Contributions published at Management, with a focus on the future of work (Lauren Howe)

To call attention to and motivate action on ethical issues in business or society, messengers often criticize groups for wrongdoing and ask these groups to change their behavior. When criticizing target groups, messengers frequently identify and express concern about harm caused to a victim group, and in the process address a target group by criticizing them for causing this harm and imploring them to change. However, we find that when messengers criticize a target group for causing harm to a victim group in this way—expressing singular concern for the victim group—members of the target group infer, often incorrectly, that the messenger views the target group as less moral and unworthy of concern. This inferred lack of moral concern reduces criticism acceptance and prompts backlash from the target group. To address this problem, we introduce dual concern messaging—messages that simultaneously communicate that a target group causes harm to a victim group and express concern for the target group. A series of several experiments demonstrate that dual concern messages reduce inferences that a critical messenger lacks moral concern for the criticized target group, increase the persuasiveness of the criticism among members of the target group, and reduce backlash from consumers against a corporate messenger. When pursuing justice for victims of a target group, dual concern messages that communicate concern for the victim group as well as the target group are more effective in fostering openness toward criticism, rather than defensiveness, in a target group, thus setting the stage for change.

Objective: Many patients prefer lean physicians to physicians with obesity and place higher credence in their weight management advice. Because genetic information about weight can be viewed as self-serving for individuals with overweight or obesity, physicians with obesity may be discounted when sharing such information. As provision of genetic information regarding weight becomes increasingly common in public health messaging, could a physician’s own weight influence how these messages are received by the public? Methods: In an online survey, 967 participants were randomly assigned a physician profile (lean v. has obesity) with a media interview transcript discussing genetic factors of a common health condition (obesity v. osteoporosis). Results: Participants perceived the physician with obesity who discussed genetic factors in obesity as less trustworthy and less credible. Participants were also less likely to anticipate following her advice on weight-related issues. Participants with higher BMI had less negative perceptions of this physician. Conclusion: Physicians with obesity, when providing public health messaging regarding genetic information about obesity, may be met with distrust and negative attitudes toward the physician.Practical Implications:F uture research should investigate health communication strategies that address this form of weight stigma while accurately conveying genetic factors that contribute to weight.

Research on group dehumanization has focused largely on the perpetrators of dehumanization or on its negative emotional and cognitive effects on targets. We theorized that people would also reassert their humanness in response to dehumanizing portrayals of their group. Experiment 1 showed that Black individuals responded to a dehumanizing representation of their racial group by emphasizing their experience of more complex, uniquely human emotions versus emotions more associated with other animals. Experiment 2 and a supplemental experiment showed that Black, but not White, individuals responded to group-based dehumanization by depicting more complex self-portrayals. Taken together, these studies begin to illustrate that targets of group-based dehumanization are not simply passive victims but respond actively, resisting negative representations of their group by reasserting their humanness.

Millions of employees across the globe, including a large proportion of knowledge workers, transitioned to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. As remote work continues to characterize work post-crisis, it is imperative to understand how employees adjust to remote work. The current research explores the extent to which knowledge workers hold a fixed mindset about remote work (e.g., that a person either is or is not suited to remote work and this cannot be changed) and tested how this mindset shaped well-being during coronavirus-related lockdown. In a longitudinal five-week study of 113 knowledge workers transitioning to remote work, we find that knowledge workers who endorsed a more fixed mindset about remote work experienced more negative and less positive emotion during remote work. The increased negative emotion prompted by fixed mindsets was associated with lesser perceived productivity among these knowledge workers in subsequent weeks. We conclude that understanding how fundamental beliefs (e.g., beliefs about the learnability of remote work) affect employee experiences can help create a brighter future as technology further enables remote work. Encouraging employees to view remote work as a skill that can be learned and developed could help people thrive in the new world of work.

The healthcare workforce in the United States is becoming increasingly diverse, gradually shifting society away from the historical overrepresentation of White men among physicians. However, given the long-standing underrepresentation of people of color and women in the medical field, patients may still associate the concept of doctors with White men and may be physiologically less responsive to treatment administered by providers from other backgrounds. To investigate this, we varied the race and gender of the provider from which White patients received identical treatment for allergic reactions and measured patients’ improvement in response to this treatment, thus isolating how a provider’s demographic characteristics shape physical responses to healthcare. A total of 187 White patients experiencing a laboratory-induced allergic reaction interacted with a healthcare provider who applied a treatment cream and told them it would relieve their allergic reaction. Unbeknownst to the patients, the cream was inert (an unscented lotion) and interactions were completely standardized except for the provider’s race and gender. Patients were randomly assigned to interact with a provider who was a man or a woman and Asian, Black, or White. A fully blinded research assistant measured the change in the size of patients’ allergic reaction after cream administration. Results indicated that White patients showed a weaker response to the standardized treatment over time when it was administered by women or Black providers. We explore several potential explanations for these varied physiological treatment responses and discuss the implications of problematic race and gender dynamics that can endure “under the skin,” even for those who aim to be bias free.

With more and more people quitting, leaders need to find new ways to boost retention. One under-recognized way to keep employees on board is to give them the flexibility and resources they need to pursue their out-of-work passions. Drawing on their research, the authors offer practical strategies for creating “passion opportunities” so that you can attract and retain employees who want to pursue their passions outside of work. Beyond simply providing employees with flexibility, leaders need to make sure that employees feel comfortable actually using this flexibility. Given longstanding ideas about the “ideal worker,” or the notion prevalent in the U.S. that a good employee is one who dedicates their time and energy solely to work, embracing non-work passions requires igniting a mindset shift, including explicit endorsement from leaders.

In the aftermath of shocking workplace scandals, people are often baffled when individuals within the organization were aware of clear-cut wrongdoing yet did not inform authorities. The current research suggests that moral concern for the suffering that a transgressor might face if a crime were reported is an under-recognized, powerful force that shapes whistleblowing in organizations, particularly when transgressors are fellow members of a highly entitative group (i.e., a group that is perceived as highly unified). Two experiments show that group entitativity heightens concern about possible consequences that the transgressor would face if a crime were to be reported, and that this concern reduces the likelihood of reporting wrongdoing in organizations to authorities. Further, the studies identify a mechanism through which concern about the transgressor is heightened in highly entitative groups: potential reporters perceive that the transgressor felt remorse for their crime. Thus, when fellow members of highly entitative organizations commit crimes, people are more likely to imagine that these transgressors felt anxiety or guilt about their actions, and this prompts greater concern for transgressors in ways that encourage people to let them “off the hook.” We discuss the implications of these findings for how reporting to authorities can be encouraged within highly entitative organizations.

A common method to promote behavior change, particularly in contexts related to collective action, is to reference a social norm and ask people to comply with it. We argue that such appeals will be more effective when they couch the norm as an invitation to work with others toward a common goal. In six experiments, we found that working-together normative appeals, which invited people to “join in” and “do it together,” increased interest in (Experiments 1, 4, and 5) and actual charitable giving (Experiment 2); reduced paper-towel use in public restrooms (Experiment 3); and increased interest in reducing personal carbon emissions (Experiment 6). By contrast, normative-information appeals, which included the same normative information but no reference to working together, did not affect interest or behavior. Mediation analyses suggest that working-together normative appeals were more effective because they fostered a feeling in participants that they were working together with others, which increased motivation, while inducing less social pressure, which undermined effectiveness. Results show how the very collective nature of collective action problems can be leveraged to promote personal behavior change and help solve societal problems.

Now more than ever, leaders are struggling with anxieties, fears, and all sorts of difficult emotions. What’s the best way to handle these internal struggles at work? The authors analyzed journal entries from thirty global leaders in May and June of 2020 and identified three distinct leadership styles: Heroes, who focused on the positive; Technocrats, who focused on results; and Sharers, who openly shared both positive and negative experiences. Despite a common assumption that the Hero and Technocrat leadership styles are best, the authors found that Sharers were in fact most effective when it came to building cohesive, high-performing teams that were resilient in the face of the myriad challenges posed by the pandemic. Based on both their own study and extensive secondary research, the authors go on to offer several strategies to help leaders get more comfortable sharing negative emotions in a helpful, appropriate manner.

The pandemic has been a wake-up call for a lot of people, causing us to reevaluate our lives and our careers. It’s natural to think: “If I’m going to spend so much time at work, I might as well do something I’m passionate about.” But there are also benefits to thinking about it differently: Instead of pursuing a career based on your passion, how can you career be a conduit to your passion? Pursuing a passion outside of work can be less risky. And some research suggests transforming hobbies into work can actually undermine your enjoyment of these activities. Instead, look for a job that will give you the resources - time, money, and energy - to pursue your passion. If time is your scarcest resource, look for a job that offers schedule flexibility so that you can structure your work around your passions. If money is the issue, look for a job that allows you to pay for the life you want to lead. When it comes to energy, don’t think of your passion as something that provides fuel to energize you for work. Instead, look at your job as giving you the security and income to pursue your passion.

Given research showing that the very act of communicating side effects can increase their likelihood, how can providers inform patients about side effects while upholding their oath to do no unnecessary harm? An emerging approach provides a potential solution: truthfully describe certain minor side effects as a sign the treatment is active and working in the body. This approach focuses on instilling adaptive mindsets about the meaning of side effects while still keeping patients informed. This article describes existing research suggesting that this approach can be helpful in improving experience and outcomes in treatments for pain, hypertension and allergy. Compared with control groups given a standard, empathetic message about side effects, patients who were informed that side effects are a sign treatment is working were less anxious about side effects and rated them as less threatening and intense. A longitudinal, randomised controlled trial of this approach in patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergies found that describing side effects as a sign treatment was working reduced the rate at which patients contacted providers with concerns about side effects and led to greater increases in a biomarker of allergic tolerance from pretreatment to post-treatment (peanut-specific blood IgG4). In unveiling this approach, this article also raises important issues regarding which treatments and symptoms this approach should be applied to. Finally, we outline questions future research should address to further understand and leverage this approach.

The future of work is central to discussions in society, but surprisingly absent as a theme in management scholarship. Although there is scattered research on topics related to the future of work, conceptually there is a lack of clarity about what “the future of work” means and entails, and empirically, its temporal positioning in the future has made it challenging to gather data in the present. We resolve these issues by drawing on literature on prospective cognition to offer a novel conceptualization of the future of work as an individual’s mental representation of how work will change; these representations can be assessed in the present. Here we build theory about and study empirically whether people systematically differ in how they feel about, prepare for and thus ultimately shape the future of work. Across a series of archival, survey, and experimental studies focused specifically on skills needed in the future of work, we find general support for our theoretical framework that people overrepresent technical (as opposed to socioemotional) aspects, that this systematic distortion has adverse emotional effects on women (but not men), and that shifts in mental representations can change how people feel about and prepare for the future of work.

Many companies seek to promote a family-like atmosphere to foster loyalty and collegial bonding. But researchers found that one potential downside is that employees who work in a family-like culture are less likely to blow the whistle on a colleague’s misbehavior. To reap the benefits of promoting strong bonds without the costs, organizations may need to take extra steps, including ensuring their culture values fairness over loyalty and protects victims, and framing reporting a transgression as an opportunity to provide help to a fellow employee.

The pandemic has given many of us the opportunity to ditch the commute and work from home long-term, offering huge potential time savings. But to truly reap the benefits of remote work during the current crisis and beyond, we need to think proactively about how we restructure our workday in this new normal. The authors suggest six concrete, research-backed actions you can take today to create clearer work-life boundaries and optimize how you spend your time.

null

null

null