More from the Author

• Article | Academy of Management Journal

  Does 'Could' Lead to Good? On the Road to Moral Insight

  Ting Zhang, Francesca Gino and Joshua D. Margolis

  Dilemmas featuring competing moral imperatives are prevalent in organizations and are difficult to resolve. Whereas prior research has focused on how individuals adjudicate among these moral imperatives, we study the factors that influence when individuals find solutions that fall outside of the salient options presented. In particular, we study moral insight, or the discovery of solutions, other than selecting one of the competing moral imperatives over another, that honor both competing imperatives or resolve the tension among them. Although individuals intuitively consider the question “What should I do?” when contemplating moral dilemmas, we find that prompting people to consider “What could I do?” helps them generate moral insight. Together, these studies point toward the conditions that enable moral insight and important practical implications.

  Keywords: Moral insight; Ethical dilemma; Could mindset; Divergent thinking; Moral Sensibility; Creativity; Decision Choices and Conditions;

  Citation:

  Zhang, Ting, Francesca Gino, and Joshua D. Margolis. "Does 'Could' Lead to Good? On the Road to Moral Insight." Academy of Management Journal 61, no. 3 (June 2018): 857–895.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Article | Management Science | June 2017

  The Surprising Effectiveness of Hostile Mediators

  Ting Zhang, Francesca Gino and Michael I. Norton

  Contrary to the tendency of mediators to defuse negative emotions between adversaries by treating them kindly, we demonstrate the surprising effectiveness of hostile mediators in resolving conflict. Hostile mediators generate greater willingness to reach agreements between adversaries (Experiment 1). Consequently, negotiators interacting with hostile mediators are better able to reach agreements in incentive-compatible negotiations than those interacting with nice mediators (Experiments 2). By serving as common enemies, hostile mediators cause adversaries in conflict to feel more connected and become more willing to reach agreement (Experiments 3 and 4). Finally, we manipulate the target of mediators’ hostility to document the moderating role of common enemies: mediators who directed their hostility toward both negotiators (bilateral hostility)—becoming a common enemy—increased willingness to reach agreement; those who directed hostility at just one negotiator (unilateral hostility) did not serve as common enemies, eliminating the hostile mediator effect (Experiment 5). We discuss theoretical and practical implications and suggest future directions.

  Keywords: mediation; conflict; negotiation; emotions; hostility; Negotiation Style; Emotions; Conflict and Resolution;

  Citation:

  Zhang, Ting, Francesca Gino, and Michael I. Norton. "The Surprising Effectiveness of Hostile Mediators." Management Science 63, no. 6 (June 2017): 1972–1992.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related

• Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

  Overcoming the Outcome Bias: Making Intentions Matter

  Ovul Sezer, Ting Zhang, Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman

  People often make the well-documented mistake of paying too much attention to the outcomes of others’ actions while neglecting information about the original intentions leading to those outcomes. In five experiments, we examine interventions aimed at reducing this outcome bias in situations where intentions and outcomes are misaligned. Participants evaluated an individual with fair intentions leading to unfavorable outcomes, an individual with selfish intentions leading to favorable outcomes, or both individuals jointly. Contrary to our initial predictions, participants weighed others’ outcomes more—not less—when these individuals were evaluated jointly rather than separately (Experiment 1). Consequently, separate evaluators were more intention-oriented than joint evaluators when rewarding and punishing others (Experiment 2a) and assessing the value of repeated interactions with these individuals in the future (Experiment 2b). Third-party recommenders were less outcome-biased in allocating funds to investment managers when making separate evaluations relative to joint evaluations (Experiment 3). Finally, raising the salience of intentions prior to discovering outcomes helped joint evaluators overcome the outcome bias, suggesting that joint evaluation made attending to information about intentions more difficult (Experiment 4). Our findings bridge decision-making research on the outcome bias and management research on organizational justice by investigating the role of intentions in evaluations.

  Keywords: outcome bias; intentions; joint evaluation; judgment; separate evaluation; Goals and Objectives; Prejudice and Bias; Judgments; Performance Evaluation; Outcome or Result;

  Citation:

  Sezer, Ovul, Ting Zhang, Francesca Gino, and Max Bazerman. "Overcoming the Outcome Bias: Making Intentions Matter." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 137 (November 2016): 13–26.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related