Leadership Style and the Discussion of Shared and Unshared Information in Decision-Making Groups

Larson, James R.; Foster-Fishman, Pennie G.; Franz, Timothy M.

doi:10.1177/0146167298245004

Cited by 148 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas past research has clearly suggested that members of equal-status groups have difficulty sharing uniquely-held information (Stasser, 1999), Larson, Foster-Fishman, and Franz (1998) found that in groups with members of unequal status, status-advantaged members who adopted a more participative (i.e., socialized) style were able to encourage the expression and utilization of uniquely-held information. Higher-status members facilitated the utilization of unshared information by soliciting and then explicitly acknowledging contributions from lower-status others.…”

Section: Socialized Power and Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 88%

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Bunderson

Reagans

2011

Organization Science

287

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the scholarly literature on the effects of social hierarchy—differences in power and status among organizational actors—on collective learning in organizations and groups. We begin with the observation that theories of organization and group learning have tended to adopt a rational system model, a model that emphasizes goal-directed and cooperative interactions between and among actors who may differ in knowledge and expertise but are undifferentiated with respect to power and status. Our review of the theoretical and empirical literatures on power, status, and learning suggests that social hierarchy can complicate a rational system model of collective learning by disrupting three critical learning-related processes: anchoring on shared goals, risk taking and experimentation, and knowledge sharing. We also find evidence to suggest that the stifling effects of power and status differences on collective learning can be mitigated when advantaged actors are collectively oriented. Indeed, our review suggests that higher-ranking actors who use their power and status in more “socialized” ways can play critical roles in stimulating collective learning behavior. We conclude by articulating several promising directions for future research that were suggested by our review.

show abstract

Section: Socialized Power and Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 88%

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Bunderson

Reagans

2011

Organization Science

287

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to temporal patterns, shared information tends to be discussed earlier than unshared information and information discussed later in the discussion frequently has less impact on the decision (e.g., Larson et al, 1994). Social variables affecting information sharing include leadership (e.g., Larson et al, 1996Larson et al, , 1998, status (Hollingshead, 1996a), and expertise (Stasser et al, 1995). In addition, various aspects of the task environment have been found to impact the information sharing process, including information load (e.g., Stasser and Titus, 1987), intellective versus judgement tasks (e.g., Stasser and Stewart, 1992), and recall versus choice demands (e.g., Hollingshead, 1996b;Stewart and Stasser, 1998).…”

Section: Empirical Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBecause research on team mental models is still in its formative stages, there is a need for continued conceptual development of the construct and direct empirical support linking team mental models to team outcomes. Researchers in other ®elds have developed concepts that are distinct from, but clearly related to team mental models, including information sharing, transactive memory, group learning, and cognitive consensus. Although these research streams currently exist in parallel with little cross-fertilization, there is much to be gained from integration across disciplinary boundaries. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to enrich the theoretical understanding of team mental models and to broaden the empirical research base by adopting a cross-disciplinary focus and incorporating related team knowledge domains from other literatures. Based on a synthesis of various literatures, we develop a framework that delineates the relationships among team knowledge constructs.

show abstract

Section: Trust Connectionist Model Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to processes within a group, different types of social dynamics lead to a less than optimal performance. These include conformity and polarization which move a group as a whole towards more extreme opinions (Ebbesen & Bowers, 1974;Mackie & Cooper, 1984;Isenberg, 1986), groupthink that leads to unrealistic group decisions (Janis, 1972), the lack of sharing of unique information so that intellectual resources of a group are underused (Larson et al, 1996(Larson et al, , 1998Stasser, 1999;Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2003) and the suboptimal use of relevant information channels in social networks (Leavitt, 1951;Mackenzie, 1976;Shaw, 1964).These different approaches provide a new focus for the understanding of cognition that might be summarized as collective intelligence (Levy, 1997;Heylighen, 1999) or distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995), that is, the cognitive processes and structures that emerge at the social level. To understand collective information processing, we must consider the distributed organization constituted by different individuals with different forms of knowledge and experience TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 4 and the social network that links them together and that supports their interindividual communication.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Overwalle

Heylighen

2006

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is information transmitted in a group? A multi-agent connectionist model is proposed that combines features of standard recurrent models to simulate the process of information uptake, integration and memorization within individual agents, with novel aspects that simulate the communication of beliefs and opinions between agents. A crucial aspect in belief updating based on information from other agents is the trust in the information provided, implemented as the consistency with the receiving agents' existing beliefs. Trust leads to a selective propagation and thus filtering out of less reliable information, and implements Grice's (1975) maxims of quality and quantity in communication. By studying these communicative aspects within the framework of standard models of information processing, the unique contribution of communicative mechanisms beyond intra-personal factors was explored in simulations of key phenomena involving persuasive communication and polarization, lexical acquisition, spreading of stereotypes and rumors, and a lack of sharing unique information in group decisions. TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 3Cognition is not limited to the mind of an individual agent, but involves interactions with other minds. A full understanding of human thinking thus requires a deeper insight of its social origin. Sociologists and developmental psychologists have long noted that most of our knowledge of reality is the result of a social construction and communication rather than of individual observation. Economists emphasize that effective knowledge management and learning is an organizational phenomenon that determines enterprise's success or failure (Senge, 1990).Collective behaviors have a long evolutionary past, as biologists and computer scientists have built models that demonstrate how collectives of simple agents, such as ant colonies, bee hives, or flocks of birds, can process complex information more effectively than single agents facing the same tasks (Bonabeau et al., 1999).Social psychologists too have studied cognition at the group level, using laboratory experiments to document various biases and shortcomings of collective intelligence. Research has revealed that we often fall prey to biases and simplistic stereotypes about other groups, and that many of these distorted representations are emergent properties of the cognitive dynamics in single or multiple minds. Some of these biased processes are illusory correlation or the creation of an unwarranted association between a group and undesirable characteristics, accentuation of differences between groups, subtyping of deviant members (for a review see Van Rooy, Van Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse & French, 2004) and the communication of stereotypes (e.g., Lyons & Kashima, 1993). With respect to processes within a group, different types of social dynamics lead to a less than optimal performance. These include conformity and polarization which move a group as a whole towards more extreme opinions (Ebbesen & Bowers, 1974;Mackie & ...

show abstract

Leadership Style and the Discussion of Shared and Unshared Information in Decision-Making Groups

Cited by 148 publications

References 29 publications

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations

Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About