4  Understanding, Organizational Behaviour and ChangeUnderstanding

A First Short Story of Understanding and Change

Understanding, the need for shared meaning and prediction, is the second core social motive and one of the two (relatively) cognitive motives (the other is controlling). Shared understanding enables the functioning and survival of people in groups. Group meaning is instrumental in decision-making and helps to coordinate with other group members (Fiske, 2004). In organizations, understanding is present or visible in, for example, ‘a sense of mission’, the way people ‘strategize’, the organizational culture and values. Social learning, for example, is a vehicle for (shared) understanding in the organizational context and visible in, for example, socialization processes, the phenomenon of ‘lead by example’ and the role models that ‘significant others’ are. Shared understanding may hamper change when a current ‘joint view of reality’ is incongruent or in competition with a new ‘reality’ related to the change. Understanding is related to change and management topics like mission, leadership, organizational culture, and change vision and resistance to change.

In this chapter the following theories and concepts are presented and assessed:

• Social representation
• Attribution theory
• Social judgment theory
• Social learning theory
• Social impact theory
• Theory of cooperation/competition
• Social exchange

Social Representation

A social representation is the ensemble of thoughts and feelings being expressed in verbal and overt behaviour of actors that constitutes an object for a social group. Social representations frame objects or issues in socially recognizable ways, in socially shared schemas.

What Is Social Representation?

Social representation stands for values, ideas, beliefs, practices and metaphors shared among members. A social representation can be seen as the collective elaboration “of a social object by the community for the purpose of behaving and communicating” (Moscovici, 1963, p. 251). The building blocks of social representations are shared knowledge and understanding of common reality, which enables communication between individuals and groups. Fiske (2010) defines understanding as the need for shared meaning and prediction. A way to create shared meaning is by providing a ‘frame of reference’ (Cantril, 1941, p. 20), generating a point of view that directs interpretations. Smircich and Morgan (1982) talk about the ‘management of meaning’ or ‘framing’; “creating a point of reference against which some kind of action can emerge” (p. 258). Shared meaning is created in an interactive, social process, a process of sense-making (Weick, 1995). Rijsman (1997) talks about “the necessary social criterion of truth, namely consensus” (p. 144). He points to the logic that Festinger (1950) applied in his classic theory of social communication: “he (Festinger) said that people who do not know the world objectively will speak with each other and will try to arrive at consensus, to construct at least a social (although quasi-objective, for not based on a correct individual processing of objective information) sense of truth’ (Rijsman, 1997, p. 144). People often relate understanding primarily to the individual mind. However, Rijsman (1997) introduces a ‘socialontology of mind’ and states that without intersubjective co-ordination there is no meaning: “meaning is referential reality that follows from the co-ordinated activity between subjects” (p. 146). Weick (1993) illustrates this perspective by stating that designs do not create social systems; they are created by social systems. The people or minds that constitute these social systems are “always” determined by the limitation in their individual capacity to process all information correctly (like in the ‘bounded rationality’ concept of Herbert Simon). Therefore, they have to ‘compensate’ with the only thing that is left to them in practice, namely communicating and creating consensus. Rijsman (1977) illustrates this perspective in a vivid way. He reflects: “Such a view on meaning and communication, however, is like the old biblical image of fallen angels, or the image in which human beings only speak with each other and must constantly resolve contradictions, because they lost their original (angelic) capacity to see the world ‘as it is’. Real angels, in contrast, are doomed to peace, for with their perfect minds, all replicas of the ideal mind, they only see truth and, thus, agree” (p. 144). For ‘fallen angels’ organization and change are not ‘just that’; both are what Weick (1979) calls ‘a body of thought, thought by thinking thinkers’ (p. 42).

Weick’s idea is related to social representation theory that provides very relevant insights with regard to the core social motive of understanding. Social representations are both the process and the result of social construction, being elaborated and changing over time. Weick’s ‘body of thought’ can be seen as a set of social representations that are constantly converted into a social reality while continuously being reinterpreted, rethought, represented (e.g. Jovchelovitch, 2007). These representations are dynamic elements of knowledge resulting from a social, interactive process. The fundamental aim of social representations is to ‘make the unfamiliar familiar’ (Moscovici, 1984). Moscovici, inspired by Durkheim’s collective representations, coined the term in 1961. He defines social representations as “systems of values, ideas and practices with a two-fold function: first, to establish an order which will enable individuals to orientate themselves in their material and social world and to master it; secondly, to enable communication to take place amongst members of a community by providing them with a code for social exchange and a code for naming and classifying unambiguously the various aspects of their world and their individual and group history” (Moscovici, 1973, p. xiii). Wagner and Lepine (1999) summarize: “a social representation is the ensemble of thoughts and feelings being expressed in verbal and overt behaviour of actors which constitutes an object for a social group” (p. 96). Social representations frame issues or objects in socially recognizable ways, in socially shared schemas (Moscovici, 1988). These representations are instrumental in making the unfamiliar familiar. The processes of anchoring and objectification are essential in realizing this. Anchoring is about giving meaning to new phenomena, such as objects, relations, experiences, practices and changes. These phenomena are related to or integrated in already known frames or worldviews so they can be interpreted from that which is familiar (Hoijer, 2011). Objectification is the process of filling a new phenomenon with familiar images by giving it an iconic form. It entails two stages: a new, abstract representation becomes more concretized and after that the elaborated representation achieves independence from the original context and becomes accepted as a ‘conventional’ reality (Moscovici, 1984). In social representations, objects, subjects and activities are linked (Jovchelovitch, 1996). This idea is elaborated in the ‘Toblerone model of social representations’ (Bauer & Gaskell, 1999). In this model there is a relationship between subjects, being the carriers of the representation; objects, being the activity or idea that is represented; and projects of a social group within which the representations makes sense.

What Is the Relevance of Social Representation for Organization and Change?

By making use of anchoring and objectification, people make a social representation familiar and abstract ideas become concrete. For example, the social object ‘fair trade’ is given a specific meaning by the Western world to help producers in developing countries achieve better trading conditions and to promote sustainable farming. The term by itself has no meaning, as fair is a subjective norm. However, we gave meaning to it as a group (Western world). In an organizational setting, members can be seen as a group of employees, for example a work team or a department. It is also argued that people in an organization think of decision and decision-making as realities and that both decision and decision-making can be defined as social representations: “They influence organizations’ members’ ways of understanding and behaving in organizations” (Laroche, 1995, p. 62). The social construction of meaning is an important process in organizations. Leaders can and must facilitate this; they have to take care of the ‘management of meaning’ (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). In organizational settings, meaning is given to and by certain social objects such as a mission statement, sense of urgency, a corporate vision, corporate values or a corporate strategy. These meanings can differentiate between and within organizations, between individuals or teams, for example. The importance of social representations such as vision and missions seems to be undisputed; management experts and gurus emphasize time after time the role and importance of them in organization and change. For example, Ibarra points to the importance of having a clear and inspiring vision. She states, “Across studies and research traditions, vision has been found to be a defining feature of leadership” (p. 41). Bridges (1991) emphasizes the importance of clarifying the purpose: What is the idea behind what you’re doing? People need a picture of how the outcome will look; participation calls for imagination. Bridges attributes terrible obstacles in change processes to having no discernible purpose behind the proposed changes. Belasco (1990) says his experience tells him that an energizing, inspiring vision is the key to mobilizing support: “This vision is the picture that drives all action” (p. 11). Belasco defines the vision as the focus and inspiration that empower people to change. However, as Moscovici shows, to be effective they need to be socially ‘shared’ and ‘recognized’. It is for this reason that the importance and necessity of a shared vision and a ‘sense of mission’, for example, is emphasized (Campbell & Nash, 1992; also, Campbell & Yeung, 1990). In addition to a sense of mission, one can point to a sense of urgency as an example of social representations being relevant and instrumental in managing and changing organizations and behaviour. A sense of urgency is often seen as a prerequisite for effective change. To illustrate this, Kotter (2012) states: “By far the biggest mistake people make when trying to change organizations is to plunge ahead without establishing a high enough sense of urgency in fellow managers and employees” (p. 4). Social representations are relevant to organizational and change topics such as vision, mission, the impetus to change, culture, leadership and communication.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘social’ and ‘representation’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 400 articles (!). After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, we included only five articles because of relevance and methodological problems, with an evidence level ranging from B- to E.

Main Findings

1. There is no universal approach to social representation theory, and it is often used in a very broad form (Level B-).
   • A meta-analysis found that 40% of the included articles regarding Social Representation Theory (SRT) used Moscovici’s grand theory. A total of 10% used different theories and approaches, like Arbic’s central nucleus theory and Doise’s societal approach. About one third (31%) did not specify their approach and 19% just cited the theory, but did not make use of it in any way. Most articles used SRT in a very broad form, lacking in-depth discussions and sometimes using SRT incorrectly (Martins-Silva, Silva-Junior, Peroni, De Medeiros, & Vitória, 2016). “This data causes concern, because it shows that SRT is being used indiscriminately, without promoting a deeper discussion or reflection on this theory, which does not contribute to the development of this theoretical framework” (Martins-Silva et al., 2016, p. 911).
2. Social representation influences the manner in which people obey and/or break rules (Level D-).
   • The way in which people socially represent certain situations influences their behaviour. In some cases, they may even break the law and (socially) justify it. The study found a difference in which rules are broken and how they are justified: “we found three separate dimensions concerning acceptable reasons for running a red light, whereas there was only one dimension for tax evasion. This latter difference in results might reflect the fact that although all the respondents were familiar with traffic lights, not everybody was familiar with taxes” (Verkuyten, Rood-Pijpers, Elffers, & Hessing, 1994, p. 495).
3. Social representation is an important factor in strategically aligning knowledge management systems (KMS) (Level E).
   • Many organizations try to derive more business value from internal organizational knowledge. However, they often underestimate the challenges relating to social interactions and the employees’ perception of new information systems (Dulipovici, 2013). Employee groups develop different views of KMS, which may eventually lead to strategic misalignment. “Since users generate social representations of KMS within their local work practices, managers should try to understand how groups anchor their social representations and how objectification mechanisms guide their behaviour” (Dulipovici & Robey, 2013, p. 124).

What Is the Conclusion?

Social representations and interactions and processes to share them and to make sense of them are relevant, if not essential, for the field of organization and change. A complication could be related to the lack of a clear-cut universal approach. The concept of social representation is fundamental and helpful to the understanding of the role of missions, culture and strategy, for example, and the way they work in organizations. Specific evidence related to the field of organization and change provides additional insights and guidance for practitioners. For example, the way people obey and break rules is related to their social representations. The same applies to decisions and decision-making, influencing behaviour of employees. In aligning knowledge management systems (KMS), managers should try to understand how groups use anchoring and objectification, as this guides their behaviour. Social representations can be instrumental in changing individual and group behaviour. Hence they can play an important role in the success and failure of organizational change and the understanding of it.

Practical Reflections

Social representations occur in understanding and working with instruments like corporate visions and mission statements. The concept is more than visible in the work of scientists and gurus like Morgan (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) and Weick (1979) and their concepts of ‘framing’, the management of meaning and ‘enactment’. The same goes for well-known ideas with regard to culture and leadership like those of Schein (1985). Practitioners such as managers and consultants as well as the people involved in ‘their’ processes, such as employees or members of transition management teams (TMTs) (Duck, 1993), can benefit from the understanding of the concept. In fact, the concept of social representations is the ‘software’ of concepts such as culture and mission and the processes in which they come into being and become (socially) effective. At a more operational level, managers who unravel and assess social representations that employees make, construct or coproduce will have a better understanding of, for example, the reasons why they obey or break organizational rules. The latter can lead to employees stealing from their boss, scandals or even corruption.

Attribution Theory

People are motivated to explain and understand the causes of events and behaviours. As a form of sense-making they assign causes to behaviour of themselves and others.

What Is Attribution Theory?

Another perspective that sheds light on understanding, the way we make sense of the world, is provided by the attribution theory. This theory attempts to explain why people do what they do. Heider (1958) believed that people are naïve psychologists trying to make sense; they are motivated to explain and understand the causes of events and behaviours. In social psychology, attribution theory is basically the assigning of causes to behaviour of yourself and others. The theory addresses how and why people explain the things as they do. As a form of sense-making it links the causes and effects of behaviour. In attribution theory the two central questions are: “Why do I do what I do?” and “Why do others do what they do?” Most of our attributions are driven by emotional or motivational impulses, for example anger and commitment. The starting point of attribution theory was in 1958, when the well-known psychologist Fritz Heider published his book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Heider (1958) described two types of attribution: internal attribution and external attribution. The first type is about attributing “the locus of causality to factors within the individual such as personality traits, skill and effort” (Gok, Deshpande, Deshpande, & Hunter, 2012, p. 2578). The second type is about attributing “the locus of causality to situational factors beyond the control of the individual, such as task difficulty and luck” (Gok et al., 2012, p. 2578). Heider’s theory is criticized for being too mechanistic and for assuming that people think rationally, logically and systematically. This criticism can be refuted by the explanation that both emotional and motivational responses are seen as attributions. Recently, a third type of attribution, relational attribution, has been introduced by researchers (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2017). “Our findings identify the circumstances under which relational attributions are likely to be formed and indicate that relational attributions are related to relational improvement behaviours, particularly when employees are of the same sex as their relationship partner and perceive sufficient time and energy to engage in relational improvement efforts” (Eberly et al., 2017). Their research has a low evidence level (D-), and future research is needed to further explore this finding.

Kelley (1967) shows that people acting as naïve scientists in explaining someone else’s behaviour (the attribution process) look for three pieces of information: consistency, consensus and distinctiveness. Consistency concerns the question of whether an actor always behaves in this manner, in other times and situations. Consensus relates to the question of whether people other than the actor behave in the same way in the same situation. Distinctiveness of the action concerns the question of whether the actor is the only one who behaves in this manner. The way in which we use information to make attributions, to make sense of our context, is important in decision-making. The way in which we evaluate consensus and distinctiveness information is very important in making decisions such as whether to follow a leader, or to commit oneself to a change process or new strategy. However, this kind of rational thought is not a given in daily life, for ordinary people. We are ‘fallen angels’ (Rijsman, 1977); we do not possess a “God’s-eye” view of the world; we are not all-knowing and free from bias (Aronson, 1995). It is impossible to evaluate each piece of information systematically. Therefore we use shortcuts. Fiske and Taylor (2013) state that human beings are programmed to be cognitive misers; information-processing capacity is limited, so we look for strategies that simplify complex problems and reduce complexity. For example, we ignore certain information or overuse other information in order to circumvent the search for other information. We use ‘pattern recognition’, stereotypes, models and ‘benchmarks’ to evaluate people and situations in an efficient and also simplified way. This can indeed be very efficient, but may also lead to serious errors and biases. As Aronson (2016) shows: “Our propensity for bias and error, then, can be a significant barrier to interpersonal and intergroup understanding” (p. 120). People tend to go beyond the information given. That may be efficient, functional and even accurate. However, causal attributions may also be erroneous, dysfunctional and counterproductive. An illustration is related to what Pettigrew (1979) coined as the ultimate attribution error; in ambiguous situations, people tend to make attributions consistent with their prejudices.

What Is the Relevance of Attribution for Organization and Change?

People in organizations confronted with change initiatives or new policies, for example, will try to make sense of them. Attribution theory shows that they will be hampered or ‘bounded’ by not having complete information, let alone a “God’s eye” (Aronson, 1995). The concept of attribution also emphasizes the importance of biases and causal mechanisms in organizational processes such as those of decision-making and sense-making. It helps to understand, explain and possibly influence organizational behaviour and attitudes toward change. It helps leaders to understand their followers: leaders’ “attributions about the causes of subordinate performance can affect the way in which a leader subsequently interacts with subordinates” (Offermann, Schroyer, & Green, 1998, p. 1135). Attribution theory is relevant to the organization as a whole, as it affects relations and performance, and specifically to change management, as different attributions can be given to the reason for change, which in turn may affect the outcome of the change. Understanding attribution can also be instrumental in understanding something like resistance to change. Confronted with possible change, people will start thinking about causes and effects. It is helpful to understand these and the underlying processes in order to be better able to deal with factual or possible resistance. Bridges (1991) also emphasizes the importance of understanding resistance and its causes: “It’s the process of letting go that people resist, not the change itself. Their resistance can take the form of foot-dragging or sabotage, and you have to understand the pattern of loss to be ready to deal with the resistance and keep it from getting out of hand” (p. 15).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘attribution theory’, and ‘attribution theory’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 600 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, one meta-analysis and six studies were included.

Main Findings

1. When making economic decisions, people make use of causal attributions (Level B-).
   • “… what this research shows is that when people make economic decisions they may ‘violate’ expectations based on rational considerations such as these predicted by rational choice theory. However, their decisions are not arbitrary but rather crafted according to predictable rules complying with social motivation considerations such as these reflected by attribution theory” (Gurevich, Kliger, & Weiner, 2012).
2. When groups perform poorly due to low effort, leaders make more negative comments than when performance is poor because of ability or luck (Level A).
   • When leaders perceive that group performance is poor because of low effort, leaders tend to make more negative comments than when they perceive the performance is low because of ability or luck. Furthermore, leaders were most verbally active when their groups succeeded because of good luck (Offermann et al., 1998).
3. Individually focused attributions for past success caused groups to consider more divergent alternatives prior to making a shared decision, facilitated the sharing of unique information and improved decision-making (Level A).
   • This implies that focusing on the individual achievement is important for group performance, as it has positive effects for the group as a whole (described previously). Increasing emphasis on teamwork and the attribution of success to team effort may have negative effects on creativity and can ultimately lower the quality of group decision-making (Goncalo & Duguid, 2008).
4. Internal attributions to favourable events have a positive effect on performance; external attributions to favourable events a negative effect (Level C).
   • This implies that internal attributions are important for success, as they positively affect performance (Harvey, Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook, 2014).
5. Individuals learn more from their own success than from their own failure, but they learn more from the failures of others than from others’ successes (Level D).
   • Focusing on own successes and others’ failures is the best way for individuals to enhance learning (KC, Staats, & Gino, 2013).

What Is the Conclusion?

Attribution theory is a well-researched theory. It helps to understand human beings in their processes of interpreting, understanding and deciding in social contexts such as the organizational context. It helps leaders to understand followers and followers to understand their leaders. It sheds light on the way in which information, for example about a new strategic direction or a culture change, is processed. It helps raise awareness of the biases and tendencies plus the causal mechanisms that rule the way people interpret and decide as a basis for their intended or ‘real’ behaviour. In addition, attribution theory is key in understanding the culture, habits and routines and causal mechanisms in organizations. People use ‘pattern recognition’, stereotypes, models and ‘benchmarks’ to evaluate others, stimuli such as a change initiative or statement made by a leader, and situations. This can be efficient or helpful, but also hampering and frustrating in situations where changing and organizing are important or necessary. Attribution theory helps us, in an organizational context, to design and develop well-thought-out and contextual, sensitive and sensible ‘paths to change’. Evidence shows that attribution theory is important for and helpful to (change) management. Attribution theory is a valuable concept in organizing and changing in the right way. Evidence shows that attributions can influence, among other things, performance, decision-making, economic decisions and learning in organizations.

Practical Reflections

The insights related to the concept of attributions can be instrumental in developing the mutual understanding of people who are involved together in change and have to cooperate in an organizational context. Practitioners can benefit from the concept because it gives them awareness of and insight into the motives, background, causal mechanisms and also biases and limitations (e.g. in scope, information and knowledge, leading to ‘bounded rationality’). It can also provide the insights and hence foundations for better cooperation and a better ‘return’ on collective, social efforts. This is illustrated by Goncalo and Duguid (2008): “When attributions for group success focused on the contributions made by each individual, groups subsequently considered more alternatives prior to reaching consensus and the alternatives considered were also more divergent than those considered by groups who attributed their success to the group as a whole. In addition, individually focused attributions for success also increased the sharing of unique information and raised the likelihood of reaching the correct solution” (p. 40).

Social Judgment Theory

Judgments are grounded in and based on people’s attitudes; in order to understand or to make sense, people will compare the position advocated by an idea with their own position regarding that idea.

What Is Social Judgment?

Social judgment is a form of social thinking: how we think about ideas, issues, persons or groups is dependent on its context. Social judgment theory (SJT) (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) can be defined as the perception and evaluation of an idea by comparing it with current attitudes. To understand or make sense, people will compare the position advocated by that idea with their own position regarding that idea. That latter position, their own, is dependent on people’s most preferred position (their anchor point), their judgment of alternatives (latitude of acceptance, rejection, non-commitment) and the level of ego involvement with the idea and position advocated (e.g. Sherif, Kelly, Rodgers, Jr, Sarup, & Tittler, 1973). Brehmer (1988) defines social judgment theory as a meta-theory which gives direction to research on judgment. He states “SJT is the result of a systematic application of Brunswik’s probabilistic functionalism to the problem of human judgment in social situations. Brunswik’s theory of perception is also called ‘cue theory’. According to such a theory, a person does not have access to any direct information about the objects in the environment. Instead, perception is seen as an indirect process, mediated by a set of proximal cues” (p. 13). Social judgment theory teaches that judgments are grounded in and based on people’s attitudes. True attitudes are fundamental to self-identity, and they are complex and therefore may be hard to change. To understand a person’s full attitude one has to understand a person’s own position combined with what that person finds acceptable or unacceptable with regard to other positions (Nebergall, 1966). Sherif and Hovland (1961) consider attitudes to be amalgams or compound creatures, a combination of three latitudes, those of acceptance, rejection and non-commitment. Together they envisage the full spectrum of a person’s attitude. Acceptance is related to positions on issues that are acceptable to this person. Rejection is related to positions that are objectionable from a person’s perspective. In the case of non-commitment the positions are neither acceptable nor objectionable. Changes or messages of change that fall within a person’s latitude of rejection will probably not persuade that person. In addition, the more ego-involved a person is, or the more important it is to that person, the larger the latitude of rejection will be. Changes in that latitude will be contrasted and, as a consequence, appear to be further away from a person’s anchor point. It is unlikely that the person will be persuaded to accept or to commit to the change. Changes falling within the latitude of acceptance, on the contrary, will be assimilated; they appear closer to a person’s anchor point than they objectively are. Persuasion is probable. In the case of non-commitment, a person has neither a positive nor a negative feeling with regard to a certain change message. It is possible to persuade a person in that position if that person is provided with information or arguments on which a judgment can be based (e.g. O’Keefe, 1990). Involvement can be seen as the core concept of social judgment theory. People who have a low ego involvement are likely to accept more and varying ideas or opinions. People with a high ego involvement are likely to evaluate all possible positions in a disciplined way. This will decrease the latitude of non-commitment. People who care deeply or have strong opinions have a large latitude of rejection and are probably not willing to change. Highly involved people probably have a limited, precise latitude of acceptance. Highly involved people who are confronted with changes outside their strict zone of acceptance are likely to resist change and be difficult to persuade. Ego-involvement concerns the importance of an issue to a person. This importance can be determined by the person’s earlier experiences and wider background, but is often related to the membership of a group with an outspoken position with regard to specific issues. The level of (ego) involvement is dependent on how someone evaluates or appreciates an issue, for example whether it arouses an intense attitude or is seen as primarily a factual matter (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), or whether it is experienced as a more technical or as an adaptive challenge (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). The immediate social environment can influence attitude change. In the interpersonal domain, people tend to shift their attitudes to align with those of their significant or relevant others. The general picture of social influence thus remains one of conformity and alignment attitudes (Ledgerwood et al., 2007). Brehmer (1976) states that social judgment theory applies to the analysis of interpersonal conflicts caused by cognitive differences. Cognitive factors are sufficient to explain certain forms of conflict, as well as why the conflicts are not resolved, and that the analysis of conflict will have to take into account not only the persons in conflict, but also the nature of the task facing them. Related to the theory and also focusing on attitude and attitude change, is the social judgment-involvement approach (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965). Johnson and Eagly (1989) elaborate on this and define involvement as a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and the self-concept. Their research provides insights and a vocabulary which are relevant to behavioural and organizational change. Based on their research Johnson & Eagly state: “Integration of the available research suggests that the effects of involvement on attitude change depended on the aspect of message recipients’ self-concept that was activated to create involvement: (a) their enduring values (value-relevant involvement), (b) their ability to attain desirable outcomes (outcome-relevant involvement), or (c) the impression they make on others (impression-relevant involvement). Findings showed that (a) with value-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were less persuaded than low-involvement subjects; (b) with outcome-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were more persuaded than low-involvement subjects by strong arguments and (somewhat inconsistently) less persuaded by weak arguments; and (c) with impression-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were slightly less persuaded than low-involvement subjects” (p. 290).

What Is the Relevance of Social Judgment for Organization and Change?

Social judgment theory is a theory about the process of communication, about attitudes and attitude change. Central to it is people’s perception and evaluation of an idea by comparing it with current attitudes. It learns that persuasion is difficult to accomplish and how opinions toward proposal or change are formed (like opposing, supporting, ambivalent and indifferent). The theory has relevance for the organizational context and relates to topics like organizational culture, leadership, resistance to change and commitment. It also has relevance for cooperation and team development (including group dynamics) as well as for socialization given the focus on conformity and alignment attitudes.

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘social judgment’ and ‘human judgment*’. The searched yielded 179 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, no studies met the inclusion criteria.

Main Findings

Not applicable.

What Is the Conclusion?

Social judgment theory (SJT) provides a perspective that is relevant for the organizational context and change management. Notwithstanding the fact that specific relevant evidence is not available, SJT conveys a perspective, addresses issues and provide a vocabulary that may be relevant and useful for change management. Therefore, we concluded that it is worthwhile to present the theory in this book.

Practical Reflections

For organizational and change management, social judgment theory provides at least ‘something to think about’. It gives a frame of reference and insights which are helpful in understanding how people evaluate change and react to persuasion. It also helps to understand the role of involvement in organizational and change processes. SJT also helps to understand the phenomena of resistance to change and organizational commitment.

Social Learning Theory

Most of the behaviours that people display are the result of social learning, either deliberately or inadvertently, through modelling, the influence of example.

What Is Social Learning?

Social learning theory aims to understand psychological functioning in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction between behaviour and its controlling (social) conditions (Bandura, 1971). Social learning theory combines cognitive learning theory (which posits that learning is influenced by psychological factors) and behavioural learning theory (which assumes that learning is based on responses to environmental stimuli). In the ’60s Albert Bandura developed the social learning theory by what became known as the Bobo doll experiments. In these experiments, children watched adults behave violent or passive (nonviolent) toward a toy called Bobo doll. What the children saw influenced how they subsequently interacted with the dolls. Children who observed violent behaviour were verbally and physically aggressive toward the dolls. Children who witnessed nonviolent behaviour behaved less aggressively toward the dolls. Bandura concluded that children learn through observation of the behaviour of others. Social learning theory acknowledges the complexity of human responsiveness and thus provides a critical alternative to the psychodynamic perspective (Bandura, 1963). The process of differential reinforcement is essential to social learning; successful modes of behaviour are selected from exploratory and unsuccessful modes. In explaining and understanding the causes of human behaviour, Bandura emphasizes the roles played by vicarious, symbolic and self-regulatory processes. The vicarious process focuses on man’s capacity to learn by observation of others. Traditional learning theories envisage learning primarily or solely as the result of the direct experience of response consequences. Social-learning theory adds the perspective of the vicarious process; people also learn through observation of other people’s behaviour and its consequences for them. The symbolic process is related to the superior cognitive capacity of human beings that enables insightful and foresightful behaviour. They are able to guide their actions by symbolic representations (instead of external influences in a direct way), to solve problems symbolically and foresee or project probable consequences of different behaviours and alter their behaviour accordingly. The self-regulatory process enables people to control their behaviour to some degree. Human beings are able to create self-regulative influences, for example by producing consequences for their own actions. For animals, including the human being, simple behaviour and performance can be altered through reinforcement without any real awareness of the relationship between actions and outcomes. However, unlike unthinking organisms, the human being is capable of more; superior cognitive skills help the human being to profit more from experience. This experience is based on response consequences that can be informative, motivating and reinforcing. First of all, people gather informative feedback by observing the differential consequences of their behaviour. Based on that, they develop ‘hypotheses’ about successful and unsuccessful behaviour. Consequences are not only informative, but also potentially motivating. Human beings are able to anticipate and as a result conditions of reinforcement also have incentive-motivational effects. By making symbolic representations, people can convert future consequences into current motivators that influence behaviour. Response consequences can also be reinforcing, in particular in performances that are not too complicated: “Responses can be automatically strengthened through selective reinforcement operating below the level of awareness” (Bandura, 1971, p. 5). In essence, social learning theory shows that learning is not purely behavioural; it is a cognitive process in a social context. Human beings as learners are not passive recipients of information. Social learning is about reciprocal determinism; cognition, context and behaviour mutually influence one another (Grusec, 1992). Social learning theory teaches that learning can benefit from, but is not solely dependent on, rewarding and punishing consequences and trial-and-error. People also learn through modelling: “it is difficult to imagine a socialization process in which the language, mores, vocational activities, familial customs, and the educational, religious and political practices of a culture are taught to each new member by selective reinforcement of fortuitous behaviours, without the benefit of models who exemplify the cultural patterns in their own behaviour. Most of the behaviours that people display are learned, either deliberately or inadvertently, through the influence of example” (Bandura, 1971, p. 5). In summary: “Under most circumstances, a good example is (therefore) a much better teacher than the consequences of unguided actions” (Bandura, 1971, p. 5). So, modelling is not so much about specific stimulus-response associations. It is about observers acquiring mainly symbolic representations of modelled activities (Bandura, 1969). The modelling process is based on four interrelated sub-processes (Bandura, 1972):

• Attention: to learn, learners must pay attention to modelled behaviour. Attention is influenced by observer characteristics such as cognitive abilities, arousal and personal history and background, and characteristics of the behaviour or event that provide the modelling context such as relevance, novelty and functional value.
• Retention: remembering observed behaviour and its features is conditional to reproducing it. Observer and event characteristics (like complexity and comfort) also influence the retention process.
• Reproduction: behavioural reproduction is the process of implementing the models observed and remembered. This reproduction is achieved by putting together a given set of responses according to the modelled patterns. Cognitive skills and also sensorimotor capabilities are essential. Feedback is important in order to improve performance.
• Reinforcement and motivation: reproducing or refraining from behaviour depends on the incentives or sanctions provided, the drives and expectations of the observer. If modelling does not occur, behaviour is not reproduced, there is a lack of matching behaviour following exposure to modelling influences and a variety of determinants must be considered, like failure to observe the relevant activities, retention decrements and motoric deficiencies.

Social learning theory provides a rich but not exclusive perspective on the way people learn in general and in social contexts in particular. As Thyer and Myers (1998) state: “There is no assumption in social learning theory that all behaviour is learned, rather the view is that much of it is acquired via respondent, operant and observational learning processes, and that it is a viable perspective to empirically ascertain to what extent they may be operative, as this may afford valuable etiological and interventive leads” (p. 47).

What Is the Relevance of Social Learning for Organization and Change?

In organizations people copy behaviour of others, for instance from their leaders and also from ‘relevant others’. Social learning is related to a concept like ‘lead by example’ and socialization in organizations and therewith organizational culture. In the context of management and change it can also be related to, for example, change capacity and cooperation. For a further explanation of the relevance of Bandura’s thinking and theories see: 5.2.2 (Social-Cognitive Theory).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘learning theory’, ‘employ*’, ‘organi*’ and ‘change’. The searched yielded 115 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, no studies met the inclusion criteria.

Remark: With the social learning theory (1977) and the related experiments (‘the Bobo doll experiments’ in 1961 and 1963) Bandura demonstrated the relevance of learning from others, social learning; the value of modelling for acquiring new or additional behaviours. With the social cognitive theory Bandura (1986) has elaborated and renamed social learning theory. Social cognition further attributes to the understanding of the social core motive understanding. However, social cognition is included in Chapter 5 under the core social motive of controlling (5.2). The further development and renaming may be a part of the explanation for the fact that we found no studies to be included for social learning theory. However, it should be noted that also for social cognitive theory the output was very limited. For that reason we have extended our research to ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘social cognitive career theory’ (see Chapter 5, Social Cognitive theory).

Main Findings

Not applicable

What Is the Conclusion?

See Chapter 5, Conclusion, Social Cognitive Theory.

Practical Reflections

See Chapter 5, Practical Reflections, Self-Determination Theory

Social Impact Theory

The presence of others causes social impact, an influence that can be real or perceived, direct or indirect (implied), experienced or imagined.

What Is Social Impact?

Building on Lewin’s Field Theory and theorizing in terms of social forces by analogy with physical forces like light and gravity, Latané (1981) developed the Law of Social Impact. He proposed “that we think of the individual exposed to social influences as operating in a social force field, which determines what he does in lawful ways” (Brown, 1986, p. 18). According to Latané, a social impact is any influence on the feelings, thoughts or behaviours of an individual resulting from the social context of that individual. The presence of others that causes that influence can be real or perceived, direct or indirect (implied), experienced or imagined. Social forces on an individual are like light bulbs that cast light on a surface. Just as the total amount of light depends on factors such as the wattage and number of bulbs, the total social impact of a set of individuals on a single target individual is by analogy determined by a set of factors. Latané mentions the strength and number of the individuals and their immediacy (to the target individual). Strength is defined by status, age, experience, expertise and the quality of the relationship (with the target individual). Immediacy is not only proximity in a literal sense (e.g. distance in time and space), but also determined by the presence or absence of intervening barriers or filters (Brown, 1986). The formal statement of the Law of Social Impact is I = f(SIN). The intensity of social impact increases with the strength of each source, the immediacy of sources and the number of sources. Total intensity is the result of multiplying the three values together. In fact, Latané uses (formulas based on) the three variables (SIN) to define three laws: that of social forces, the psychosocial law and the law of multiplication/divisions of impact. The first, that of social forces, or the first Law of Social Impact [I = f(SIN)], has already been introduced. The second, the psychosocial law, is about the idea that the size of the psychological increase decreases as n increases; one person added to two persons is more impactful on a target individual than one added to a hundred persons. The third law of social impact concerns multiplication or divisions of impact and relates to the diffusion of responsibility. It states that the strength, immediacy and number of targets play a role in social impact. In short, social impact will be more divided among all of the targets with more strength and immediacy and an increasing number of targets in a social situation. For example, in an emergency, individuals will feel less responsible if more people are present at the scene.

As a result of some shortcomings or limitations of social impact theory (like the absence of explanations of the nature of influencing processes related to variables like immediacy, individual differences), the application is complicated. For that reason, in applying social impact theory, the idea of persuasiveness and supportiveness is introduced.¹ Persuasiveness concerns ‘the ability to induce someone with an opposing position to change’. Supportiveness is ‘the ability to help those who agree with someone’s point of view to resist the influence of others’. Together they can produce change. In this perspective an individual’s likelihood of change and being influenced is defined as a direct function of strength (persuasiveness), immediacy and the number of advocates. In addition, the likelihood is a direct inverse function of strength (supportiveness), immediacy and the number of advocates.

Based on social impact theory (SIT), Latané, Nowak, and Liu (1994) developed the ‘dynamic’ SIT. Social structures, societies, organizations and groups are seen as complex and dynamic systems, never static, always changing, as a result of social influences. Social structures and cultures are seen to result from “individuals, differing in their ability to influence each other in a dynamic iterative process of reciprocal and recursive influence” (Latané, 1996, p. 13). Latané (1996) defines culture as “the entire set of socially transmitted beliefs, values and practices that characterize a given society at a given time” (p. 13). Cultures are patterns of related ideas similar to the social representations of Moscovici (1984); they are a shared, social reality to guide our actions. In dynamic SIT, cultures are complex and dynamic systems that are characterized by a process with four forms of self-organization, namely: clustering, correlation, consolidation and continuing diversity. These four patterns are the basis for group dynamics to operate and the diffusion of ideas within social structures and help us to understand cultures and their development (Latané & Bourgeois, 2001). The overall process of self-organization and its properties “can lead initially random distributions of social attributes to become clustered in space and correlated, with less popular elements becoming consolidated or reduced in frequency but surviving in minority subgroups” (Latané, 1996, p. 13). From a culture perspective, consolidation means that patterns of related ideas become more and more uniform over time through interaction, thereby spreading the dominant culture, a dynamic phenomenon, from the majority to the minority, which decreases in size. Clustering is the social process that results from the tendency of individuals to interact with clusters of group members with similar opinions, in close proximity, rather than with members who have different views and are more distant. This may result in majorities, dominant groups and minorities, cultures and subgroups and subcultures with shared but different views and beliefs compared with the majority. The third process is correlation; over time group members’ opinions converge and correlate with one another. This holds true for issues discussed and issues that are not discussed. Notwithstanding the processes of consolidation, clustering and correlation, there may be a continuing diversity within a group. Minority group members may cluster together and may resist the majority in interaction processes. Diversity may increase as a result of a very strong or intrusive majority or the (physical) isolation of minority members from one another.

What Is the Relevance of Social Impact for Organization and Change?

From the perspective of organization and change, social impact relating to leadership, culture, communication and teams and team development, among other subjects, is a very relevant and helpful concept. Social impact theory helps to understand how the relationship and interaction between leaders and followers develop. It explains the underlying mechanisms of concepts like ‘relevant others’, group dynamics, ‘lead by example’, ‘tone at the top’ and role models. The relevance of the concept of social impact for the organizational context is illustrated by Oc and Bashur (2013): “A combination of SIT, the work of Asch (1951, 1956) and some of the arguments we make here can provide valuable clues as to how followers can exercise their social influence in relative safety. Be aware of the needs of your leader. Build your strength accordingly (e.g. be persistent, show integrity and composure and have some positional or informational power), increase your immediacy (reduce social distance) and find safety in numbers (find a confederate, build coalitions)” (p. 931). With regard to organizational culture and the change of it, social impact theory provides possible explanations for the difficulties with it and possible interventions to change it. It helps to understand the way change agents, ‘leading coalitions’ or ‘gideon gangs’ might work. It also sheds light on the dynamics and possible problems related to dominant groups and cultures and majorities on the one hand and other groups, subcultures and minorities on the other hand. Those dynamics, problems and possibilities, and the underlying mechanisms, are very relevant for organizations as such and organizations in change in particular. In the context of change, social impact is also highly relevant in understanding resistance and its producers or ‘bearers’. Focusing on resistance to change, Kriegel (1996) points to the classic paper “How to Deal with Resistance to Change” (1954) of Harvard Business School professor Paul Lawrence. Lawrence describes “how failing to understand workers’ resistance can sabotage the whole effort” (p. 187). Heifetz (2009) pleas for the protection of the voices of dissent. He states: “The voices of dissent are the naysayers, the sceptics, who not only question this initiative but question whatever is on the agenda of today. They are princes of darkness, often resting on the negative. But they are valuable for implementing adaptive change because they are canaries in the coal mine, early-warning systems, and because in addition to being unproductive and annoying much of the time, they have the uncanny capacity for asking the really tough key question that you have been unwilling to face up to yourself or that others have been unwilling to raise. In many organizations, dissenters get marginalized, silenced, or even fired, which deprives the organization of their valuable, if unpopular service” (p. 145).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘social impact theory’ and combining ‘social impact’ with ‘work’, ‘employee’, ‘organization’ and ‘change’. The search yielded more than 100 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. After thorough examination, one meta-analysis and three studies remained.

Main Findings

1. Group size and relational distance affect customers’ response to group service recovery strategies (Level A).
   • In a randomized, controlled before-after study, evidence found supports both group size and the relational distance in social impact theory, as it has an effect on the customer’s response to group service recovery. “Specifically, private economic recovery creates less consumer satisfaction as group size increases, whereas consumers with a distant social relationship are more satisfied with public recovery for both economic recovery and social recovery. However, consumers with close relationships are more satisfied with public economic recovery and private social recovery” (Zhou, Tsang, Huang, & Zhou, 2014, p. 2480). Examples of economic recovery include monetary compensation, partial refunds and discounts for future purchases. Social recovery includes explanation and apology that can comfort customers and compensate for their psychological distress.
   •   “This study further enriches social impact theory by investigating the moderating effects of the social forces in the theory. We operationalized these forces into applicable concepts for group service recovery to provide further evidence supporting the validity and practicality of social impact theory” (Zhou et al., 2014, p. 2484).
2. There is limited evidence for the social impact theory, as the effects are rather weak and inconsistent (Level B-).
   • A meta-analytical study found limited evidence for the social impact theory, as research regarding both strength and immediacy show weak correlations and inconsistencies (Mullen, 1985).
   •   “In the meantime, social psychologists might be cautious in their application of Social Impact Theory. The distinguishing attribute of Social Impact Theory has been its treatment of strength and immediacy. The present analyses reveal that these effects are rather weak and inconsistent and may very well be the result of methodological artefact (i.e. demand characteristics)” (Mullen, 1985, p. 1465).
3. Leaders’ emotion perceptions enhance employees’ job performance and the strength of this relationship depends upon the task interdependence and the power distance (Vidyarthi, Anand & Liden, Level D-).
   • “Thus, consistent with social impact theory, we reason that leaders’ influence on employees may diminish when employees independently work on their tasks. This is because high task interdependence requires more direct and frequent contact between the leader and employees for the purpose of coordinating the interrelated tasks, whereas substantially less contact between leaders and followers is needed when their tasks are independent of one another” (Vidyarthi, Anand, & Liden, 2014, p. 239).

What Is the Conclusion?

Social impact theory is a fruitful and—in the context of change and organization—highly relevant and very insightful concept. It relates to leadership and leader-follower interaction, organizational culture and culture change, group dynamics and resistance to change, among others. Having said that, some caution is required; studies show inconsistencies regarding social impact theory. The included meta-analysis states that the correlations are weak and studies show different results. However, this meta-analysis originates from 1985. Since 1985, more research on social impact theory has taken place, with more positive results. For example, high task interdependence can enhance leaders’ influence on employees, as they have more direct and frequent contact. This targets the strength and immediacy of social impact theory.

Practical Reflections

In the context of change and organization, making decisions, influencing people and seeking guidance and orientation are important factors. Social impact theory sheds light on the underlying mechanisms and dynamics underlying those factors. As stated, some caution is required; the relevant evidence is mixed and limited. The evidence (partially) supports the social impact theory. The evidence is limited and not directly linked to organizational functioning or change management. Still, social impact theory can have added value in terms of the strength, immediacy and number of sources mentioned that are relevant to the factors and processes, such as decision-making. Evidence does indicate that these sources are important in leader-employee relationships and can be used to increase followers’ social influence. This insight, like insights into social impact theory in a broader sense, can be helpful in designing and exhibiting role model and ‘lead by example’ behaviours.

Cooperation/Competition (Social Interdependence Theory)

How group members believe their goals are related impacts their dynamics and performance significantly.

What Is Cooperation/Competition, What Is Social Interdependence?

The interrelated concepts of cooperation and competition are essential for the understanding and control of social processes. With his ‘Theory of Cooperation and Competition’ (1949), Deutsch proposed that the way in which group members believe their goals are related impacts their dynamics and performance significantly. His ideas are related to the social interdependence theory. Social interdependence exists when the accomplishment of each individual’s goals is affected by the actions of others (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). No interdependence results if individuals perceive that they can reach their goal regardless of whether others in the situation attain their goals or not (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). Deutsch describes cooperation and competition as a positive and a negative type of social interdependence: “To put it colloquially, if you’re positively linked with another, then you sink and swim together; with negative linkage, if the other sinks, you swim, and if the other swims, you sink” (Deutsch, 2012, pp. 278–279). Positive interdependence can result, for example, from the need to share a resource, being rewarded for a joint achievement or mutual sympathy. Negative interdependence can result from factors like disliking one another and rewards stimulating zero-sum games. In addition to the interdependence among goals, Deutsch also defines two basic types of action by an individual: effective actions and bungling actions. Effective actions improve the actor’s chances of obtaining a goal and bungling actions worsen these chances. Deutsch (2012) combines these types of interdependence and action to posit how they affect three basic social psychological processes: substitutability, cathexis and inducibility. These processes are vital in understanding cooperation and competitions and their psychology. Substitutability permits you to accept the activities of others in the fulfilment of your needs; it is about how a person’s action can satisfy another person’s intentions. Substitutability is essential for the functioning of social institutions like companies and schools and conditional for role specializations and the division of labour. Cathexis is about evaluation; it “refers to the predisposition to respond evaluatively, favourably or unfavourably to aspects of one’s environment or self” (Deutsch, 2012, p. 280). Based on this evaluation and as a result of evolution, living creatures have the ability to respond positively to stimuli that are beneficial and negatively to stimuli that are harmful. Deutsch (2012) states: “This inborn tendency to act positively toward the beneficial and negatively to the harmful is the foundation on which the human potentials for cooperation and love as well as for competition and hate develop” (p. 280). Inducibility is the complement of substitutability. It is about the readiness to accept another’s influence to do what that other one wants. You are willing to engage in helpful, but not in harmful actions of another person. The theory of cooperation and competition makes further predictions with regard to intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup and intergroup processes. If the assumption is that actions are more frequently effective than bungling, then the theory predicts that cooperative relations with goals of the parties involved that are predominantly positively interdependent show more positive characteristics, such as the exhibition of effective communication, friendliness, helpfulness, and lessened obstruction, fair treatment as a principle, influence based on persuasion and positive inducements, coordination of effort and willingness to enhance the other’s power. The opposite effects, such as impaired, misleading communication, lack of helpfulness and obstruction and not valuing fairness to the other, characterize competitive processes (Deutsch, 2012).

What Is the Relevance of Cooperation/Competition for Organization and Change?

The theory of cooperation/competition might well be the nature/nurture discussion of social psychology. Is competition better for group performance, as it might increase the effort people put in, as winners are seen as successful in our society? Or is it cooperation that is the better way of working, increasing job satisfaction and ultimately performance by doing things as a team? Cooperative goal structures are today seen as more effective in motivating groups compared with competitive goal structures. Kistruck and his colleagues (2016) state: “There is a growing consensus that cooperative goal structures are more effective at motivating groups than competitive goal structures. However, such results are based largely on studies conducted in highly controlled settings where participants were provided with the necessary resources to accomplish their assigned task” (p. 1174). In the popular management literature, most concepts related to topics such as organizational structure, teams and leadership also advocate the ‘cooperation-paradigm’; cooperation and shared goals are assumed, competition (within the team or organization) is often not addressed, nor is the problematic side of conflict. This is illustrated by Laloux (2014) providing us with ‘A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness’ and considers self-management (structures) and self-managing teams as defining elements. The so-called team-based organization (TBO) is often described in very positive, attractive terms. An example can be found in the ‘Business Dictionary’²: “Non-traditional, innovative work environment relying on teams to achieve its objectives. Taboo’s major characteristics include (1) mutual trust, (2) employee empowerment in planning, organization and goal-setting, (3) shared responsibility for self-management, (4) shared accountability for performance, and (5) shared leadership”. We can also observe the awareness that one has to strike a balance between cooperation and competition. Both are probably necessary factors in developing organizations, leadership styles and change capacity of organizations. The competition perspective is (at least indirectly) visible in ideas about performance management, goal-setting and feedback. Mourier and Smith (2001) underline the importance of measurement, feedback and consequences: “Provide positive recognition when expectations are met and negative consequences when expectations aren’t met” (p. 32). Kouznes and Posner (2012) state: “People need to know if they’re making progress toward the goal or simply marking time. Their motivation to perform a task increases only when they have a challenging goal and receive feedback on their progress” (p. 282).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the terms ‘cooperation’ and ‘competition’ in combination with ‘meta-analysis’ or ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 600 (!) articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, twenty studies and one meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria. After a thorough examination of the included studies, nine were excluded. Most of the included studies were randomized, controlled experiments with a high level of evidence (A or A-).

Main Findings

1. Intragroup cooperation outperforms intragroup competition (Level A-).
   • A meta-analysis among students found that intragroup cooperation has a stronger positive effect on performance than intragroup competition, but the effect size found (medium) is smaller than earlier research that reported a high effect. The meta-analysis further found that intragroup cooperation is more effective for psychology and sociology students compared with business and accounting students (Na’im, 2004).
2. In teams, cooperative rewards promote accuracy; competitive rewards promote speed (Level A).
   • Both cooperation and competition can have positive effects on the team performance, but it depends what is needed. When a task is urgent and speed is required, adding competition can increase the speed. When the task requires accuracy, cooperation is preferred. The randomized, controlled, before-after study also found that when a team is “.composed of extroverted and agreeable members, a cooperative reward structure is a very effective choice” (Beersma et al., 2003, p. 587).
3. A combination of cooperation and competition is the most effective (Level A-).
   • Intergroup competition (or competition between groups where individuals in groups work cooperatively) has a positive effect on enjoyment and performance. This randomized, controlled experiment is conducted in a basketball setting with children as participants. Nevertheless, it is an interesting finding that might also be relevant in an organizational setting (Tauer, 2004).
4. Individual competition leads to a decrease in the willingness of individuals to cooperate (Level B-), and intergroup competition itself does not increase within group cooperation (Level B).
   • Adding competitive elements can reduce the willingness of individuals to cooperate (Canegallo, Ortona, Ottone, Ponzano, & Scacciati, 2008). This can have detrimental effects on organizational functioning and change success, as they both often require teams to complete certain tasks. In a non-randomized, controlled, before- after study, researchers found that it is not intergroup competition itself, but setting certain threshold levels (such as winning an extra prize when a certain amount of in-group cooperation is reached) that is the most important factor determining why teams cooperate. This threshold does not have to be competitive, as social thresholds are equally effective (Jordan, Jordan, & Rand, 2017).

What Is the Conclusion?

With regard to organization and change, cooperation/competition is relevant for subjects like teams and team development, goal-setting and feedback, leadership and culture, change capacity and, of course, cooperation and commitment. The related theory is well researched as such and in addition there is a high level (A, B) of specific evidence with regard to the organizational context. The evidence shows that both cooperation and competition are relevant and effective in organizations, leading to, for example, (higher, better) performance and climates. A combination of the two is the most effective, each one promoting specific qualities, such as accuracy and speed. For leaders the relevance and importance of the concept of cooperation/competition is undisputed. Specifically where far-reaching changes and significant improvements are on the agenda, striking the right balance is essential. It is illustrative that Collins, in talking about great leadership, promotes a mix of elements related to the cooperation and competition, with regard to both the leadership style itself and the message to the followers. Based on his research, Collins (2001) defines five levels of executive capabilities. On ‘Level 3’ we find the so-called competent manager, who organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of pre-determined objectives. Their perspective is mainly a transactional one. On the higher levels of the ‘effective leader’ (4) and ideal typical ‘executive’ (5) we find the leaders who are (more) transformational. They, in particular the Level 5 one, are the leaders whose companies ‘make the leap’, where ‘others don’t’. The ‘Level 5’ leader “builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (p. 20). On ‘Level 4’ is the ‘effective leader’ who “catalyses commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision, stimulating higher performance standards” (p. 20).

Practical Reflections

Cooperation is naturally related to the social animal, as is competition. Without cooperation, organizational functioning and the capacity to change will eventually suffer. Without competition, organizations, teams and individuals lack a natural stimulus to perform and to strive for the best. The combination of cooperation and competition is operationalized in the concepts of goal-setting and feedback. One could characterize cooperation as the ‘mother’, emphasizing togetherness, taking care of each other, and the social dimension as prerequisites for performance and health. Competition is the ‘father’, highlighting the importance of being sharp and competent, aware of who you are competing against or who may threaten you and your group, stressing the business perspective and survival as reasons to perform. The change management literature devotes a lot of (positive) attention to the cooperation perspective. The completion perspective has a less self-evident, ‘natural’ position in the literature. However, several practitioners and management thinkers illustrate the ‘father’ or competition perspective. Novak (2012), author and famous CEO, teaches us that “recognizing the behaviours you want and those you don’t is essential to keeping your people on track toward achieving your Big Goal. It’s important to do this formally, with things like performance reviews and raises, but even informal recognition can have a big impact” (p. 193). Mourier and Smith (2001) underline the importance of measurement, feedback and consequences: “Provide positive recognition when expectations are met and negative consequences when expectations aren’t met” (p. 32). Kouznes and Posner (2012) state: “People need to know if they’re making progress toward the goal or simply marking time. Their motivation to perform a task increases only when they have a challenging goal and receive feedback on their progress” (p. 282). Heller (1998) addresses measuring results and providing feedback as ways to influence or change employee behaviour by presenting the concept of ‘goal setting’. He advises: “Set personal objectives for people so they focus their minds on performance; reaching the goals will reinforce their enhanced drive” (p. 51). On feedback: “Commend people, publicly or privately, to strengthen commitment. Be sure to set high standards, and never ignore mistakes” (p. 51). Watkins (2013) also advocates the definition and monitoring of goals and performance metrics: “On the push side, establishing—and sticking to—clear and explicit performance metrics is the best way to encourage accountability” (p. 183). Without cooperation between people in groups (organizations and teams), tasks that require multiple people become very difficult to complete. This is the case in particular in situations of change where tasks and assignments are significant, routines not sufficient to do the job and people often become insecure or even anxious. As illustrated, competition is also helpful, in particular in combination with cooperation. Research on children playing basketball showed that intergroup competition (or competition within and between groups) leads to a positive effect on enjoyment and performance. Another finding that is useful for practitioners and their management and change practice is that promoting people to work together in a group, setting clear goals for groups and having groups compete against one another gives employees the feeling they belong to a secure group (their own group). It also gives them an incentive to perform well (competition between groups). Obviously, this is contingent or situational in its eventual effect; it is easier to do in companies with sales and commercial drive than in hospitals, as sales provide an easier target from a competitive standpoint. Based on the high-quality scientific literature found, intergroup competition is the best of both worlds. Cooperation is an essential part of organizations and change management success; making smart use of competition in addition to cooperation can enhance this even further.

Social Exchange

Social contexts are ‘forums of transaction’ with social exchange as the market mechanism. Individuals voluntarily act in favour of another person or an organization, motivated by individuals’ expectations of reciprocity.

What Is Social Exchange?

Social exchange theory is considered to be one of the most influential paradigms on organizational behaviour (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The theory’s core is reciprocity; it explains why people in social contexts help and support one another (Blau, 1968; Gouldner, 1960). Social change and stability represent a process of cost-benefit analyses between the parties involved. From this perspective social groups are seen as a series of interactions between people that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments. The cost-benefit model and process are used to evaluate rewards (approval) or punishment (disapproval) that we expect to receive from others. The results of these (conscious or subconscious) evaluations determine our interactions. Central to this theory is the idea that interactions that elicit approval from others are more likely to be repeated than those that elicit disapproval. According to social exchange theory, the formula for predicting the behaviour of an individual in a social situation is: Behaviour (profits) = Rewards of interaction – Costs of interaction. Examples of rewards are social recognition, money and a smile. Examples of punishments are public humiliation, a downgrade or reprimand. Social exchange theory is rooted in disciplines like anthropology, sociology and social psychology. These disciplines and their theorists agree that social exchange involves a series of interactions that generate obligations (Emerson, 1976). Social exchange theory explains in terms of reciprocity why people such as neighbours, colleagues and visitors to an event help one another in social situations. Following social exchange theory, Michel and Gonzalez-Morales (2013) describe organizations as ‘forums of transaction’. The exchange can take many forms, such as work engagement and effort being exchanged for pay or another form of acknowledgement by one’s supervisor. As Michel and Gonzalez-Morales (2013) state: “Taken together, social exchange describes the voluntary action of an individual in favour of another person or an organization. This action is motivated by individuals’ expectations of reciprocity. Therefore, it is important that the exchange between the parties is reciprocal in terms of a balanced outcome of efforts invested (i.e. costs) and rewards received (i.e. benefits)” (pp. 80–81). Social exchange theory helps to explain why the fair implementation of change is related to favourable employees’ reactions (Michel & Gonzalez-Morales, 2013). Participation, voice and fair process are perceived by employees as a form of reward, signs of appreciation and support. From an exchange perspective it is likely that employees reciprocate this by behaving in favour of the organization, thereby increasing employee-organization value congruence (Michel, Stegmaier, Meiser, & Sonntag, 2009). In the process of social exchange, individuals or units take several elements or dimensions into account, at least: reciprocity, rationality, altruism or social responsibility, group gain, status, consistency and competition or rivalry (Walczak, 2015; Meeker, 1971).

What Is the Relevance of Social Exchange for Organization and Change?

Social exchange theory proposes that an exchange process is the underlying factor for social behaviour. The purpose of this exchange process is to maximize benefits and minimize (potential) costs. “According to this theory, people weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationships. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or abandon that relationship” (Kendra, 2017). In deciding what is fair, people constantly compare the relationship using a give/take ratio. According to the social exchange theory, rewarding employees with recognition in the form of compliments, money or other benefits, will make employees engage in behaviour that benefits the organization. This ‘exchange’ is beneficial for both the employee (rewards) and the organization (performance). Furthermore, social exchange relationships should bolster employees, making them more satisfied with their job and more committed to the organization. Social exchange can take many forms. An example is that work engagement and effort is exchanged for acknowledgement by one’s supervisor (Michel & Gonzalez-Morales, 2013). Being in a way ‘transactional’, the perspective of social exchange theory helps to counterbalance the ideological and idealistic one-sided emphasis and appreciation of leadership and management behaviour from a transformational and positive psychology perspective. Evidence shows that supervisory support is critical for the success of change (ten Have et al., 2016). The supportive style is often described and valued from an idealistic, normative perspective as the preferred one. Exhibiting this style makes you ‘good’, and ‘good’ people favour this style. Apart from the question of context and contingencies, there is an alternative interpretation. Social exchange theory teaches that giving support (or acknowledgement) can be or is part of an exchange, a transaction. This may lead to a more realistic and balanced appreciation of ‘giving support’. It is not exclusively related to a supervisor who chooses to give support, let alone because he is or must be a ‘good’ human being. From the social exchange perspective, leaders and followers exchange in social situations, they do a ‘transaction’, hopefully with mutual benefit and for the greater good. In the case of change, another part of the ‘deal’ could be that leaders provide clarity, or more specifically are clear on what will change and what will not change. In this way, they exchange their part that reduces the anxiety or uncertainty of followers for commitment to the change. Kriegel (1996), noting that people distort how much change is involved in change, elaborates on this. He says, in order to correct the distortion: “Leaders should not point out just what will be altered but also what will stay the same. That bi-focus puts a more balanced spin on plans for change and reduces anxiety” (p. 225). Kouzes and Posner (2012) describe a social exchange in which a favourable organizational climate and facilitating control (self-efficacy) are exchanged for commitment and ownership. In their example they emphasize the importance of supervisory support focused on creating a climate in which people are fully engaged and feel in control of their own lives. “In a climate of competence and confidence, people don’t hesitate to hold themselves personally accountable for results, and they feel profound ownership for their achievements” (p. 243). Kouzes and Posner also emphasize that a leader must “invest in strengthening the capacity and the resolve of everyone in the organization” (p. 256), especially in situations of change. Exemplary leaders strive to create conditions in which people perform effortlessly and expertly despite the challenging or even difficult situation. Social exchange also repositions and revaluates transactional leadership, based on exchanges between leaders and employees, with rewards and punishments as key motivators. A lot of people favour its counterpart; transformational leadership that focuses on higher-order goals seeks “to satisfy higher needs, and engage the full person of the follower” (Burns, 1978, p. 4). This is a useful contribution of social exchange theory for leaders in practice, because evidence demonstrates the importance of both leadership styles for different areas of organizational change (ten Have et al., 2017). Social exchange theory can also be related to the subject of participation and fair process, which are highly relevant for change management and the design and development of change processes (ten Have et al., 2017).

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using the term ‘social exchange’, and ‘social exchange’ in combination with ‘organization’, ‘employee’, ‘change’, ‘work’, ‘meta-analysis’ and ‘systematic review’. The search yielded more than 250 articles. After screening the title and abstracts for relevance, fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. After thoroughly examining the studies, another eight were excluded.

Main Findings

1. Engaging in social exchange (relationships) has a positive relationship with organizational commitment (Level C).
   • In multiple included studies, social exchange (relationships) has a positive effect on organizational commitment (Byrne, Pitts, Chiaburu, & Steiner, 2011; Jayawardana & O’Donnell, 2010; Yigit, 2016).
2. Social exchange relationships have a positive effect on both trust in the organization and organizational citizenship behaviour (Level D-).
   • Employees that engage in social exchange relationships generally have more trust in the organization. They also demonstrate more organizational citizenship behaviour, known as extra-role performance (Bal, Chiaburu, & Jansen, 2010). This finding is important, because it positively affects organizational change.
3. High-quality social exchange relationships can compensate for potentially negative consequences of certain personality traits, such as low conscientiousness and low agreeableness (Level D-).
   • Certain personality traits can have a negative effect on, for example, task performance. High-quality social exchange relationships can compensate for these potentially negative consequences (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007).

What Is the Conclusion?

Social exchange theory is a well-researched theory with high relevance to the field of management and change. Specific evidence provides useful insights for practitioners who focus on, for example, leadership, change, organizational culture and climate, and performance management. Michel and Gonzalez-Morales (2013) suggest “that social exchange theories provide the theoretical foundation to explain why the fair implementation of change is related to favourable employees’ reactions” (p. 81). They illustrate: “For example, sufficient participation in planned changes and fair decision-making processes are perceived by employees as signs of management’s appreciation and support. In turn, it is likely that employees reciprocate fair treatment by behaving in favour of the organization (Michel et al., 2009)” (p. 81).

Practical Reflections

Based on their research, Michel and Gonzalez-Morales (2013) state that: “With respect to social exchange, findings suggest that change managers should monitor the event characteristics and manage the change process by informing employees frequently and comprehensively, providing participation and voice opportunities and enacting effective leadership behaviours. Such actions positively influence employees’ perception of fairness and organizational support, trust in management, commitment and increased employee-organization value congruence” (p. 83). The management thinkers Kriegel and Ibarra also emphasize the importance of the change process, involvement and fairness. Kriegel (1996) states: “The way you introduce change makes a world of difference in how people feel about it” (pp. 218–2019). He explains that if major changes are implemented, employees will be less resistant when they understand the decision in context and feel that they are treated honestly. However, in practice a fair process is often lacking and employees experience major changes as if a bombshell has been dropped. According to Kriegel: “Many companies simply announce a downsizing scheme like it was a new health plan or accounting procedure. No input. No Q&A. No dialogue. It’s not just the bad news, but the form of delivery that bends employees out of shape. No wonder people feel victimized and disrespected. The rumour mills start racing and the resistance starts rising” (p. 219). He emphasizes the importance of providing a structure for employees to express their natural disappointment and sense of loss. This is not the same as involving people in the creation of change, but helps them move to acceptance. It is about the acknowledgement of their feelings and processing them. Ibarra (2015) points to the importance of engaging people in the change by developing supportive processes: “Naïve leaders act as if the idea itself is the ultimate selling point. Experienced leaders, on the other hand, understand that the process is just as important, if not more so” (p. 45).

In addition to the clear guidelines of Michel and Gonzalez-Morales, based on the studies included by us, the following practical guidelines can be provided. To increase social exchange (relationships): “Managers seeking to promote social exchange relationships with their employees need to focus on creating opportunities for job enrichment, enhanced transparency in decision-making and improved involvement for line employees in workplace level decision-making” (Jayawardana & O’Donnell, 2010, p. 25). In addition: “Leaders and practitioners should incorporate policies that value the integrity of managers, such as those grounded in fairness principles. By offering ongoing training, companies can boost their managers’ ability level, a contributing factor to trustworthiness of the manager” (Byrne et al., 2011, p. 119). And: “Employees equipped with the best skills should be chosen; socialization processes of employees should be supported and it should be understood that organizations are a means of social exchange for employees” (Yigit, 2016, p. 47).