Group Identity, Performance Transparency, and Employee Performance

ABSTRACT Economics, social psychology, and management studies suggest that group identity plays an important role in directing employee behaviors. On the one hand, strong group identity could motivate high effort to resolve conflicts of interests in the workplace. On the other hand, it could encourage conformity toward group norms. We examine whether the effect of group identity is conditional on managers' performance reporting choices. Drawing on survey and archival data from a field site, we find that when performance transparency is low, the interest alignment effect is more salient and group identity positively relates to employee performance. However, when performance transparency is high, the conformity effect is more salient and higher group identity is associated with more homogeneous, but not necessarily higher, employee performance. Our findings contribute to the management control literature by documenting that managers' performance reporting choices determine whether group identity has positive effects on employee performance. Data Availability: Data in this study are derived from a proprietary source.

Under Pressure: Examining Social Conformity With Computer and Robot Groups

Objective: The authors investigate whether nonhuman agents, such as computers or robots, produce a social conformity effect in human operators and examine to what extent potential conformist behavior varies as a function of the human-likeness of the group members and the type of task that has to be performed. Background: People conform due to normative and/or informational motivations in human–human interactions, and conformist behavior is modulated by factors related to the individual as well as factors associated with the group, context, and culture. Studies have yet to examine whether nonhuman agents also induce social conformity. Method: Participants were assigned to a computer, robot, or human group and completed both a social and analytical task with the respective group. Results: Conformity measures (percentage of times participants answered in line with agents on critical trials) subjected to a 3 × 2 mixed ANOVA showed significantly higher conformity rates for the analytical versus the social task as well as a modulation of conformity depending of the perceived agent–task fit. Conclusion: Findings indicate that nonhuman agents were able to exert a social conformity effect, which was modulated further by the perceived match between agent and task type. Participants conformed to comparable degrees with agents during the analytical task but conformed significantly more strongly on the social task as the group’s human-likeness increased. Application: Results suggest that users may react differently to the influence of nonhuman agent groups with the potential for variability in conformity depending on the domain of the task.

Under Pressure: Examining Social Conformity with Computer and Robot Groups

Objective: To investigate whether non-human agents, such as computers or social robots, produce a social conformity effect within human operators and to what extent potential conformist behavior varies as a function of the human-likeness of the group members and the type of task that had to be performed. Background: People conform due to normative and/or informational motivations in human-human interactions, and conformist behavior is modulated by factors related to the individual, as well as factors associated with the group, context and culture. Studies have yet to examine whether non-human agents also induce social conformity. Method: Participants were assigned to a computer, robot, or human group and completed both a social and analytical task with the respective group. Results: Conformity measures (percentage of times participants answered in line with agents on critical trials) subjected to a 3 x 2 mixed ANOVA showed significantly higher conformity rates for the analytical versus the social task, as well as a modulation of conformity depending of the perceived agent-task fit. Conclusion: Findings indicate that non-human agents were able to exert a general conformity effect and that informational influence associated with the group’s expertise for a given task had a stronger impact on conformity than normative motivations associated with its human-likeness. Application: Results suggest that users may react differently to suggestions of non-human versus human agent groups with the potential of under-reliance on social tasks.

Memory Conformity Following Collaborative Remembering

Despite natural differences in the way individuals initially remember the same encoded event, research shows that when people discuss their memories they can influence each other such that their subsequent individual memory reports become similar. This phenomenon is referred to as “memory conformity.” It can occur because people accept, and later report, information that is suggested to them in the course of the discussion. In the interest of both theoretical and applied implications, researchers have investigated factors that can increase and decrease the memory conformity effect. This chapter presents methodological approaches to investigating memory conformity, typical research findings, and current theoretical explanations that help account for the phenomenon.

An Asymmetric Moral Conformity Effect

The present study investigated whether and to what extent people’s judgments on trolley-type moral dilemmas are subject to conformity pressures. Trolley dilemmas contrast deontological (principled) moral concerns with consequentialist (outcome based) moral reasoning. Subjects were asked to respond to trolley dilemmas in a forced choice format and either simultaneously received bogus information about the base rate of consequentialist and deontological responding for each dilemma or received no distribution information. In the information condition, the bogus distributions showed that either the consequentialist or the deontological choice option was favored by a majority of previous participants. In a set of two independent studies, we showed that subjects exhibit little conformity to a consequentialist majority opinion but strongly conform when confronted with a deontological majority opinion. We suggest this asymmetric conformity effect demonstrates that subjects are less willing to appear consequentialist than deontological, and we explain these results through mutualistic partner choice models.