Identity Confirmation Networks and Cooperation in Work Groups

Stakeholder Relationships and Social Welfare: A Behavioral Theory of Contributions to Joint Value Creation

“…Two key mechanisms underlie this psychological process. First, because others' behaviors provide very important information about who one is in relation to others (Turner & Oakes, 2010, the use of another relational model by the firm calls into question stakeholders' selfrepresentation (Milton & Westphal, 2005). A second mechanism is the negative moral emotions generated by a continuing transgression: switching relational model or ending the relationship is a way to avoid these negative emotions (Fehr & Gächter, 2002;Fiske, 1991).…”

Power, Safety, and Learning in Racially Diverse Groups

“…Those different from the racial norm are more likely to be asked to suppress racial identity, exactly the kind of intervention that can trigger identity threat since it suggests that one's identity is unwelcome. Studies of interpersonal congruence-the extent to which group members are seen by others in the group as they see themselves-find that it leads to team effectiveness (Milton, 2005;Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002;Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004). In fact, this research suggests that interpersonal congruence enhances the effect of diversity, including racial diversity, on performance.…”

Perceived Influence and Friendship as Antecedents of Cooperation in Top Management Teams: A Network Approach

“…These interdependencies are established by the recurring exchange of inputs and outputs as the work flows along work chains through the organization (Brass 1984). In line with this view, we adopt a behavioral perspective and define cooperation as interactive and relational behavior between top managers that is directed towards the achievement of organizational tasks (Chen, Xiao-Ping, andMeindl 1998, Milton andWestphal 2005). Past research has shown that collaborative networks are not exclusively the result of formal organizational structures but are largely determined by informal work contacts (e.g., Van Duijn 1997, Monge andContractor 2003).…”

“…The resulting cooperative activities are not necessarily based on formal organizational structures or job descriptions (Bunderson 2003, Lazega and Van Duijn 1997, Monge and Contractor 2003. Instead, cooperative networks depict actual and willful patterns of interaction directed towards the successful achievement of mutual goals (Chen, Xiao-Ping, andMeindl 1998, Milton andWestphal 2005). Although cooperative networks and their antecedents have been examined intensively (e.g., Ahuja 2000, Blumberg 2001, Loeser 1999, Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass 2001, Moody 2004, Powell and Brantley 1992, Shan, Walker, and Kogut 1994) the investigation of collaborative relationships among a firm's upper echelons has attracted surprisingly little academic attention.…”

“…Studying the extant literature (for an overview see Yilmaz and Hunt 2001) reveals that the antecedents of collaborative networks can be assigned to two different levels: First, scholars have examined individual-level determinants of collaborative behavior such as educational background (Hinds and Kiesler 1995); differences in race, sex, and citizenship (Chatman and Barsade 1995); cultural differences (Chen, Xiao-Ping, andMeindl 1998, Wagner 1995); organizational identification (Polzer 2004); identity confirmation (Milton and Westphal 2005); and individual predisposition to cooperate (Chatman andBarsade 1995, Deery andIverson 2005). Secondly, the effects of organizational variables have been investigated, e.g., physical distance between organizational members (Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, and Ilgen 2003), procedural justice and open communication (Deery andIverson 2005, Kim andMauborgne 1998), communication technology (Hinds and Kiesler 1995), organizational climate (Iacobucci and Hopkins 1992), reward structures and sanction systems (Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, and Ilgen 2003, Polzer 2004, Tenbrunsel and Messick 1999, as well as the size of the organization or work group respectively (Wagner 1995).…”