Cecily D. Cooper

Silence speaks volumes : The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-and competence-based trust violations

Prior research on responses to trust violations has focused primarily on the effects of apology and denial. The authors extended this research by studying another type of verbal response that is often used to respond to trust violations but has not been considered in the trust literature: reticence. An accused party may use reticence in a sincere and even legitimate attempt to persuade a trustor to withhold judgment. Yet, by considering information diagnosticity and belief formation mechanisms through which verbal responses influence trust, the authors argue that reticence is a suboptimal response because it combines the least effective elements of apology and denial. Specifically, reticence is a suboptimal response to an integrity violation because, like apology, it fails to address guilt. And reticence is a suboptimal response to a competence violation because, like denial, it fails to signal redemption. Results from 2 laboratory studies, simulating different contexts and using research participants from 2 different countries, provide support for the prediction. The results offer important implications for those who might use reticence to respond to a perceived trust violation and also for those who must judge anothers reticence.

Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model

A number of studies have demonstrated that humor can impact both horizontal and vertical relationships in organizations, but little is known about the interpersonal processes underlying this link. By integrating theory and research from the fields of philosophy, social psychology, communications, and leadership, it is possible to illuminate a combination of processes which, considered collectively, explain humors ability to create, maintain, impede, or destroy relationships at work. I first review the classical theories of humor, which explain what motivates individuals to express humor and what determines humor enjoyment. However, since these frameworks focus on humor at the individual-level of analysis, they cannot speak to the social processes involved in a humor exchange. Research in the fields of social psychology, communications, and leadership provides insight regarding the remaining social mechanisms. In sum, it appears that interpersonal humor operates through four related but distinct processes: affect-reinforcement, similarity-attraction, self-disclosure, and hierarchical salience. These social processes are proposed to function in addition to (not in lieu of) the individual-level mechanisms the classical humor theories describe. The discussion, thus, culminates in a relational process model of humor, contributing a more fine-grained understanding of interpersonal humor to the organizational literature.

Do You See What We See? The Complex Effects of Perceptual Distance Between Leaders and Teams

Previous distance-related theories and concepts (e.g., social distance) have failed to address the sometimes wide disparity in perceptions between leaders and the teams they lead. Drawing from the extensive literature on teams, leadership, and cognitive models of social information processing, the authors develop the concept of leader-team perceptual distance, defined as differences between a leader and a team in perceptions of the same social stimulus. The authors investigate the effects of perceptual distance on team performance, operationalizing the construct with 3 distinct foci: goal accomplishment, constructive conflict, and decision-making autonomy. Analyzing leader, member, and customer survey responses for a large sample of teams, the authors demonstrate that perceptual distance between a leader and a team regarding goal accomplishment and constructive conflict have a nonlinear relationship with team performance. Greater perceptual differences are associated with decreases in team performance. Moreover, this effect is strongest when a teams perceptions are more positive than the leaders are (as opposed to the reverse). This pattern illustrates the pervasive effects that perceptions can have on team performance, highlighting the importance of developing awareness of perceptions in order to increase effectiveness. Implications for theory and practice are delineated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceptual distance: The impact of differences in team leader and member perceptions across cultures

In this chapter, we propose a theory of perceptual distance and its implications for team leadership and team outcomes. Perceptual distance is defined as the variance in the perceptions of the same social stimulus, which in this case, is either a team leaders behavior or the teams behavior. The general research question that we will address is, “What are the consequences of perceptual distance for team process and outcomes?” Our basic argument is that the relationship between perceptual distance and team processes and outcomes is moderated by two key cultural characteristics: power distance and collectivism. For example, depending upon the dynamics of power distance, large differences in perceptions of a team leaders behavior can negatively impact team productivity. Similarly, depending upon the dynamics of collectivism, significant variations in perceptions of team cohesion can negatively influence conflict resolution.

Silence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence for Repairing Trust Violations

Prior research on trust repair has focused primarily on the effects of apology and denial. We recognize another form of verbal response: reticence. Although reticence is sometimes used for strategi...

Getting to “Fair” Justice Interactions as Identity Negotiation

The vast majority of justice studies reflect the “event paradigm,” focusing on how subordinates form fairness perceptions in discrete situations and how managers can alter perceptions of isolated events. However, subordinates also form global appraisals of their managers across specific events and situations. To augment the event paradigm, research falling within the “social entity paradigm” focuses on these general justice appraisals. To date, very little theory has been developed on managerial fairness from a social entity perspective. Little is known regarding how entity perceptions are formed (i.e., how managers come to be seen as “fair managers”). To address this issue, we integrate insights from research on identity negotiation into the organizational justice literature and propose that entity perceptions evolve over time across three types of events. This justice negotiation perspective is unique in that we emphasize the role of both managers and subordinates as actors in the process, rather than employees as passive observers of managers’ actions. We also move beyond subordinate perceptions to consider the role of manager self-perceptions of fairness.