Cross-unit ties–relationships that facilitate discretionary information sharing between individuals from different business units–offer a range of organizational benefits. Scholars argue that organizations can promote cross-unit ties by: (a) formally bringing together individuals from different business units into structural links (e.g., cross-unit strategic committees) to encourage the formation of new cross unit ties and, (b) transferring individuals across units, which can increase cross-unit interaction when ties to the prior unit are maintained. This study considers the notion that the success of these formal interventions in fostering cross-unit interaction is contingent on identification with the local unit relative to identification with the broader organization. Specifically, we propose that structural links are more likely to foster cross-unit ties when organizational identification is high and unit identification is low. In contrast, lateral transfers are more likely to result in cross-unit ties when both organizational identification and unit identification are high. We find general support for these propositions in data obtained from a sample of senior leaders of a Fortune 200 agribusiness company before and after a restructuring designed to stimulate cross-unit information sharing. Our model and results make important contributions to our understanding of the relationship between formal and informal structure and reconcile conflicting views regarding the moderating effect of unit identification on intergroup relations. 相似文献
Motivation and Emotion - The distress associated with uncertainty differs in important ways from distress over clear and present stressors. Emotion regulation (ER) tendencies—namely... 相似文献
Reference dependence refers to the reduced value of a reward that is less than expected, or the added value of a reward that is greater than expected. There is evidence that when pigeons are offered an alternative that has 1 pellet versus an alternative that has 2 pellets, but one of the two pellets offered will be removed, the pigeons prefer the originally presented 1 pellet (loss aversion). In the present research, we tested for the opposite effect (gain attraction). In Experiments 1 and 2, pigeons could choose between 2 pellets, each one on a distinctive background. If they chose the optimal alternative, they received a second pellet. In Experiment 2, the second pellet obtained was the one not initially chosen (a task sometimes referred to as the ephemeral reward task). Pigeons learned to choose optimally in both experiments. In Experiment 3, we tested the pigeons for reference dependence. Pigeons were given an alternative that offered them one pellet or two pellets, if they chose the one-pellet alternative, they received an additional pellet, and if they chose the two-pellet alternative, they received the two pellets. In keeping with the reference dependence hypothesis, the pigeons preferred the 1-pellet alternative that gave them an extra pellet. These effects are related to similar findings with humans, including the endowment effect.