Search

We propose that making a series of decreasing concessions (e.g., $1,500–1,210–1,180–1,170) signals that negotiators are reaching their limit and that this results in a negotiation disadvantage for offer recipients. Although we find that most negotiators do not use this strategy naturally, seven studies (N = 2,311) demonstrate that decreasing concessions causes recipients to make less ambitious counteroffers (Studies 1–5) and reach worse deals (Study 2) in distributive negotiations. We find that this disadvantage occurs because decreasing concessions shape recipients’ expectations of the subsequent offers that will be made, which results in inflated perceptions of the counterparts’ reservation price relative to the other concession strategies (Study 3). In addition, we find that this disadvantage is particularly large when concessions decrease at a moderate rate (Study 4a) and when decreasing concessions takes place over more (vs. fewer) rounds (Study 4b). Finally, we find that recipients can protect themselves against the deleterious effects of decreasing concession by thinking of a target before they enter the negotiation (Study 5).

It is widely acknowledged that subgroup bias can influence hiring evaluations. However, the notion that bias still threatens equitable hiring outcomes in modern employment contexts continues to be debated, even among organizational scholars. In this study, we sought to contextualize this debate by estimating the practical impact of bias on real-world hiring outcomes (a) across a wide range of hiring scenarios and (b) in the presence of diversity-oriented staffing practices. Toward this end, we conducted a targeted meta-analysis of recent hiring experiments that manipulated both candidate gender and qualifications to couch our investigation within ongoing debates surrounding the impact of small amounts of bias in otherwise meritocratic hiring contexts. Consistent with prior research, we found evidence of small gender bias effects ( d = −0.30) and large qualification effects ( d = 1.61) on hiring managers’ evaluations of candidate hireability. We then used these values to inform the starting parameters of a large-scale computer simulation designed to model conventional processes by which candidates are recruited, evaluated, and selected for open positions. Collectively, our simulation findings empirically substantiate assertions that even seemingly trivial amounts of subgroup bias can produce practically significant rates of hiring discrimination and productivity loss. Furthermore, we found contextual factors can alter but cannot obviate the consequences of biased evaluations, even within apparently optimal hiring scenarios (e.g., when extremely valid assessments are used). Finally, our results demonstrate residual amounts of subgroup bias can undermine the effectiveness of otherwise successful targeted recruitment efforts. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Contains fulltext : 228242.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void - reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article. 19 p.

We propose that making a series of concessions that decrease in size over time (e.g., $1500, $1225, $1205, $1200) can signal that senders are reaching their bottom line and results in a negotiation...

Individuals often rely on other people, typically other members of their organization, for performance feedback. Unsurprisingly, decades of organizational research have been dedicated to understand...