Connect with us

BizNews

Narcissistic bosses stymie knowledge flow, cooperation inside organizations

The study found that unit-head narcissism can prevent knowledge sharing. That tendency diminished in fast-changing or complex environments because narcissists had an excuse to pursue external ideas. But when businesses have high inter-unit competition, narcissists are more tempted to distinguish themselves from other units.

Published

on

Photo by Paul Hanaoka from Unsplash.com

Narcissism is a prominent trait among top executives, and most people have seen the evidence in their workplaces.

These individuals believe they have superior confidence, intelligence and judgment, and will pursue any opportunity to reinforce those inflated self-views and gain admiration. According to new research from the University of Washington, narcissism can also cause knowledge barriers within organizations.

When different units in the same company share information, it boosts performance and creates a competitive advantage. Narcissists hinder this knowledge transfer due to a sense of superiority that leads them to overestimate the value of internal knowledge and underestimate the value of external knowledge.

“Many big companies are what one would describe as multi-business firms, an organizational form where you have a corporate parent and subsidiary units,” said co-author Abhinav Gupta, associate professor of management in the UW Foster School of Business. “The financial logic for why these firms exist is so that knowledge and skills that reside in one unit can be used in another unit.”

But units don’t work with each other as much as companies would like, Gupta said. The study, published April 4 in the Strategic Management Journal, revealed that certain personality traits of executives — specifically narcissism — impede the flow of information.

“Narcissism affects people’s desire to be distinctive,” Gupta said. “It’s correlated by people wanting glory for themselves. We hypothesized that business-unit heads that have those traits would be the ones to say, ‘We don’t want to work with you. We have sufficient skills and knowledge and abilities that we will work independently.’ That was very strongly borne out based on our research design.”

The authors surveyed business units of a headhunting company in China that helps organizations recruit talent and search for technical personnel. These units must share knowledge about building talent pools, identifying skills and persuading prospects to accept offers.

Researchers asked unit heads to rate, among other factors, their own narcissistic traits, the environmental complexity of the local market and perceived competition with other units. They then asked deputies to rate the level of knowledge imported from other units.

Narcissism was measured using the self-report Narcissistic Personality Inventory 16-item scale, which presents pairs of statements and asks individuals to select the one that best describes them. One pair consisted of “I like to be the center of attention” and “I prefer to blend in with the crowd.”

The study found that unit-head narcissism can prevent knowledge sharing. That tendency diminished in fast-changing or complex environments because narcissists had an excuse to pursue external ideas. But when businesses have high inter-unit competition, narcissists are more tempted to distinguish themselves from other units.

The research has multiple implications for companies, Gupta said. For example, when filling roles that require knowledge sharing, managers might watch for signs of narcissistic personality traits. Companies could also design an organization and reward structure that encourages cooperation among current personnel.

“There are two views of how multi-business firms create value,” Gupta said. “One perspective is you want to run an organization like an internal market. All the units are actively competing for resources from the corporate headquarters, and that competition is what enables superior performance.

“This research kind of goes against the grain of that. If you create the perception of competition inside an organization, then that will have some downstream effects. You will be essentially foregoing some essential knowledge-sharing activities.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The other co-authors were Xin Liu of Remin University of China, Lin Zhang of Peking University, Changqi Wu of Shangdong University and Xiaoming Zheng of Tsinghua University. 

BizNews

Having a bad boss makes you a worse employee

Employees who prioritize career advancement are strongly affected by abusive leadership while employees who prioritized job security remained just as likely to take charge after experiencing abusive supervision. Employees who prioritize advancement tend to hunker down and reduce taking-charge behavior after experiencing abusive supervision.

Published

on

Your boss stomps and yells, criticizes you, and then proceeds to take the credit for your work – even it is an isolated incident? This can take a profound toll on employee well-being and performance. But despite the many years of research, the precise mechanisms through which bad leadership impacts employees’ performance remain a subject of interest.

In a new study, first published in Group & Organization Management, an international group of researchers, led by Stevens Institute of Technology and University of Illinois Chicago, offer a novel explanation of the cognitive factors through which abusive leadership degrades employee performance — and helps explain why some employees are more vulnerable than others to the negative impact of abusive bosses.

“Thankfully, abusive supervision isn’t too common, but when it happens it leaves employees far less likely to take the initiative and work to improve business practices,” said Howie Xu, an author of the study and an assistant professor of management at Stevens. “We wanted to understand the cognitive factors behind that effect — and ask how companies can shield their employees from the negative impact of bad bosses.” 

Xu’s team surveyed employees and supervisors from 42 different South Korean companies, along with hundreds of US students, to explore the ways in which abusive supervision impacts “taking-charge” behavior by employees. Subjects were then ranked according to whether they actively seek positive opportunities for promotion and advancement or take a more preventative approach that prioritizes safety and job security.

“We theorized that both the drive to obtain rewards (promotion, bonuses) and the drive to avoid punishments (maintain job security) would shape the way employees respond to abusive bosses,” Xu explained. 

But that’s not what Xu and his team found. Rather, they found that employees who prioritize career advancement are strongly affected by abusive leadership while employees who prioritized job security remained just as likely to take charge after experiencing abusive supervision. Employees who prioritize advancement tend to hunker down and reduce taking-charge behavior after experiencing abusive supervision.”

“That’s a very surprising finding,” Xu said. “We found clear evidence that the signal from abusive leadership is much more salient to employees who care about advancement than it is to employees who care about security.”

One possible explanation, Xu explained, is that ambitious employees may perceive an abusive boss as having direct control over whether they will receive bonuses or opportunities for promotion. By contrast, bad bosses may be seen as having less direct control over firing decisions, which often require ratification by HR teams or more senior managers. 

That’s an important finding, because it suggests that organizations seeking to mitigate the impact of bad leadership should focus on empowering employees and making them feel valued and appreciated, rather than simply reassuring them their jobs are safe. “If a leader slips into abusive behavior, our research suggests that they should not only apologize, but also work to reassure employees of their value to the organization,” Xu said.

Unexpectedly, the variation in employee response to abusive supervision was broadly constant across both the Korean and US populations. “We think of these countries as culturally distinct, but there was no real difference in how employees responded to abusive bosses,” Xu said. “That might reflect the effect of globalization — or might be a sign that this is a universal trait that exists across many different cultures.” 

Researchers from Texas Tech University, Hunan University and Seoul National University also contributed to the paper.

Continue Reading

BizNews

You own a digital-native brand and you want to set up a physical brand store? Read this first

Despite the cannibalizing impact on their own online channel, brand stores are an effective means to increase a brand’s top-line sales. Digital natives in startup or growth markets that aim to draw investors’ attention can try to improve their valuation through brand stores and the corresponding sales growth.

Published

on

Multichannel retailing has become crucial to the sales strategy of any brand, including digital-native brands that started retailing as online-only. Digital-native brands like Quip in the U.S. and Myprotein in Europe have partnered with independent retailers to offer consumers an in-person retail option. But some brands—especially those in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) category—have opened their own brand stores to create a bigger physical footprint.

Researchers from Erasmus School of Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam, KU Leuven, Universität zu Lübeck, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, and FoodLabs published a new Journal of Marketing article that investigates the multichannel impact of brand stores by digital-native FMCG brands.

The study, appearing in the Journal of Marketing, is titled “Assessing the Multichannel Impact of Brand Store Entry by a Digital-Native Grocery Brand” and is authored by Michiel Van Crombrugge, Els Breugelmans, Florian Breiner, and Christian W. Scheiner.

Brand stores are brick-and-mortar stores owned and operated by the manufacturer. They carry only the brand’s products and are designed to sell them profitably in a brand-centric environment.

Van Crombrugge explains that “these stores offer physical exposure, which digital-native brands might struggle to attain on supermarket shelves given the steep competition from mass-market brands.”

Brand stores increase brand awareness, which in turn can increase sales in the company-owned online channel and independent supermarkets.

“Brand stores can also spark distributor interest and prompt supermarkets to distribute more of the brand on their shelves. Since the number of brand stores that a digital-native FMCG brand can open is limited, increasing breadth and depth of supermarket distribution can further drive brand sales,” adds Breugelmans.

Yet brand stores also entail risks. Sales in this channel may cannibalize sales in the incumbent channels if consumers migrate to the newly opened brand store. If brand stores signal the manufacturer’s encroachment, supermarkets might reduce their distribution of the brand. Finally, opening and operating brand stores is expensive and these substantial operational costs put pressure on profits.

The Supermarket Effect

This research uncovers a substantially different impact of brand store entry on own-online channel sales than on sales in independent supermarkets. In areas in the vicinity of brand stores, the brand’s online channel sales decreased, yet its supermarket sales increased. This is because for customers seeking a more elevated consumption experience, brand stores offer an interesting alternative, which causes cannibalization of its own online channel.

In supermarkets, on the other hand, buyers are mainly concerned with price and convenience. For them, brand stores offer an opportunity to discover a digital-native brand that otherwise would have remained anonymous between bigger mass-market brands, which in turn causes supermarket sales to increase.

Brand Distribution

The research team also discovers that brand stores spark distributor interest and prompt supermarkets to start distributing the brand on their shelves. Indeed, part of the supermarket sales increase that brand stores bring about is driven by brand stores’ positive effect on the number of supermarkets that carry the brand. This increase in distribution breadth is an important component to drive sales since brands cannot open brand stores everywhere.

“We find that brand stores generate an influx of own brand store sales that more than make up for any online losses. This is not necessarily surprising because their strong local visibility, typically in locations with high foot traffic, and their appeal to customers who lack opportunities or motivations to visit the online channel or supermarket make brand stores an attractive sales channel on their own,” Scheiner says.

Despite the cannibalizing impact on their own online channel, brand stores are an effective means to increase a brand’s top-line sales. Digital natives in startup or growth markets that aim to draw investors’ attention can try to improve their valuation through brand stores and the corresponding sales growth.

However, opening and running brand stores is a capital-intensive operation due to factors such as store rental cost and sales staff wages. Breinder warns that “our analyses show that nearly half of the brand stores under study were not able to turn a profit. Brands therefore need to carefully weigh brand stores’ top-line gains against their high operational expenses to justify the investment financially.”

These findings offer important insights and caveats to digital-native brands that consider opening brand stores to increase their physical footprint beyond supermarkets. The upside is that brand stores can help digital natives reach potential consumers and gain additional physical exposure that FMCG brands especially require. Yet brand stores are not without risks: they may hurt the brand’s sales in the online channel where the digital native started and further impact brand profitability if the influx of new sales is not great enough to cover those online losses and the brand stores’ own substantial operating costs.

Continue Reading

BizNews

Give to crowdfunding campaigns enjoy vicarious biz success – study

People who give to campaigns get a vicarious sense of success. When a campaign succeeds, contributors feel they are part of something bigger than themselves and gain a sense of ownership of the product.

Published

on

Why would someone decide to give their money to help a stranger bring a creative project to life?

Recent research has found that backers of crowdfunding projects participate, in part, because of a sense of indirect success and the feeling that they are contributing to something bigger.

Crowdfunding — raising money for a new venture by collecting small amounts from many people — is most often done online, and messaging on the most popular sites reinforces the perception of a more democratic market.

But the reality is a bit more complicated, the researchers said, because backers tend to come from similar groups of people and give to certain categories of projects.

“They tend to give money to projects they find cool,” said Andre Maciel, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. “That limits the democratizing potential of crowdfunding… In the aggregate, there’s this effect that specific project categories tend to be more funded than others.”

Maciel and his co-author, Michelle Weinberger of Northwestern University, wanted to examine why ordinary people would give interest-free money to businesses and to understand the culture of crowdfunding.

Unlike traditional investing, people giving to crowdfunding campaigns do not have any legal guarantee that the money — usually less than $50 — will be used as promised. And they usually get no return on their investment beyond something like a mug or T-shirt.

“People could essentially run with their money, and nothing would happen to them,” Maciel said. “Maybe their reputation would get bruised, but there’s no legal contract there. So we started wondering: What’s the social contract that binds all those different parties together?”

The researchers made a distinction between reward-based crowdfunding and charity donation, with their study looking at projects such as a music album, cookbook or toy, rather than the type that would help pay for medical bills. Maciel said it’s an important phenomenon to understand because it’s a relatively new funding model for businesses, and one that is rapidly growing in scale.

“In 15 years, we’re talking about 200,000 new innovations coming to the market only through Kickstarter,” he said. “If you look at all the platforms together, it might be more than half a million.”

Maciel and his Weinberger interviewed a sample of all involved stakeholders: platform representatives, producers and consumers. They then analyzed the platforms’ websites and their messaging on what crowdfunding is. The duo also visited the offices of a leading crowdfunding platform. Finally, they became backers themselves, giving to eight campaigns from a variety of categories on two platforms.

The researchers found that crowdfunding platforms create a narrative of a more democratic process, enabling people to decide which products enter the market. Platform websites do this in part through language, such as referring to a “project” instead of a “business” or to a “pledge” instead of a “payment.” The websites also employ idealistic messaging about a higher purpose and collective action.

The study concluded that people who give to campaigns get a vicarious sense of success. When a campaign succeeds, contributors feel they are part of something bigger than themselves and gain a sense of ownership of the product, the researchers said.

“You’re not going through the pains of developing an idea, the emotional costs,” Maciel said. “And yet, even though they give, usually, small amounts of money, many consumers feel thrilled when a project comes to life.”

Backers also reported they liked getting behind-the-scenes information and some insider knowledge about the process, including explanations about delays in the project and information about how producers are tackling hurdles.

The study additionally found that a negative experience with a crowdfunding campaign doesn’t necessarily deter people from backing others in the future. Consumers view projects individually and don’t assume that a delayed or unsuccessful campaign will translate to others. If this happens repeatedly, however, they might be more likely to stop giving.

The team also determined that the campaigns attract a certain kind of consumer, meaning the model often falls short of its promise of a more democratic market. The researchers discovered that backers tend to be people who work in creative fields, such as web designers, fashion designers and writers, and that they give to projects that match individual interests rather than ones that address collective societal needs. The result is that campaigns in areas such as music, film, publishing and gaming are more likely to succeed.

“Crowdfunding does expand access to the market, but it’s just not as democratic as it seems,” Maciel said. “It is democratic because people get to choose, but it’s not egalitarian.”

Having focused on the relationship between platform and consumers, the team intends to shift next to the relationship between platforms and producers. Maciel and Weinberger will look at what keeps producers from misusing funds and the benefits of choosing crowdfunding over a loan or other source of funds.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Trending