Applying (and Resisting) Peer Influence
30
Citation
12
Reference
20
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Scholars of various kinds long have documented the great degree to which people are influenced by similar others. Indeed, the opinions, experiences and behaviors of friends, neighbors and coworkers can provide an invaluable gold mine of persuasive resources. But even savvy executives can fail to appreciate the full power of peer influence ? or they might neglect to anticipate its unintended consequences.
Consider, for example, managers who are responsible for shaping or enforcing policy within an organization. They will frequently call attention to a problem behavior, such as supply room theft, by depicting it as regrettably frequent. Although such admonitions might be well-intentioned, the communicators have missed something critically important: Within the lament of Look at all the people who are doing this undesirable thing lurks the powerful and undercutting disclosure Look at all the people who are doing it. And in trying to alert people to the growing occurrence of a problem ? which could be anything from expense account padding to safety violations ? managers can inadvertently make it worse. After the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was going to strengthen the penalties for tax evasion because so many citizens were cheating on their returns, tax fraud actually increased in the following year.
But that's not the only type of mistake that managers regularly make. Indeed, a more subtle problem occurs when they fail to recognize how peer influence is affecting their own decisions. Such situations can be particularly dangerous, leading people to do exactly what they shouldn't, all because they inadvertently have listened to the wrong voices. Thus, when trying to solve a problem, managers should resist the tendency (and the conventional wisdom) to start by casting the widest net possible and then later discounting information that isn't relevant. The potential pitfall of that approach is that it inserts the filtering process too late, after any irrelevant data might have already had a subconscious impact on a person's decision making.Keywords:
Mistake
Unintended consequences
Evasion (ethics)
Suspect
Lament
Cite
Past research has generated mixed support among social scientists for the utility of social norms in accounting for human behavior. We argue that norms do have a substantial impact on human action; however, the impact can only be properly recognized when researchers (a) separate 2 types of norms that at times act antagonistically in a situation—injunctive norms (what most others approve or disapprove) and descriptive norms (what most others do)—and (b) focus Ss' attention principally on the type of norm being studied. In 5 natural settings, focusing Ss on either the descriptive norms or the injunctive norms regarding littering caused the Ss* littering decisions to change only in accord with the dictates of the then more salient type of norm.
Normative social influence
Social norms approach
Regulatory focus theory
Cite
Citations (4,822)
All of us in R&D can readily appreciate that things do not usually go exactly as planned or hoped for. We will agree that one should expect higher level of mistakes when trying to be more innovative, whether it be in new product or process development, new business process, or whatever. This was said well by Fortran pioneer John Backus (recently deceased) in his 1983 Achievement Award address to the Industrial Research Institute research, failure is the partner of success. Consider just the following example. In the 1980s global contingent of coatings companies sponsored by the U.S. Navy commissioned search to optimize an anti-fouling coating that would release toxic chemicals to prevent barnacles from attaching to the surfaces of ships. The proclaimed goal was squeaky clean surface. One of the approaches was ruled mistake after it immediately grew an ugly slime, and was completely and permanently abandoned by the review team from the sponsors and the Navy. However, one of the reviewers was biological scientist who could see the learning in the He continued to work on it independently while running his own company. He looked at the potential benefits of naturally occurring-slime approach (like on fish), and today the same technology that grew the unwanted slime is being commercialized in breakthrough non-toxic anti-fouling coating that is environmentally friendly and promises to last many years. Unfortunately we don't have word in English that means a well-reasoned attempt that didn't meet expectations, so I will be using mistake in its place. How does your organization handle this type of mistake? I'll get back to this issue in moment. The Innovative Environment Of the ten dimensions that describe an innovative environment (1), Freedom and Risk-Taking are two of the most critical since together they can either ignite or effectively extinguish the spirit of innovation in the workplace. In my experience, the way in which an organization handles mistakes is the single biggest factor determining how this will play out. Do your policies and practices promote Freedom and responsible Risk-Taking? Do your policies and practices restrict individual decision-making and Freedom, and are people so afraid of the consequences of failure that Risk-Taking is just concept? Referring to the systems thinking causal loop diagram on the following page, note that it all starts with an idea. Someone has an idea about how to do or make something--a new product, process improvement, new marketing approach, or new business model, just to name few. This person is usually the one to take the next step, which is to take action on the idea. In perfect world, the action would always result in success, but we don't live in perfect world, and more times than not, the action results in only partial success, sometimes called non-success, or mistake, or at worst failure. Looking at the mistake route, the person who took the action is now in charge of deciding if he/she will openly discuss it with the boss and others, or will he/she conceal it from them. The level of Trust and Openness between the person taking the action and the boss will help that person decide whether to openly discuss the mistake or to conceal it. If the mistake is concealed, there can be no organizational learning, since few if any other people know about it. If, on the other hand, the person has high level of Trust and Openness with the boss, then chances are very good they will openly admit the mistake. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Now, once the mistake is out in the open, the leaders must decide how it will be handled. Clearly it can't be ignored, especially if it was costly mistake. Many leaders shoot from the hip, moving quickly to discover all the guilty parties and then fire off blame and punishments. When asked why this approach was taken, I have been told that people must be held accountable--more about that later. …
Mistake
Cite
Citations (3)
In challenging times, all leaders would like to improve their strategic decision-making capabilities. I make an effort to read widely in the management literature, including the McKinsey Quarterly. A recent piece1 in that publication caught my attention, and I would like to summarize aspects of it for our readers. A handful of well-regarded techniques to improve strategic decision making are used by global companies, and, perhaps, one or more of these techniques might work in your organization. Let me elucidate a few of them.
Experts agree that in any complex human endeavor we need to harness bias; that is, rather than trying to tune out bias, we might encourage it and attempt to balance it with effective decision making. A tool to further this notion is the balance sheet, whereby a leader might ask his direct reports to “Tell me what is good about this particular opportunity, tell me what is bad about it, do not tell me your judgment yet; I don’t want to know.”1 This starts the evaluation process without having to justify and, thereby, frees opinions. Internal leaders are allowed to give their best insights and fully consider the ideas of others. The balance sheet process “mitigates a lot of the friction that typically arises when people marshal the facts that support their case, while ignoring those that don’t.”1
Another technique is creating a culture where failure is not a wrong answer. This process starts with an acknowledgement that Plan A “probably is based upon flawed assumptions and that certain leap-of-faith questions are fundamental to arriving at a better answer.”1 Even in moderate-sized organizations, there is often a sense that Plan A is going to succeed because it’s well analyzed, it’s vetted, it’s crisp, it looks great on the spreadsheet — and it’s the one that everybody has to execute. The reality is that it may not work, and having a corporate culture that recognizes that Plan B might be pretty good gets people off the blame game and rewards those who are able to make a mid-course correction.
Yet another technique might be listening to the little voice. This is very difficult for leaders, because no matter how important these individuals are, they may find it difficult to grapple with diverse opinions, especially among their direct reports. Leaders who can change their opinion based on the strength of the arguments around the table are going to be more successful on average than those who cannot.
Facing tough people choices is another important skill set for improving strategic decision making. Often, leaders tend to compromise. “It’s very easy to close your eyes and say warm bodies are better then no bodies,”1 but it turns out that it’s best to be unyielding regarding the hiring decision. One should always look for good listeners who are capable of adapting. This is the single most important leadership trait outside of pure competence in one’s field.
Another important tool is knowing when to let go, which could mean shutting down a particular drug development program or outsourcing part of another. These are often the hardest decisions to make and the ones that don’t get nearly enough focus. The most difficult decisions are the legacy ones — “the historical investments, the things that are just easier to chip away at rather than make a tough decision.”1 It’s best to have no preconceived commitment to a legacy business.
Lastly, a leader’s ability to strike the right balance between decisiveness and timeliness is critical. The best management brains believe that timeliness trumps perfection; to translate, sometimes “the most damaging decisions are the missed opportunities, the decisions that didn’t get made in time. If you are creating a category of bad decisions you’ve made, you need to include all the decisions you didn’t get to make because you missed the window of time that existed to take advantage of an opportunity.”1 This is a skill that can be developed over time.
Cultivating internal critics, facing tough people choices, and knowing when to let go are important components of the toolkit that comprises strategic decision making. Healthcare is no different than any other complex business. We can all improve our strategic decision making as we seek to utilize resources parsimoniously and derive the greatest benefit from the people power that our organizations represent. As always, I am interested in your views. You can reach me by e-mail at «ude.nosreffej@hsan.divad». Also, please visit my blog at: «http://nashhealthpolicy.blogspot.com».
Acknowledgement
Cite
Citations (0)
Building Bases of Influence Within A College The American College In many ways colleges occupy a unique niche within the American Society. Their success for example is not measured in productivity or simply quantifiable numbers. In addition, while business practices apply to some extent, and financial matters are important, accountability is not measured solely and simply in terms of a bottom line fiscal profit. In other ways though colleges are very much like their corporate counterparts. There is a fixed hierarchy and there are established rules and procedures for conducting daily business. Within a college culture there are also existing avenues for acquiring personal power and influence. This article explores strategies to develop that powerbase through interactions with others in the college community. Develop Opportunities for Success Just about everyone wants to be successful in what they do. This is true on the college campus as well. Many people fail because their talents are not effectively utilized for their benefit or the benefit of the institution. A supervisor the ability to find a person's strength, to discover what that person does well, and then play to that strength. This provides the person with opportunities to succeed and success is contagious and builds upon itself. Ideas In order to help others be successful it is important at times to give away ideas. These helps the individual buy into and take ownership of the idea. Individuals are more willing to commit time and resources to their own ideas. This strategy also helps them become more successful within the college. These individuals will in turn attribute their success in part to the person who gave them the idea. The key here is to only give away good ideas, but never give away ideas. Good ideas help the college, but great ideas are career changers. No Losers Dealing with individuals over issues can be stressful. At times people can even become confrontational. This confrontation often sets up a win/lose scenario where one person walks away as the victor and the other as the vanquished. First of all, people do not buy into ideas they do not believe in and they will not work effectively with people whom they believe do not share their beliefs. Silencing people in a discussion does not mean that they agree. It also does not guarantee that they will help implement other's ideas. Secondly, the people that individuals work with today are probably the same people they will work with tomorrow. An individual may be successful one day in getting their ideas across only to find that they are not as successful the next day on another issue. If a person is perceived as someone who has to win that person will find it very difficult to work with others when it is their turn to wield the power. It is therefore critical to avoid such situations for many reasons. In the best case scenario everyone gets something and the idea moves forward. Finally, it is also important to be extremely careful in one's selection of language. Try to use language that is as professional and as non-personal as possible. Avoid using words that other people will find offensive. Above all, never attack. People have long memories and harmful words or actions can damage future interactions. It's Not Personal An important credo to understanding when dealing with colleagues is the reality that anything that is said to or about you will be viewed as not personal. It is assumed that you should be able to accept criticism without taking it personally. It is just business. On the other hand, it is important to understand that anything that you say about others will in turn always be viewed as very personal. You will not be able to criticize the idea without criticizing the person who developed it. The lesson is to accept criticism graciously, even thankfully, but at the same time use criticism very sparingly. …
Commit
Institution
Supervisor
Cite
Citations (0)
Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field experiment in which normative messages were used to promote household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive normative message detailing average neighborhood usage produced either desirable energy savings or the undesirable boomerang effect, depending on whether households were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted.
Social norms approach
Constructive
Normative social influence
Cite
Citations (3,367)
Facilitator
Blame
Magic bullet
Change Management
Theory of change
Cite
Citations (264)
Value (mathematics)
Cite
Citations (71,118)
Putting a squeeze on theft. While there is no sure-fire way to eliminate fraud and if there were, the cost probably would be prohibitive with proper attention by management it can be minimized. This article explores the various ways CPAs in industry and in public practice can sharpen their fraud-detection and -prevention skills. Part of the fraud problem is perception. For example, one controller recently said that shrinkage is in our industry; we are pleased that our experience is just under that amount. When asked what caused the shrinkage, she had no idea. She had already decided not to worry about it--even though the loss totaled about $1.5 million a year--because the unstated assumption was that it wasn't possible in her industry to reduce shrinkage below the 2% normal range. When it was pointed out that the real issue was acceptable theft levels rather than acceptable shrinkage levels, she changed her thinking. After an investigation, she discovered that the inventory was systematically being stolen from the warehouses. The fact is few cases of fraud are uncovered by external auditors. The most effective sleuths are the people who handle a business's day-to-day transactions. Sampling, by itself, is not always an effective way to uncover fraud. When auditors rely on sampling, which they almost always do, they see only a few' transactions. As a result, the odds are against the likelihood they will stumble on a fraudulent transaction. those on staff who review transactions and maintain the relationships with external parties are in the best position to notice when something is fishy As a result, effective managers should issue policy guidelines that, in effect, tell each employee, are responsible for being aware of what can go wrong in your area. You also are responsible for detecting wrongdoing when it does occur. Everyone--including auditors-- should be on the alert and at least look for those frauds that only he or she is in a position to detect. To get better at finding fraud, auditors and employee managers should follow the following four-step approach: 1 FOCUS ON THE POSSIBILITIES Before getting down to the detailed job of devising controls, do some research on what can go wrong. Most financial and operating professionals have only a passing knowledge of the specific cons used by white-collar thieves. We hear about schemes involving credit cards, fake vendors, inventory theft, kick-backs, bad loans and other cases, but few executives really know the details of the deceptions. Managers who have been defrauded often say, But we had controls in place to prevent this from happening! Hard as it is to accept, most preventive controls can be beaten by a motivated thief. And when thieves are inside the organization, they may be part of the control effort itself. So, find out how past defrauders pulled off their crooked acts. What was the thief's role m the organization that gave him or her the freedom to commit the act? Ask yourself how management steps such as reengineering, downsizing, outsourcing, computerization and globalization affect the reliability of controls--as well as the attitudes of those who have access to the assets. Other places to look are industry resources. Many industry organizations maintain data on fraud cases. Since banks, insurers and others all support fraud prevention, they keep useful information on the subject. In addition, contact your industry association's security professionals for guidance. Keep files of news reports of fraud. These articles often contain enough detail to allow you to understand how the deed was done. be careful not to get caught up in the drama of the fraud: Put less emphasis on the thieves and their reasons for stealing, focusing instead on the modus operandi. Certainly take advantage of any formal training on fraud detection that's available. …
Constructive fraud
Odds
Worry
Cite
Citations (1)
Passive-aggressive organizations are friendly places to work: People are congenial, conflict is rare, and consensus is easy to reach. But, at the end of the day, even the best proposals fail to gain traction, and a company can go nowhere so imperturbably that it's easy to pretend everything is fine. Such companies are not necessarily saddled with mulishly passive-aggressive employees. Rather, they are filled with mostly well-intentioned people who are the victirms of flawed processes and policies. Commonly, a growing company's halfhearted or poorly thought-out attempts to decentralize give rise to multiple layers of managers, whose authority for making decisions becomes increasingly unclear. Some managers, as a result, hang back, while others won't own up to the calls they've made, inviting colleagues to second-guess or overturn the decisions. In such organizations, information does not circulate freely, and that makes it difficult for workers to understand the impact of their actions on company performance and for managers to correctly appraise employees' value to the organization. A failure to accurately match incentives to performance stifles initiative, and people do just enough to get by. Breaking free from this pattern is hard; a long history of seeing corporate initiatives ignored and then fade away tends to make people cynical. Often it's best to bring in an outsider to signal that this time things will be different. He or she will need to address every obstacle all at once: clarify decision rights; see to it that decisions stick; and reward people for sharing information and adding value, not for successfully negotiating corporate politics. If those steps are not taken, it's only a matter of time before the diseased elements of a passive-aggressive organization overwhelm the remaining healthy ones and drive the company into financial distress.
Value (mathematics)
Cite
Citations (11)
This review covers recent developments in the social influence literature, focusing primarily on compliance and conformity research published between 1997 and 2002. The principles and processes underlying a target's susceptibility to outside influences are considered in light of three goals fundamental to rewarding human functioning. Specifically, targets are motivated to form accurate perceptions of reality and react accordingly, to develop and preserve meaningful social relationships, and to maintain a favorable self-concept. Consistent with the current movement in compliance and conformity research, this review emphasizes the ways in which these goals interact with external forces to engender social influence processes that are subtle, indirect, and outside of awareness.
Conformity
Conformity assessment
Cite
Citations (5,128)