Can Feeling Good About Recycling Make Us More Wasteful?

Opportunities to recycle our waste are ubiquitous. We are constantly encouraged to avoid sending our waste to landfill by placing it in recycling receptacles so that it can be reincarnated into new and useful products. Breweries make beer out of wasted bread, and outdoor clothing companies make fleece jackets out of discarded plastic bottles.

However, does being made aware of these potential “good homes” for our waste risk us becoming less careful about creating unnecessary waste? One of the authors (Tim) noticed that he started feeling less bad about throwing away perfectly good food when his local government authority introduced a new curbside food waste collection scheme that transformed organic waste into biofuel to power the local bus. We wondered if this might apply to other situations too. Might knowing recycled plastic bottles can be recycled into jackets make you reach for the bottled water instead of just having a glass of tap water?

The Fate Of Cookies

We explored these questions with Dutch students, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In our first experiment, participants were asked to taste cookies while watching a short movie. They could either dispose of the leftover cookies in the bin provided in their cubicle, or could take them up to a communal kitchen area on the top floor of the building (where they could be eaten by hungry postgraduate students in offices nearby).

Crucially, we changed up the bin provided in the cubicle so that some participants had a black bin that contained general waste, some had a green bin that contained biodegradable waste, and some had a green bin that contained biodegradable waste that would be turned into biofuel to power the local buses in a new waste recycling project. Just as we had suspected, people were nearly twice as likely to discard edible food when they were told that their biodegradable waste would be turned into biofuel (74.5%) than when presented with either the black bin (39.2%) or the green bin (42.0%).

Next, we wanted to see why exactly the biofuel bus bin made so many more people throw away their leftover cookies. We asked a new set of participants to imagine that they had participated in a taste test experiment just like the one described above, with the same three bins. Some participants were told to imagine that they had thrown their cookies in the bin, whereas others were told to imagine they had taken the leftovers up to the top floor of the building for others to eat.

We simply asked these participants to tell us how good they would feel about themselves for making their decision (that is, how much ‘warm glow’ they would feel). When their scenarios involved both the landfill bin and the regular organic waste bin, participants who imagined having preserved the food for others reported higher warm glow than those who had imagined throwing it away.

However, when their scenario involved the fancy new biofuel recycling scheme, those who imagined having saved the food for others to eat actually reported lower warm glow than those who imagined having thrown it in the biofuel bin! In line with our original concerns, it seemed that becoming aware of a ‘good home’ for one’s potential waste really could convince people that throwing stuff away might be morally better than not creating the waste in the first place.

Next, Non-Alcoholic Beverages

In our final experiment, we invited participants to taste a new non-alcoholic beverage. We gave them the choice of tasting the beverage either out of a standard reusable glass tumbler or a single-use plastic bottle that was to be disposed of in the bin provided. The bin was either a regular black landfill bin, or a recycling bin for the company “Waste2Wear,” which was said to recycle plastic bottles into new pieces of clothing.

In line with our first two studies, people were more likely to choose the single-use plastic bottle over the (more sustainable) re-useable glass tumbler when the plastic could be ‘donated’ to the Waste2Wear recycling bin, compared to being put in a landfill bin. Participants with the Waste2Wear bin also had a greater feeling of warm glow about using the plastic bottle.

Is it therefore a bad thing for government authorities and private companies to try to take our waste and turn it into something useful? Not at all. It is certainly much better for waste to be diverted from landfill, and arguably even better to make it into useful products for which there is a market.

However, avoiding waste in the first place is almost always environmentally preferable to using energy to recycle it into something else. Therefore, authorities and companies may be well advised to avoid the current (admittedly intuitive) practice of making people aware of “good outcomes” for their waste, or at least be aware that increases in wasteful behavior could be a potentially negative side effect.


For Further Reading

van Doorn, J., & Kurz, T. (2021). The warm glow of recycling can make us more wasteful. Journal of Environmental Psychology77, 101672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101672

Jenny van Doorn is Professor in Services Marketing at the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. She researches (un)sustainable consumer behaviour, food waste, and the use of robots in the service frontline.
 

Tim Kurz is a Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology in the School of Psychological Science at the University of Western Australia. He researches the ways in which processes of morality and social identity influence people’s propensity to engage in environmentally sustainable (and other forms of pro-social) behavior. 

 

Why Longstanding Rituals Block Diversity and Inclusion Goals

On August 20, 2020, the football team Kansas City Chiefs announced the prohibition of Native American-style face paint and ceremonial headdresses at their home stadium.

Although the decision was made with the intention to better respect and celebrate American Indian cultures, especially in the wake of a nationwide push for racial justice following the death of George Floyd, many fans on Twitter responded with outrage over this decision—even threatening to leave the Chiefs’ fan base altogether.

Why did this decision produce such a strong, negative emotional reaction in some fans? Behavioral science research suggests why some people may react negatively to the ban on face paint and headdresses, including political polarization, backlash toward diversity initiatives, and the desire for freedom and control. With my colleagues Juliana Schroeder, Nicholas M. Hobson, Francesca Gino, Michael I. Norton, I looked at yet another explanation.  

The Role of Moral Outrage

In our research, we found that alterations to group rituals—such as prohibiting face paint and headdresses at Chiefs games—can provoke moral outrage because altering rituals is perceived as an attack on sacred group values.

Wearing face paint and headdresses at Chiefs games qualifies as a ritual because they are part of a rigid and meaningful sequence that includes the tomahawk chop. The tomahawk chop looks like, as you might guess, someone chopping with a tomahawk—and fans further combine it with chanting the Chiefs’ distinctive cheer and (at least before August 20, 2020) wearing face paint and headdresses. Rituals are actions that are done in a specified way—such as always performing the tomahawk chop when the Chiefs run onto the field—and they have meaning to the individuals who perform them—such as symbolizing the Chiefs’ ability to dominate the opposing team.

We found that the more an action constitutes a ritual—that is, the more the action is done in a rigid and repetitive way and has meaning—the more alterations to the action provoke outrage. To illustrate, one of our studies asked U.S. citizens to consider alterations to 15 different holidays celebrated in the U.S. The holidays naturally varied in ritualism—ranging from low-ritualistic holidays such as Columbus Day to high-ritualistic holidays such as Thanksgiving. We used a survey methodology to assess the degree that each holiday constituted a ritual by our definition and the amount of moral outrage triggered over a hypothetical alteration to the date the holiday is celebrated.

Which Holiday Alterations Triggered the Most Outrage?

Proposed alterations to more ritualistic holidays such as New Year’s, Christmas, and Thanksgiving produced more moral outrage than alterations to less ritualistic holidays such as Columbus Day or Washington’s birthday. The figure below presents these results.

Figure described above

Does the Ritual’s Alteration Have to be Intentional?

Even though rituals represent sacred values that are held to be non-negotiable, we wondered if the nature of the violator’s intention might soften the condemnation.

To find out, we recruited another sample of U.S. citizens to imagine that a fellow citizen recited the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance by sitting down (instead of standing up)—thus, altering the procedure to the ritual. Participants learned different reasons for the alteration:

  • Harmful intent—the individual aimed to undermine the country’s value system
  • Beneficial intent—the individual aimed to be inclusive to Americans with disabilities who cannot stand
  • Accidental intent—the individual forgot to stand
  • Lack of ability intent—the individual could not stand due to a medical condition, or
  • No information relating to intent

Then we asked whether participants felt any moral outrage—and if so, how much.

For all reasons for sitting except for being physically unable to stand, there was more moral outrage directed at the individual who stayed seated compared to the individual who stood. Thus, even alterations to rituals that are beneficial or undertaken accidentally can invoke outrage in others.

Rituals and Social Change

Overall, our research demonstrates that altering longstanding rituals provokes moral outrage among those who practice them. This has implications for the urgent and necessary efforts to foster diverse and inclusive societies and organizations. There are many rituals and traditions that serve as a roadblock to progress on diversity and inclusion goals, in domains as diverse as collegiate Greek Life to holiday celebrations. Our results suggest that altering these longstanding rituals—even with a stated beneficial intention—can provoke outrage in others, in part because the ritual is viewed as intertwined with the group’s most important values.


For Further Reading

Stein, D. H., Schroeder, J., Hobson, N. M., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2021). When alterations are violations: Moral outrage and punishment in response to (even minor) alterations to rituals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000352

Stein, D. H., Hobson, N. M., & Schroeder, J. (2021). A sacred commitment: How rituals promote group survival. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.005

Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944


Daniel Stein is a doctoral student in the Management of Organizations (MORS) Group at UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business. He conducts research on groups and teams in organizations, focusing on commitment to one's group. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Reactions to Unsolicited Advice in the Workplace

Have you ever observed coworkers doing something imperfectly and thought about giving them a tip about how to do it better? Or have you blurted out advice during a meeting without waiting on someone else to ask for it first? When you offer unsolicited advice, you hope the recipient will take the information on board. But in our research, we discovered that all too often, unsolicited advice is discounted or ignored, and valuable information goes to waste, even when it comes from our friends and close contacts.

Of course, one way to avoid having your advice ignored is to offer it when someone asks for it. But studies show that people are reluctant to ask for advice: It can imply a dependence on the person giving the advice, a temporary hierarchy (lower status people tend to ask for advice from higher status people), or reveal to them or others who may be in the vicinity that you may not know something and need to ask for advice. These concerns can make it unlikely that people feel comfortable asking for advice.

Missteps in Trying to Give Advice

While there are situations where people do feel comfortable asking others for advice, if we want to ensure that people have timely information when they need to make decisions, understanding how people react to unsolicited advice is surely important knowledge to have.

Social psychologists have long been interested in attributions—how people think about the causes of others’ behavior. These attributions are central to how we make sense of others’ actions. And, these answers to the “why?” question are an important part of the puzzle to figuring out how people respond to unsolicited advice.

The first step in our research was to describe the many different attributions that people can have. We asked people to tell us about occasions when people gave them advice they asked for (solicited advice) and advice they did not ask for (unsolicited advice), and then to tell us why they felt the other person provided the advice. In the case of solicited advice, we can all probably figure out why people offered it—after all, we asked for it! Solicited advice often has a clear, observable trigger.

But unsolicited advice is trickier. It’s not always obvious why someone is giving us advice when we didn’t ask for it. Some of the attributions people made for unsolicited advice included:

  • The advice-giver is attempting to take control of the situation
  • The advice-giver is attempting to flaunt their knowledge in a particular area
  • The advice-giver wants to genuinely benefit the recipient
  • The advice-giver wants to hurt or hinder the confidence or performance of the recipient.

These attributions ranged from being self-serving (“I want to make myself look good”) to prosocial (“I want you to perform better on this task”), and as our research reveals, this distinction turns out to be critical for understanding how to navigate whether unsolicited advice will have positive impact. Unsolicited advice is more likely to be seen as self-serving, and this ruins its impact.

Here Are Some Tips

If you want your unsolicited advice to be used by the recipient in what they’re doing, then it’s best to frame it in a way that minimizes the likelihood they think you have a self-serving motive. You need to emphasize that you’re giving them advice to benefit them, not to benefit yourself. And there are many ways to do this. One way is to make sure people know you are available to be approached for advice (such as asking, “How are things going?” or other questions that convey a willingness to be supportive). Letting people know that you care about them can convey psychological safety and make people comfortable asking for advice, reducing the need to offer unsolicited advice in the first place.

Another strategy is to be self-deprecating when giving unsolicited advice. If you tell them about a time when you faced a similar situation and experienced a suboptimal outcome, you reduce the likelihood that you’re giving them unsolicited advice to make yourself look good.

You might also wonder whether it matters who the source of the advice is. And the answer is that unsolicited advice is often dismissed or discounted, even if the advice comes from someone we consider a close personal friend at work. This is an important tendency to keep in mind, because we often feel most comfortable with our close friends and may share unsolicited advice with them more frequently. But that does not make them immune to the tendency to perceive unsolicited advice as self-serving (and therefore not use it).

Using the strategies above can help you avoid these pervasive reactions to unsolicited advice.


For Further Reading

Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260

Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127–151. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

Deelstra, J. T., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., Stroebe, W., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & van Doornen, L. P. (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 324–331. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.324

Landis, B., Fisher, C., & Menges, J. (2021). How employees react to unsolicited and solicited advice in the workplace: Implications for using advice, learning, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000876


Blaine Landis is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at University College London where he studies advice, personality, and social networks. He received his PhD from the University of Cambridge.

Colin M. Fisher is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at University College London where he studies team leadership, helping, and improvisation. He received his PhD from Harvard University.

 

Why Companies Should “Show” - Not “Tell” - Their Commitment to Diversity

In the U.S., organizations commonly publicize that they are diverse and inclusive, and committed to racial equity. For example, on their websites, organizations often state that they value racial and ethnic diversity or include photographs of employees from a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

In recent research, my collaborators and I found that people sometimes see these statements about organizations’ commitments to diversity and inclusion as misleading or dishonest. That is, they believe that the organization’s public declaration of diversity and inclusion overstates the organization’s actual diversity and inclusion, which we call a “diversity dishonesty” concern. We also found that racial and ethnic minorities feel less able to fit in, be authentic, and perform well when they have diversity dishonesty concerns.

People experience diversity dishonesty concerns to different degrees, but such concerns have a basis in reality. Most U.S. organizations struggle with racial equity, and many racial and ethnic minorities experience bias and discrimination in organizations. Companies may “tell” people that they value diversity and inclusion through public expressions of support but not “show” evidence of actually having a diverse and inclusive climate.

To study this diversity dishonesty experience, we first asked Black and Latinx people to rate how much they believed their workplaces overstate the organization’s actual commitment to diversity and inclusion in public-facing materials. The more our research participants reported that their organizations overstated their diversity and inclusion efforts, the less they reported that they fit in or were able to be successful in their own organizations.

“Show” Versus “Tell”

We wondered whether diversity dishonesty concerns are caused by the gap between what organizations “show” versus “tell” about their diversity and inclusion efforts. We asked another sample of participants to look at two different types of commitments that organizations may make about diversity: what an organization tells others about its diversity, and evidence-based cues that show what the organization’s actual diversity and inclusive climate looks like.

To make these cues realistic, the ”tell” information was made to look like the kinds of things companies post on their websites or in recruiting videos. The “show” cues were organizational charts that showed that the company either did or did not have Black leadership and reported former employees’ accounts of the company’s racial climate.

The “tell” information did not shift our participants’ beliefs about whether or not the organization was misleading about diversity—nor did it affect their beliefs about whether the participants thought they could thrive in the organization. However, when the Black participants in our studies saw evidence that the organization actually had a positive diversity climate, they had fewer concerns about the company overstating its commitment to diversity and inclusion. They also expressed fewer concerns about fitting in, being authentic, and performing well at the company.  The “show” cues were clearly important.

If an organization is not yet diverse but wants to be, perhaps it may publicize diversity and inclusion goals and initiatives. In our next studies, we will explore whether these types of aspirational public messages also trigger diversity dishonesty concerns. Researchers should also explore whether members of other groups that experience disadvantages in the workplace, such as women and transgender people, also experience diversity dishonesty concerns.

Of course, public commitments to diversity and inclusion have some merit. They can signal that an organization values diversity and inclusion, and help recruit racial and ethnic minorities to organizations. Still, our research suggests that it is more important for organizations to actually create diverse and inclusive climates that will enable racial and ethnic minorities to thrive than to merely espouse such messages.

Our studies suggest that organizations must “show” and not simply “tell” that they value diversity and inclusion.


For Further Reading

Wilton, L. S., Bell, A., Vahradyan, M., & Kaiser, C. K. (2020). Show don’t tell: Perceived diversity dishonesty harms racial minorities at work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1171–1185. doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897149

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0030838

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589– 617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
 

Leigh S. Wilton is an Assistant Professor at Skidmore College, where she studies diversity, multiracial identity, and intergroup relations.

Can’t Stop Yourself from Working? You Might Be a Workaholic


Have you ever felt like you are too obsessed with your work? Maybe you consistently feel like you ought to be working—such as feeling guilty for watching TV instead of sending just one more email tonight? Or, maybe you can’t stop thinking about work when lying in bed trying to sleep. I’m sure at times, we all have experienced this. But in the extreme, these compulsive work-related feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are indicative of workaholism.

Past research has found workaholism is related to negative individual, family, and health outcomes. Despite the “hustle” workaholic mentality that is still embraced by many professionals (consider Elon Musk’s 120-hour work week), workaholism is typically not linked to improved performance. This dichotomy underscores the need for additional analysis of workaholism’s costs and benefits.

My colleagues and I were particularly interested in examining workaholism in a more fine-grained way—with the goal of focusing on specific aspects of workaholism. We felt this was particularly important for understanding whether certain parts of workaholism were more deleterious than others. However, we quickly realized that current workaholism questionnaires did not match up very well with how researchers are now thinking about workaholism. So, we first embarked on a series of studies to develop a new measure of workaholism.

Our measure of workaholism contains four aspects and is called the Multidimensional Workaholism Scale. It was developed and tested in five studies of workers from a variety of industries throughout the United States. The questions measure:

  • Motivation: how much does a person have an inner compulsion or feeling that one “ought” to be working all the time
  • Habits of thought: how much a person has persistent thoughts about work
  • Emotions:  how much a person experiences negative emotions when not working
  • Behaviors: how much a person works excessively beyond what is reasonable and expected.

To ensure the quality of our new questionnaire, we first demonstrated that the items appropriately reflected each of these four aspects. Then, we compared our new workaholism measure to other related concepts such as perfectionism and work engagement, and we also examined how strongly our measure of workaholism related to important work, family, and individual outcomes, such as job satisfaction, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion.

With our new measure, we uncovered new information about workaholism. For example, we found the motivational and behavioral aspects of workaholism were more closely aligned with adaptive forms of perfectionism—having excessively high standards and seeking excellence—and with work engagement. However, the habits-of-thought and emotional aspects of workaholism were more closely related to negative forms of perfectionism—fear of making mistakes and negative social evaluation. Furthermore, only the cognitive aspect of workaholism was related to lower job satisfaction.

We believe there is one additional point that deserves special emphasis. The question is not whether you are or aren’t a workaholic—because workaholism is a continuum, not an “either-or” quality. Taking this view aids in our scientific understanding of workaholism and efforts to minimize unhealthy relationships with work and improve employee health and well-being.

Overall, our new measure allows researchers to examine workaholism in a more fine-grained way than was previously possible. Understanding workaholism as consisting of four aspects allows researchers and practitioners the opportunity to develop ways to reduce negative consequences of workaholism.


For Further Reading

Balducci, C., Avanzi, L., & Fraccaroli, F. (2018). The individual “costs” of workaholism: An analysis based on multisource and prospective data. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2961-2986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316658348

Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L, Pui, S., & Baltes, B. B. (2016). All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42, 1836-1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522301

ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Rothbard, N. P., & Uhrich, B. (2017). Beyond nine to five: Is working to excess bad for health? Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(3), 262-283. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0115

 

Malissa A. Clark is an Associate Professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on workaholism, the work-family interface, and employee well-being.

Women’s Leadership in the COVID-19 Crisis

The contagious, unpredictable, and deadly nature of the COVID-19 virus created one of the largest “natural experiments” in history, affording researchers in social psychology and personality an opportunity to study psychological processes during a life-and-death crisis.

The rapid escalation of COVID-19 created unprecedented levels of uncertainty. As the crisis unfolded, governors across the United States were forced to make drastic decisions that carried rare personal costs to their residents. This included social distancing measures, mandated use of face masks, business shutdowns, and school closures.  In research conducted between April and May 2020, we found that the gender of governors in the United States was associated with the most important consequence of COVID-19—death rates: States with female governors had fewer COVID-19 deaths than states with male governors.

Research on gender and leadership has revealed that women tend to be preferred over men as leaders during uncertain times. There are several reasons that female leaders thrive in a crisis.

First, during a crisis, a leader must exercise creative thinking. In general, women tend to rely more than men on creativity, improvisation, and intuition to inform their decisions. Leadership in a crisis relies less on direct experience and, instead, calls for cognitive flexibility and a willingness to consider input and advice from many different people.

Research on leadership styles has long shown that, on average, women have a more democratic leadership style and men have a more autocratic style. As a result, women tend to be better leaders in a crisis because they focus more on collaboration and knowledge sharing. They listen to multiple voices.  For example, consider the remarks of Rhode Island Governor, Gina Raimondo, in her April 13, 2020 briefing, “I am confident that by working together and sharing our best ideas, we will be more likely to get it right.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has had disorienting effects on millions of Americans, prompting tremendous levels of stress, fear, and frustration. Thus, it is especially important for leaders to show empathy by speaking to their followers’ feelings and acknowledging the emotional challenges the public faces. Women tend to have a greater capacity for understanding other people’s feelings than men, so they tend to connect more easily with followers on an emotional level. Consider, for instance, South Dakota Governor, Kristi Noem’s, remarks on April 23, 2020, “You do not have to go through this alone. Don’t hesitate to reach out to me personally, to reach out to my family because they are in the same boat many times and feel the same feelings that you all do.”

Finally, mistakes are unavoidable in a crisis like COVID-19. Leaders need confidence to make course corrections without overreacting or paralyzing the operations with doubt. Research has shown that women generally attribute failure more to external causes, whereas men take failure more personally, which inhibits their ability to bounce back. For this reason, women are more likely than men to exude confidence in a crisis. Consider the remarks of Washington D.C. mayor, Muriel Bowser, on April 3, 2020, “…we will get through this and we will get on the other side of this and we will get back to life …”

In our analysis of governors, we included variables that allowed us to isolate the unique effect of gender by controlling for variables such as state population, stay-at-home orders, domestic travel bans, face mask mandates, and statewide curfews. Including these variables in our analysis increased our confidence that the governor’s gender—and not some other factor that might influence COVID death rates—was responsible for our results.

We found that states with female governors had fewer COVID-19 deaths. To provide insight into why, we analyzed more than 250 of the COVID-19-related briefings that governors held between April 1 and May 5, 2020, which included more than 1.2 million words. On average, women governors showed more empathy than men by connecting more with their followers’ feelings. Likewise, female governors showed empathy by relating more to their followers’ personal concerns than did male governors. Female governors also expressed more confidence that we will get through the crisis compared with male governors.  

These findings highlight the need to value different leadership styles and to build a culture of inclusion and empathy.  We hope it is obvious that, despite average gender differences, female leaders do not have a monopoly on leadership traits such as inclusiveness and empathy. So, both male and female leaders can make efforts to be more inclusive and empathic. Empathic leaders convey a tone of communication that is tactful and gentle. Similarly, confidence can impact the way leaders communicate. Whereas men often communicate confidence in a way that increases their power—by commanding attention and winning arguments—women tend to be more sensitive in exuding confidence by focusing on immediately relevant issues rather than power.

Are there any stereotypically male leadership traits that will come in handy as America continues to cope with COVID-19?  We suspect so.  Decades of research on leadership and work behavior show that a balance of task orientation (getting the job done) and interpersonal sensitivity (connectedness) is ideal in most leadership situations.  So, for both male and female leaders—whether parents, teachers, presidents, or technocrats—focusing on getting the job done while also being empathic and open to the feelings and ideas of others is probably an ideal combination.        

Of course, changing gendered stereotypes and norms about leadership at a societal level is easier said than done. Nonetheless, we believe that constructive conversations about specific leadership skills can change stereotypes and habits about effective leadership—to move forward in this time of the global COVID-19 pandemic.   


For Further Reading

Sergent, K., & Stajkovic, A. D. (2020). Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000577
 

Kayla Sergent is an Assistant Professor of Management at Edgewood College.

Alex Stajkovic is the M. Keith Weikel Distinguished Chair in Leadership at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Does Your Organization Have a Growth Mindset?

Over the past few years, almost everyone from school children to professional athletes has been encouraged to adopt a “growth mindset”—the belief that people’s abilities can improve with persistence, good strategies, and seeking help from other people. But mindsets don’t just exist inside individual people’s heads—they exist in certain places as well.

In fact, companies can have mindsets too—and these mindsets function as a cultural factor that influences employees’ motivation and behavior. In companies that have “cultures of genius,” natural ability is emphasized. These fixed-mindset organizations communicate that people either have what it takes to be a “star” in the organization or they don’t. But growth-mindset companies have a “culture of development” in which improving people’s skills and abilities is the central focus.

Organizational mindsets are communicated by powerful people in an organization—such as leaders and supervisors—and by the organization’s policies, practices, and procedures, including its hiring, evaluation, and promotion policies.

Our newest research shows that growth-mindset companies have more positive company cultures. We examined the mission statements of all companies in the Fortune 500 for fixed and growth mindset language. and then we paired those data with data from Glassdoor, a website where employees rate their company’s culture. We found that companies that espoused more growth mindset language in their mission statements had a more positive company culture according to the employees who worked there.

In another study, we asked over 500 employees working in some of the largest companies in the U.S. to report on their company’s mindset and culture.  In particular, we were interested in how mindset predicts the behavioral norms for how the company’s employees treat each other.

Companies perceived to have a stronger growth mindset had employees who were more collaborative. This makes sense because collaboration facilitates learning and skill development—behaviors that are consistent with a culture of development. In contrast, employees in fixed-mindset companies were less collaborative, because when environments are focused on identifying and promoting “stars,” collaboration can make it harder for individual employees to stand out.

Even more telling, employees in growth-mindset companies were more innovative and willing to take intellectual risks without fear of failing. In a culture of development, mistakes are part of the learning process. On the other hand, employees in fixed-mindset companies were more risk-averse and less innovative because innovation increases the opportunity for mistakes. And, in a culture of genius, mistakes cast doubt on people’s abilities.

Employees in growth-mindset companies were also less likely to cheat, cut corners, and keep important information from other employees because these unethical behaviors undermine the learning process prized by growth mindset companies. In contrast, employees in fixed-mindset companies were more willing to engage in unethical behavior because getting ahead of others and being a star is what’s valued in these companies—even at the expense of ethical behavior.

Given these more positive company cultures and norms, employees in growth-mindset companies were more trusting of and committed to their company, which are important factors for job satisfaction, organizational productivity, and employee turnover.

One fascinating thing we discovered is that even people with little expertise can decipher a company’s mindset just by reading publicly available materials such as mission statements and job ads. Because people are more attracted to growth mindset companies, this has implications for recruiting new employees and investors.

The next big question is to understand how organizational mindsets are communicated and transmitted through an organization. How will adopting a growth mindset shape organizational success? In the future, we will examine these questions to provide new strategies for creating and sustaining growth mindset cultures that benefit employees’ and organizations’ success.


For Further Reading

Canning, E. A., Murphy, M. C., Emerson, K. T. U., Chatman, J. A., Dweck, C. S., & Kray, L. J. (2020). Cultures of genius at work: Organizational mindsets predict cultural norms, trust, and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 626-642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219872473

Murphy, M. C., Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209347380

Emerson, K. T., Murphy, M. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564969

Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances. 5(2) eaau4734. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau4734

 

Elizabeth A. Canning is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Washington State University. Her research focuses on how to create equitable and inclusive contexts that stoke motivation, persistence, and achievement.

Mary C. Murphy is the Herbert B. Wells Endowed Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University. She studies organizational mindset and how other features of the environment shape people’s motivation, behavior, and performance in educational and organizational settings.

 

Gender Diversity Alone Is Not Enough

Today, women are more likely to hold positions of power than they were decades ago. However, female leaders tend to be put under a microscope, facing more scrutiny than their male counterparts.

For example, Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo, was blamed for the many missteps in the company. As a young woman and a CEO, her social role as a woman and as a CEO may have been in conflict.

This conflict is not unique to Mayer, or even CEOs. Women in positions of power are assumed to immediately help other women come to power—but is that assumption true?

Andrea Vial examined whether women in power would hire other female candidates. Women in power might want to hire other women, but role demands might be stronger than personal attitudes and identities. Candidate fit needs to be considered: if a woman in power is choosing employees for a company with a strongly masculine “bro” culture, hiring another female candidate might end up becoming detrimental for that candidate.

Vial asked her participants to choose a vice president of operations for a company. The control group read a basic description of a male CEO, and the experimental group read the description of a male CEO who strongly adhered to traditional restrictive gender roles.

Participants had a choice between an average or qualified male or female candidate. When the CEO was described as prejudiced against women, participants chose the female candidate at a lower rate, a finding that was significant and has been replicated.

Vial also looked at how the participants’ sexism played a role in their choices for a VP of Operations. Men had higher modern sexism scores, but both men and women accommodated for the sexist CEO’s prejudices by not choosing the female candidate.

The idea that women leaders will always choose other women to lead is faulty—role priorities of the CEO constrain women’s ability to choose other female leaders, especially if factors like a sexist company culture will hurt the female candidate.

Intersections of Gender and Race

Looking at another facet of the issue, Eva Pietri examined when white female leaders function as role models for black women.

Pietri’s past research looked at how Black women related to either a Black male role model or a White female role model and asked how much attraction the Black female participants felt to the hypothetical company that the “role models” worked for.

Black women report more similarity and anticipated sense of belonging at the company with a Black male model; whereas a White female role model had the same effect as the control group. She posited that Black women feel that Black men had experienced similar oppression to themselves, and White women did not.

Pietri hypothesized that making gender bias salient would increase the likelihood of a White woman being a role model for a Black woman.

Pietri showed an informational module to Black female participants about the gender bias in STEM fields. The control group did not receive the module about gender bias in STEM. Then, participants were shown a webpage for a fictional company, with either a Black male employee or a White female employee.

In the STEM gender bias condition, the gender bias became more salient for Black women. The participants believed that the White women experienced bias as a leader in the fictional STEM company, which increased Black women’s perceived similarity to the White female—this increased anticipated belonging and trust.

When the category of gender bias becomes salient, Black women can choose a White woman as a role model, but the conditions that Pietri set forth do have to be considered.

Female leaders face much bias within society, with opposing pressures from society at large and from within the company. Simply increasing the number of female leaders will not be enough to truly close the gender gap in leadership.


Written By: Elisa Rapadas

Speakers: Andrea Vial (Yale University), Evava Pietri (Indiana University Purdue), and Francesca Manzi (New York University)

Program: Women in High Places: Helping or Hurting Other Women? held Saturday, March 3, 2018.

The Dark Side of Being a “Healthcare Hero” During the Pandemic

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals, companies, and corporations alike raced to express their gratitude and admiration toward "healthcare heroes" working on the frontlines.  These messages—displayed on innumerable banners and co-opted advertisements—seemed like a welcome development for a workforce that often feels underappreciated.

What few people realize, however, is that while healthcare workers were being praised publicly for their work against COVID-19, they were also being stigmatized—albeit more privately—for their work alongside the virus and infected patients. Indeed, our recent research shows that many healthcare workers experienced intense ostracism and rejection by their friends, family, and the public at large.

Healthcare Workers Report Facing Mixed Reactions

To understand whether healthcare workers were internalizing the "healthcare heroes" narrative, we conducted in-depth interviews via Zoom and phone calls with 98 healthcare workers across the United States and South America. The healthcare workers we interviewed often felt conflicted about being labeled "heroes." Although they appreciated the public recognition of their sacrifices, they frequently perceived the label as inauthentic, patronizing, and even dangerous.

Beyond their misgivings about being labeled "heroes," many workers also reported being treated like "dirty heroes"—celebrated for their work but avoided and ostracized because of their perceived exposure to the virus. As one healthcare worker described it, "People look at you like you're infected." One healthcare worker likened their treatment to the AIDS epidemic, saying there's "this idea that [people] will get this disease from you just by being near you." We heard dozens of reports from healthcare workers about dirty looks at grocery stores and gas stations, leading, in some instances, to strangers approaching them and asking if they should be there at all. However, as many healthcare workers echoed, "Just because I work in a hospital doesn't mean I have coronavirus."

Unfortunately, this ostracism often extended to their immediate families. For example, an ICU nurse and single mother recalled a heartbreaking story about her kids being excluded by neighborhood children who reportedly told her son, "Don't come near us. Your mom works in a hospital. You could get us sick." We also heard stories of healthcare workers ostracized by their own extended families, banished to separate dining tables and outdoor patios, or excluded from family gatherings altogether.

Furthermore, the "hero" label did not always translate into tangible support for healthcare workers. Many workers felt overworked and unsupported by their employers—a phenomenon we call "hero washing." Hero washing occurs when workers are publicly celebrated yet insufficiently supported. This lack of support, combined with the mixed positive and negative social evaluations they received, routinely led to feelings of burnout and dissatisfaction.

Hero washing is likely widespread. For example, although past and present military members are often honored at professional sporting events, many struggle to find adequate resources to deal with issues such as PTSD and homelessness. Teachers are similarly celebrated yet continue to earn far less than people in many other, less-celebrated occupations.

The reasons for hero washing are undoubtedly complex. Some healthcare workers believed that outsiders called them heroes as a way of cheaply acknowledging their sacrifices without having to deal with the inherit messiness that these workers engaged in—a sort of quid pro quo exchange of social status for sacrifice.

The Double-Edged Sword of Being a Hero

By chronicling the experience of healthcare workers during this precarious period and by presenting the concepts of "dirty heroes" and "hero washing," we hope to raise awareness about the potential harm of bestowing honorifics on people who do difficult jobs without providing needed support.

Companies often like to brag about or publicly praise their employees, but our study shows the danger in empty praise. Empty praise can backfire, revealing that organizational leaders are disingenuous, unaware, and out of touch with those they are claiming to support.

On the flip side, when support and praise were given in ways that were perceived as targeted and authentic, workers received these evaluations warmly. Indeed, praise coupled with tangible support that recognizes the difficulties and importance of the work provides congruent rather than incongruent acknowledgment of workers' lived experiences.

We hope our research instigates meaningful change in how society perceives and supports those who sacrifice for the greater good and emphasizes the importance of targeted, informed, and genuine evaluations that are accompanied by real support.


For Further Reading

Rapp, D. J., Hughey, J. M., & Kreiner, G. E. (2023). Dirty heroes? Healthcare workers' experience of mixed social evaluations during the pandemic. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0502

Rapp, D. J., Hughey, J. M., & Kreiner, G. E. (2021). Boundary work as a buffer against burnout: Evidence from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000951

Hennekam, S., Ladge, J., & Shymko, Y. (2020). From zero to hero: An exploratory study examining sudden hero status among nonphysician health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000832


Devin Rapp ([email protected]) is a PhD Candidate at the University of Utah and will be an assistant professor at San Diego State University in the fall of 2024. His research focuses on burnout, mental health, stigma, work–life boundaries, and identity.

J. Matthew Hughey ([email protected]) is a PhD Candidate at the University of Utah. His research focuses on occupational identity, work–life boundaries, burnout, and the social construction and communication of expertise.

Glen Kreiner is the L.S. Skaggs presidential chair in business ethics at the University of Utah. His research areas include identity (organizational, professional, and work-related), mindful leadership, workers with developmental disabilities, stigma, dirty work, mindfulness, ethics, mental health, and work–family issues.

The Upside of Psychopathy in Leadership: Fearless Dominance

The trait of psychopathy has been widely studied, making its way into mainstream media and popular culture. Highly psychopathic people are described as remorseless and coldhearted manipulators who can't control their impulses and can seriously harm the people around them. They don't seem to fear the consequences of their actions, are rarely stressed, and don't hesitate to act in pursuit of their personal goals. These traits that psychopaths lack—fear of consequences, stress, and hesitancy to act in pursuit of personal goals—are scientifically known as fearless dominance.

But what exactly does fearless dominance entail? Fearless-dominant people are emotionally resilient, self-assured, talkative, and outgoing. They remain calm in the face of threats and display both physical and social fearlessness. People with a high degree of fearless dominance remain composed even in the toughest situations, whether it's during a challenging business negotiation or in a physically dangerous situation.

This poise in the most nerve-wracking of situations might remind you of comic book heroes found in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or even real-life heroes such as firefighters. However, these same characteristics also describe many criminals. So, it's unclear if it's good or bad to be fearless dominant. On the one hand, it can be helpful to be bold and intrepid, but on the other hand, people with fearless dominance can take very risky actions, and be excessively stubborn and determined.

Under the right conditions, fearless dominance might lead to workplace success. But what are these 'right conditions?' Current research suggests early socialization might be a key factor.

The Well-socialized Psychopath?

David T. Lykken proposed in his work on antisocial personalities that altruistic heroes and dangerous criminals are different branches of the same psychopathy tree. The key difference between them lies in their socialization, the process through which children and adolescents learn, follow, and accept the norms, values, and behaviors necessary for social living. During this socialization, young people transition to orienting themselves toward their peers and society. But what constitutes successful socialization? Is it possible that a fearless dominant young person who accepts and adopts these social expectations could blossom as a prosocial adult in the workplace?

In an online survey study involving 163 professionals and their colleagues, our research team at the University of Bonn, Germany, investigated the relation between fearless dominance, socialization, and workplace performance. We used educational attainment as an indicator of successful socialization, because achieving a higher degree of education suggests the more successful adoption of society's expectations. We found that fearless dominant participants who had higher levels of education received more positive performance evaluations from their work colleagues than fearless dominant participants with lower levels of education.

In a second study, we examined the long-term effects of fearless dominance on success among more than 4000 employees. Using education level to indicate socialization, we found that the impact of fearless dominance on work success depended on socialization. For those with greater education, fearless dominance was a helpful resource for coping with career challenges. In contrast, for those with less education, high fearless dominance led to professional failure. These "unsocialized" fearless dominants showed a strong tendency towards risky behaviors and less willingness to change their behavior in response to negative experiences—characteristics that explained their professional failure. They earned about €1000 less than their well-educated counterparts after four years, and some even experienced income losses over time.

Fearless Dominance, Social Competence, and Leadership

But how does fearless dominance relate to leadership? To answer this question, we first looked at some of the building blocks of good leadership. To be effective leaders, people need to be socially skilled. They must build and maintain networks of valuable contacts, so they can quickly access resources and support when needed. Having good social competence also means having a keen understanding of subtle social cues, which can reveal the full picture of any given social situation. Also, the socially savvy can influence others to gain their approval and support. Finally, socially competent people are perceived as honest and reliable, whether accurately or not. When combined, these qualities, named political skill, have been shown in prior research to create workplace relationships of trust. Therefore, we reasoned that the more highly educated fearless dominant leaders would be perceived by others as possessing workplace social competence, and that this political skill would determine whether those in leadership roles are effective.

To test these ideas, we recruited 239 leaders from a variety of different organizations to participate in an online study investigating the association between fearless dominance, social competence, and leader success. These leaders had an average of 8 years of leadership experience and 11 direct subordinates. We recruited their direct supervisors and at least one subordinate to provide ratings of social competence, quality of leadership and team performance.

As we expected, highly educated leaders with high fearless dominance were rated as highly socially competent by their supervisors. In contrast, leaders with high fearless dominance but subpar education were seen as lacking in social competence. Furthermore, subordinates rated the socially competent leaders as performing their job better, being more transformational (inspirational) as a leader, and delivering higher team performance. 

Putting these findings together, we found that fearless dominant leaders who have greater educational attainment can be an asset for the organization. The value they produce in their leadership role is due to their high social competence, resulting in their subordinates perceiving them as more effective leaders.

In sum, our research confirms that psychopathy—at least the aspects associated with fearless dominance—need not be evil. Fearless dominance combined with social competence can be beneficial for leaders, their subordinates, and their organization.


For Further Reading

Genau-Hagebölling, H. A., Meurs, J. A., Kückelhaus, B. P., & Blickle, G. (2023). Fearless dominance and leader effectiveness: A chance for excellence in leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review, APPS_12504. https://doi.org/10.1111/APPS.12504

Blickle, G. & Genau, H. A. (2019). The two faces of fearless dominance and their relations to vocational success. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.001

Blickle, G., & Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.006


Bastian Kückelhaus is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Bonn, Germany. His research topics include the Dark Triad of Personality as well as personnel testing and assessment.

Gerhard Blickle is a full professor of psychology at the University of Bonn, Germany. He researches a wide variety of workplace-related topics that include (dark) personality at work, interaction and communication in the workplace, ethics and counterproductive work behavior, occupational performance diagnostics as well as organizational and occupational socialization.

James A. Meurs is an Associate Professor in the Coles College of Business at Kennesaw State University, USA. He has published articles in a range of management and applied psychology journals on the topics of occupational stress, personality at work, and political skill.