Michelle A. Barton

Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes Toward the Environment

Abstract The relationship between two motives underlying environmental attitudes was examined: ecocentrism—valuing nature for its own sake, and anthropocentrism—valuing nature because of material or physical benefits it can provide for humans. Scales to measure ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes and general apathy toward environmental issues were developed. In Study 1, the ecocentric and anthropocentric scales were found to predict independently conserving behaviors, apathy toward environmental issues, and membership in environmental organizations. In Study 2, these results were partially replicated and extended to include the relationship between ecocentric attitudes and an observed measure of environmentally-relevant behavior. In addition, it was demonstrated that the ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction explains behavior independently of environmental attitudes measured with a traditional attitude scale. Implications of the ecocentric-anthropocentric distinction for further research on environmental attitudes and behaviors are discussed.

Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: Organizational safety as a social achievement

Research on organizational safety and reliability largely has emphasized system-level structures and processes neglecting the more micro-level, social processes necessary to enact organizational safety. In this qualitative study we remedy this gap by exploring these processes in the context of wildland fire management. In particular, using interview data gathered from 28 individuals involved in wildland firefighting, we explore the validity of the idea that a deterrent to organizational safety is an inability to redirect ongoing actions once they are underway. The findings suggest four major themes. First, individuals and groups redirect ongoing action as a result of re-evaluating that action. Second, noticing early warning signs, while necessary, is not sufficient to drive change. Third, two social processes — giving voice to concerns and actively seeking alternative perspectives — appear to be key drivers of re-evaluation. Fourth, the process of redirecting action is moderated by two social factors: institutional pressures and self-interest. We discuss the implications of these patterns for organization theory and for future research.

Performing Under Uncertainty: Contextualized Engagement in Wildland Firefighting

In this paper, we propose that performance under uncertainty and ambiguity is enabled by a two‐pronged set of practices enacted by leaders and frontline workers. These contextualized practices fuel performance by enabling teams and organizations to both discern, interpret and make sense of important discrepancies as situations unfold (what we refer to as anomalizing), and to develop a richer understanding of a situation (what we call proactive leader sensemaking). Together, these situation‐specific practices contextualize engagement and promote capabilities to contingently tailor actions to unfolding conditions. We test our hypotheses using data gathered from a sample of wildland firefighters and find strong support for our theorizing. We also identify a set of additional group and situational conditions that provide a more nuanced understanding of factors that contribute to reliable performance under dynamic uncertainty. Together, the findings provide quantitative evidence for the micro‐foundations of effective performance in uncertain contexts.

Assessing member expertise in groups: An expertise dependence perspective

In contemporary organizations, the knowledge needed to perform work is frequently housed within groups. In order to effectively leverage this knowledge, however, groups must identify relative member expertise. Unfortunately, assessments of expertise in groups can be error-prone, given the human tendency to rely on efficient but noisy schemas and heuristics. The purpose of this paper is to consider the factors that lead to more mindful and, ultimately, more useful expertise attributions in task groups. We begin with the observation that mindful expertise attribution can be modeled as a motivation problem using expectancy theory. In order for group members to move beyond superficial expertise attributions, they must see value in doing so (valence) and they must feel that exerting that effort will be both possible (expectancy) and beneficial (instrumentality). We build on this basic observation to propose an “expertise dependence theory” of mindful attributions in task groups.

Group Resilience: The Place and Meaning of Relational Pauses

Recent scholarship on resilience has shed light on the processes by which organizations absorb strain and maintain functioning in the face of adversity. These theories, however, often focus on the operational impacts of adversity without accounting for the strain it puts on organizational members and their abilities to work effectively together. We apply a relational lens to better understand how adversity, and the anxiety it triggers in people, affects processes of organizational resilience. This conceptual frame enables us to begin uncovering the relational micro-dynamics underlying the absorption of strain. Drawing on group relations theory, we describe two trajectories of intragroup behavior in which strain, in the form of adversity-triggered anxiety, is either acted out or defused. In the brittle trajectory, group members react to anxiety with defensive patterns that leave them vulnerable to effects of adversity. In the resilience trajectory, groups defuse and mitigate adversity-triggered anxiety through a reflective process we call “a relational pause,” ultimately leaving them strengthened and resilient. We elaborate the model by exploring the potential fragility of relational pauses and likely factors that influence groups’ ability and tendency to enact resilience.