Michael Schaerer | INSEAD - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Michael Schaerer

Research paper thumbnail of The Illusion of Transparency in Performance Appraisals: When and Why Accuracy Motivation Explains Unintentional Feedback Inflation

The present research shows that managers communicate negative feedback ineffectively because they... more The present research shows that managers communicate negative feedback ineffectively because they suffer from transparency illusions that cause them to overestimate how accurately employees perceive their feedback. We propose that these illusions emerge because managers are insufficiently motivated to engage in effortful thinking, which reduces the accuracy with which they communicate negative feedback to employees. Six studies (N=1,954) using actual performance appraisals within an organization and role plays with MBA students, undergraduates, and online participants show that transparency illusions are stronger when feedback is negative (Studies 1-2), that they are not driven by employee bias (Study 3), and occur because managers are insufficiently motivated to be accurate (Studies 4a-c). In addition, these studies demonstrate that transparency illusions are driven by more indirect communication by the manager and how different interventions can be used to mitigate these effects (Studies 4a-c). An internal meta-analysis including 11 studies from the file drawer (N=2,082) revealed a moderate effect size (d=.43) free of publication bias.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Contextualizing Social Power Research within Organizational Behavior

The Self at Work: Fundamental Theory and Research. Organizational Frontiers Series of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology., 2017

Although there has been tremendous scientific interest in social power, much of this recent resea... more Although there has been tremendous scientific interest in social power, much of this recent research has relied on experiments in context-poor settings. However, organizations – a context in which power differences emerge naturally – are more complex and dynamic. The current review discusses whether and how defining organizational features at the intrapersonal level (multiple dimensions of hierarchy, dynamics over time, attentional demands), interpersonal level (interdependence, repeated interactions), and organizational level (accountability, culture, virtual work) moderate the effects of power. We also discuss ways to systematically incorporate organizational complexities into the study of social power and recommend fruitful avenues for future research.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The four horsemen of power at the bargaining table

Purpose – This paper aims to identify and discuss four major sources of power in negotiations. Fi... more Purpose – This paper aims to identify and discuss four major sources of power in negotiations. Findings – The four sources of power are alternatives, information, status and social capital. Each of these sources of power can enhance a negotiator's likelihood of obtaining their ideal outcome because power allows negotiators to be more confident and proactive, and it shields them from the bargaining tactics of their opponents. Practical implications – The paper discusses how negotiators can utilize each source of power to improve their negotiation outcomes. Originality/value – The paper provides a parsimonious definition of power in negotiations, identifies the four major sources of negotiator powers and highlights two pathways by which power affects negotiation outcomes.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Bargaining Zone Distortion in Negotiations: The Elusive Power of Multiple Alternatives

We challenge the assumption that having multiple alternatives is always better than a single alte... more We challenge the assumption that having multiple alternatives is always better than a single alternative by showing that negotiators who have additional alternatives ironically exhibit downward-biased perceptions of their own and their opponent’s reservation price, make lower demands, and achieve worse outcomes in distributive negotiations. Five studies demonstrate that the apparent benefits of multiple alternatives are elusive because multiple alternatives led to less ambitious first offers (Studies 1–2) and less profitable agreements (Study 3). This distributive disadvantage emerged because negotiators’ perception of the bargaining zone was more distorted when they had additional (less attractive) alternatives than when they only had a single alternative (Studies 1–3). We further found that this multiple-alternatives disadvantage only emerges when negotiators used quantitative (versus qualitative) evaluation standards to gauge the extremity of their offers (Study 4), and when they base their offers on their own numerical alternative(s) versus on opponent information (Study 5).

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Secret conversation opportunities facilitate minority influence in virtual groups: The influence on majority power, information processing, and decision quality

We examined the impact of secret conversation opportunities during virtual team discussions on ma... more We examined the impact of secret conversation opportunities during virtual team discussions on majority opinion holders' motivation to attend to minority opinion holders. Studies 1a and b showed that majorities were more motivated to process others' arguments when secret conversation opportunities were available (vs. not), provided these arguments contained unique (vs. shared) information and this information was offered by the minority (vs. majority). Study 2 demonstrated that this effect occurs because secret opportunities made majorities feel less powerful after being exposed to unique information from the minority (Study 2a), especially when majority members expected others to use these channels (Study 2b). Study 3 used an interactive group decision-making task and demonstrated that the increased majority motivation triggered by secret opportunities increased group decision quality. Study 3 also examined whether secret opportunities influence the minority and whether the effect is robust across different communication settings.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Too-Much-Talent Effect: Team Interdependence Determines When More Talent Is Too Much or Not Enough

Psychological Science, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2016

This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of... more This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had "in the pipeline" as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Anchors Weigh More Than Power: Why Absolute Powerlessness Liberates Negotiators to Achieve Better Outcomes

The current research shows that having no power can be better than having a little power. Negotia... more The current research shows that having no power can be better than having a little power. Negotiators prefer having some power (weak negotiation alternatives) to having no power (no alternatives). We challenge this belief that having any alternative is beneficial by demonstrating that weak alternatives create low anchors that reduce the value of first offers. In contrast, having no alternatives is liberating because there is no anchor to weigh down first offers. In our experiments, negotiators with no alternatives felt less powerful but made higher first offers and secured superior outcomes compared with negotiators who had weak alternatives. We established the role of anchoring through mediation by first offers and through moderation by showing that weak alternatives no longer led to worse outcomes when negotiators focused on a countervailing anchor or when negotiators faced an opponent with a strong alternative. These results demonstrate that anchors can have larger effects than feelings of power. Absolute powerlessness can be psychologically liberating.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Illusion of Transparency in Performance Appraisals: When and Why Accuracy Motivation Explains Unintentional Feedback Inflation

The present research shows that managers communicate negative feedback ineffectively because they... more The present research shows that managers communicate negative feedback ineffectively because they suffer from transparency illusions that cause them to overestimate how accurately employees perceive their feedback. We propose that these illusions emerge because managers are insufficiently motivated to engage in effortful thinking, which reduces the accuracy with which they communicate negative feedback to employees. Six studies (N=1,954) using actual performance appraisals within an organization and role plays with MBA students, undergraduates, and online participants show that transparency illusions are stronger when feedback is negative (Studies 1-2), that they are not driven by employee bias (Study 3), and occur because managers are insufficiently motivated to be accurate (Studies 4a-c). In addition, these studies demonstrate that transparency illusions are driven by more indirect communication by the manager and how different interventions can be used to mitigate these effects (Studies 4a-c). An internal meta-analysis including 11 studies from the file drawer (N=2,082) revealed a moderate effect size (d=.43) free of publication bias.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Contextualizing Social Power Research within Organizational Behavior

The Self at Work: Fundamental Theory and Research. Organizational Frontiers Series of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology., 2017

Although there has been tremendous scientific interest in social power, much of this recent resea... more Although there has been tremendous scientific interest in social power, much of this recent research has relied on experiments in context-poor settings. However, organizations – a context in which power differences emerge naturally – are more complex and dynamic. The current review discusses whether and how defining organizational features at the intrapersonal level (multiple dimensions of hierarchy, dynamics over time, attentional demands), interpersonal level (interdependence, repeated interactions), and organizational level (accountability, culture, virtual work) moderate the effects of power. We also discuss ways to systematically incorporate organizational complexities into the study of social power and recommend fruitful avenues for future research.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The four horsemen of power at the bargaining table

Purpose – This paper aims to identify and discuss four major sources of power in negotiations. Fi... more Purpose – This paper aims to identify and discuss four major sources of power in negotiations. Findings – The four sources of power are alternatives, information, status and social capital. Each of these sources of power can enhance a negotiator's likelihood of obtaining their ideal outcome because power allows negotiators to be more confident and proactive, and it shields them from the bargaining tactics of their opponents. Practical implications – The paper discusses how negotiators can utilize each source of power to improve their negotiation outcomes. Originality/value – The paper provides a parsimonious definition of power in negotiations, identifies the four major sources of negotiator powers and highlights two pathways by which power affects negotiation outcomes.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Bargaining Zone Distortion in Negotiations: The Elusive Power of Multiple Alternatives

We challenge the assumption that having multiple alternatives is always better than a single alte... more We challenge the assumption that having multiple alternatives is always better than a single alternative by showing that negotiators who have additional alternatives ironically exhibit downward-biased perceptions of their own and their opponent’s reservation price, make lower demands, and achieve worse outcomes in distributive negotiations. Five studies demonstrate that the apparent benefits of multiple alternatives are elusive because multiple alternatives led to less ambitious first offers (Studies 1–2) and less profitable agreements (Study 3). This distributive disadvantage emerged because negotiators’ perception of the bargaining zone was more distorted when they had additional (less attractive) alternatives than when they only had a single alternative (Studies 1–3). We further found that this multiple-alternatives disadvantage only emerges when negotiators used quantitative (versus qualitative) evaluation standards to gauge the extremity of their offers (Study 4), and when they base their offers on their own numerical alternative(s) versus on opponent information (Study 5).

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Secret conversation opportunities facilitate minority influence in virtual groups: The influence on majority power, information processing, and decision quality

We examined the impact of secret conversation opportunities during virtual team discussions on ma... more We examined the impact of secret conversation opportunities during virtual team discussions on majority opinion holders' motivation to attend to minority opinion holders. Studies 1a and b showed that majorities were more motivated to process others' arguments when secret conversation opportunities were available (vs. not), provided these arguments contained unique (vs. shared) information and this information was offered by the minority (vs. majority). Study 2 demonstrated that this effect occurs because secret opportunities made majorities feel less powerful after being exposed to unique information from the minority (Study 2a), especially when majority members expected others to use these channels (Study 2b). Study 3 used an interactive group decision-making task and demonstrated that the increased majority motivation triggered by secret opportunities increased group decision quality. Study 3 also examined whether secret opportunities influence the minority and whether the effect is robust across different communication settings.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Too-Much-Talent Effect: Team Interdependence Determines When More Talent Is Too Much or Not Enough

Psychological Science, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2016

This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of... more This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had "in the pipeline" as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Anchors Weigh More Than Power: Why Absolute Powerlessness Liberates Negotiators to Achieve Better Outcomes

The current research shows that having no power can be better than having a little power. Negotia... more The current research shows that having no power can be better than having a little power. Negotiators prefer having some power (weak negotiation alternatives) to having no power (no alternatives). We challenge this belief that having any alternative is beneficial by demonstrating that weak alternatives create low anchors that reduce the value of first offers. In contrast, having no alternatives is liberating because there is no anchor to weigh down first offers. In our experiments, negotiators with no alternatives felt less powerful but made higher first offers and secured superior outcomes compared with negotiators who had weak alternatives. We established the role of anchoring through mediation by first offers and through moderation by showing that weak alternatives no longer led to worse outcomes when negotiators focused on a countervailing anchor or when negotiators faced an opponent with a strong alternative. These results demonstrate that anchors can have larger effects than feelings of power. Absolute powerlessness can be psychologically liberating.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact