to convince you. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 15 Tactics Appealing to shared values: The law and morality are on his side Scape-goating: The public defender is incompetent – defendant is the victim Build shared reality: “I know as much as you do”; “The boy looks guilty” Build Empathy: Refers to defendant as a “young boy”; “If I were on trial for my life...” Re-framing: Changes framing from “guilty” to “sending a boy off to die” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 17 Tactics Using questions instead of statements ꟷ Because one’s own thoughts are always more credible, ask questions instead of asserting positions so opponents can “discover” your insights Leading Questions: A question that suggests the answer (e.g., How much will prices go up next year?) ꟷ Creates confirmation pressure without reactance ꟷ Develops commitment ꟷ Helps mask your agenda ꟷ Can shield you from attack Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 19 Four walls A series of questions that box the target into a tight space Each question acts as a wall, closing in… ꟷ Is a good education important for your kids? ꟷ Do kids who do their homework get better grades? ꟷ Can reference books help kids do their homework? ꟷ I sell reference books, may I come in? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 20  WEConsistency Using INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM.... to Motivate Behavior Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 21 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 22  Foot in the Door Researchers contacted households to make a major request. 80% 76% Foot In Set-up request: 70% The Door Compliance with the large request “Would you be willing put a small sign 60% in your front window?” 50% ꟷ “Keep California Beautiful” 48% ꟷ “Drive Carefully” 40% Main request: 30% “Can I put this (ugly) ‘Drive Carefully’ 20% sign in your yard for three weeks?” 17% 10% 0% Small (unrelated) Small (related) t t t ac rs es nt fi qu t No initial re l co qu es n ia ai Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior in it l re m o al to N Sm ar il m si t es qu l re al Sm Freedman & Fraser (1966) contact request request  What if people were paid for complying with the initial request? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 24 Low-ball 60% Control condition: 56% 53% “Would you participate in 50% an experiment that starts at 7am?” 40% Compliance 31% 30% Low-ball: 24% ꟷ “Would you participate 20% Appeared Appeared in an experiment?” Agreed Agreed ꟷ “Ok, it starts at 7am” 10% 0% Control Low-Ball Stanford GSB Cialdini et | OB 206 Organizational Behavior al. (1978) 25 Door In The Face Set-up request: 50% “Would you work as a 50% counselor to juvenile Compliance with the prisoners for 2 hours a 40% Major Request week and minimum of 2 years?” (of course no!) 30% Main request: 20% 17% “Would you chaperone a group of juvenile prisoners 10% on a day trip to the zoo?” 0% Main Request Only Set-up + Main Stanford GSB Cialdini et | OB 206 Organizational Behavior al. (1975) 26 Principle of Consistency After committing to a position, people are more likely to comply with requests consistent with it What type of commitment is most binding? Public Active Effortful Freely chosen Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 27 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 28 Background... The knife used in the murder appears to be identical to one that the defendant bought hours before the murder Defendant claims that it isn’t the same knife, but he cannot prove it as he has lost his own knife hours before the killing The jurors are discussing whether the defendant’s story can be believed. One of the jurors asks the bailiff for the murder weapon so that he can argue his case more forcefully and vividly… Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 29 Symbolism and timing What does the knife come to represent? ꟷ Certainty/absolute truth How does he “set up” this exchange? ꟷ Bait: “I say it’s impossible” ꟷ Bait: “It is an unusual knife” Why not bring the knife out earlier in their deliberation? ꟷ Evidence often isn’t enough... It’s hard to change minds! ꟷ Big weapons vs. Big armor... disarm first How might this strategy backfire? ꟷ Lost some trust: “I know as much as you do” ꟷ May embarrass his opponents Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 31 A (Well-Timed) Risky Move None of the jurors flipped. Time is not on his side... Fonda has done what he can... ꟷ Cast reasonable doubt (check) ꟷ Proposed alternative explanations (check) ꟷ Introduced compelling evidence (check) ꟷ Remained impartial and established (some) legitimacy/respect (check) Has he swayed anyone from the “fringe?”...time to find out Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 32 Tactics A Voting Strategy Secret Ballot – easier to dissent Shifting – Shifting the moral burden Collaborator - He is not an obstructionist Negotiator – Requested commitment to talk (something small) in return for his acquiescence (something much bigger) Calculated risk (Fonda needs just 1 vote!) ꟷ Hesitation in initial hands ꟷ Old Man said, “It’s just one night” ꟷ Man from slums: identification ꟷ Watchmaker says “The knife was very important to the district attorney” ꟷ Bank Stanford GSB |teller OB 206has been bullied. Organizational Behavior 34 The five provinces of group influence Rules Audience Message Timing Source Procedural Who you target What you say When you say it Who says it tactics ꟷ Who is in your ꟷ (Re)defining ꟷ Influence ꟷ Establishing ꟷ How you audience goal unfolds credibility make ꟷ Who do you ꟷ Framing ꟷ Don’t show ꟷ Remaining decisions target first? ꟷ Influence your cards impartial ꟷ Context for ꟷ Friends, foes, tactics ꟷ Take ꟷ Using influence and fringe calculated emotion risks Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 35 The Source: Fonda as a Leader Fonda has established himself as having ‘some’ credibility He has managed to influence and has (at least) one person on his side Used “pull” tactics to get people on-board... Now it’s time to push! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 36 Tactics Agreement on Criteria: “43 feet, right?”, “15 seconds, yes?” Cognitive Dissonance: People strive to be consistent Fundamental Attribution Error: Moves discussion away from the boy and towards the situation Simulation: Vivid examples are more compelling Participation: Change behavior, attitudes will follow. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 38 Change Behavior... Attitudes will follow Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 39  Emotions Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 40 Why do they listen to Fonda? He uses “rational persuasion” as an influence tactic ꟷ He is calm and not defensive. ꟷ He seems intelligent, or at least articulate (contrast this with a couple other jurors, who come across as rather trivial). ꟷ He seems to have no personal agenda. ꟷ He is polite. ꟷ His arguments are calculated and well reasoned. ꟷ Rational persuasion is situationally appropriate. But... emotions have a time and a place! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 41 Emotional Appeals: Identifiability Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 42 The Credible Source Contrast (within himself / within the group) In control (short, low-intensity) Genuine / Passionate Impersonal Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 44 The Non-Credible Source Undermine your opponent’s credibility ꟷ Unmask their personal agenda ꟷ Give room to their emotional outbursts (use silence) ꟷ Discredit their arguments (ask for better ones) ꟷ Highlight their inconsistencies Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 46 Push vs. Pull PUSH PULL Persuading Attracting ꟷ Proposing ꟷ Finding common ground ꟷ Reasoning ꟷ Visioning Asserting Asserting ꟷ Stating expectations ꟷ Involving ꟷ Evaluating ꟷ Listening ꟷ Using incentives (pressures) ꟷ Disclosing When should you use “push” and when should you use “pull?” Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 47 Using Push and Pull PULL PUSH At first, Fonda uses pull (as a He then switches to push (as a minority member) majority member) ꟷ He involves the other jurors in the ꟷ He evaluates others’ judgments. process of deliberating. ꟷ He states his arguments more forcefully. ꟷ He creates reasonable doubt in the ꟷ He calls for action (e.g., a vote) minds of other jurors. ꟷ He appeals to their desire to base the deliberations on fact. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 48 A few critical points Find option C When co-opting allies, look for those who are similar, lack conviction, and/or sit on the periphery. Dissent must be framed in a way that attacks the issue, not the majority. Establishing (and reminding others of) commitments can be a powerful persuasive tool. Effective dissenters should appear “hyper-rational.” Emotion must be situationally appropriate, or professionally displayed. Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 49 Three things (before you go) READ To Do: Have fun! materials for PRE- and RE-flections next week Nothing else to do... Case Q1 due on Thursday! Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 50  CLASS 4 Motivation OB 206 Organizational Behavior Ashley Martin Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 1 Class Structure Making Good Getting People on Building Managing Decisions Board Community Relationships Negotiation Decision Making Persuasion Culture Day 7 Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Mediating Conflict Judging Others Motivation Social Networks Day 8 Day 2 Day 4 Day 6 Communication Day 9 Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior Today's Essential Questions Why does motivation matter? What the primary factors in motivating yourself and others? How can you increase motivation? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 3 When you push an object in what direction does it go? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 4 When you push a person what direction do they go? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 5  People are not objects Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 6 Motivating Through Commitment Compliance Commitment ꟷ Force others to do what you want + Have others internalize what you them to do want them to do ꟷ Exert formal power; “be the boss” + Strive to achieve shared purpose Easy to set up, but... Harder to set up, but... ꟷ Energy depleting + Energy expanding ꟷ Give only what you ask + Do activities in shared best interest ꟷ Inefficient (you must be present) + Expands social connections Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 7 What motivates us? $20 – First to grab it gets to keep it! 1. Can I do it? 2. Will I get it? 3. Is it worth it? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 8 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory MOTIVATION = Expectancy Instrumentality Valence Will I get Is the reward Can I do it? x a reward? x worth it? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 9 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory MOTIVATION = Expectancy Instrumentality Valence Will I get Is the reward Can I do it? x a reward? x worth it? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 10 Expectancy: Can I do it? Goal (Difficulty) Self-Efficacy Perceived Resources Is the goal Do I have the skills Control Do I have the attainable? and knowledge? Is the outcome necessary under my control? resources? Stanford GSB | OB 206 Organizational Behavior 11 Expectancy: Can I do it? Goal