Class 4

Question 1

Outcome fairness

Answer 1

• Distributive Justice
  
  • Equity - outcome proportional to contributions
  • Equality - split down the middle
  • need - those who need the most, get the most
  • restitution - those who have been deprived in the past get more now
  • pst precedent/status quo - it will stay as it was

Question 2

Process Fairness

Answer 2

• Procedural Justce
  
  • fairness of decision making procedures
  • Elements: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correct ability, representatives, ethicality
    
    • what is a partnership why was the board not consulted?
    • Rubin’s appointment as president: no formal process on how to chose the next president
    • Glucksman had not told peterson about the conagra bid: violated basic rule of corporate governance
    • glcksman moves Jajim from Lehaman Mgmt Co to banking dept
    • Glucksman promoted his friends
• Interactional Justice
• Fairness of the interpersonal treatment by the supervisor or other authorities
  
  • elements
    
    • respectful treatment
    • trustworthy treatment
    • neutral treatment
  • Is it ethical to treat people unfairly??

Question 3

Positive Effects of Fair Process

Answer 3

• Makes people feel they are respect members of the team/organization
• makes people feel they have some control over favorable outcome
• increases commitment
• increases satisfaction
• increases extra-role behavior
• reduces turnover
• increase performance

Question 4

Why managers are not always fair

Answer 4

• they don’t realize they aren’t being fair
• they don’t understand the benefits of treating people fairly
• they want to avoid costs of being fair
• they don’t want to give up control
• they want to avoid emotional distress
• individual differences

Question 5

Sources of intergroup conflict

Answer 5

• group membership influcens our attitudes and behavior toward members of other groups
  
  • intergroup processes: social identity theory in-group bias, outgrip homogeneity
• Interpersonal
• organization design and culture can foster competition among groups
• economic structures

Question 6

Types of Diversity

Answer 6

• Information diversity (differences in members’ knowledge bases)
• Social diversity (demografice differences: age, race, gender, etc)
• Value diversity (differences in beliefs about the group’s philosophies and values)

Question 7

Diversity, The good/the challenges

Answer 7

The Good

• better preparation
• anticipate alternative viewpoints
• expectations that reaching consensus will take effort
• potential for greater creativity

The Challenges:

• intergroup process (in-group favoritiesm, outgrip derogation, stereotyping, etc)
• potential for greater interpersona/relationship conflict, less trust, less cohesion, less communication

Question 8

Intergroup processes -In group favoritism

Answer 8

• Social Identity Theory - people derive their identity and send of del-esteem from groups to which they belong
• people seek to maximize intergroup distinctiveness and see outgrip members as less attractive and to enhance in-group members.
• Similarity attracts

Question 9

Intergroup processes -Out-group homogeneity

Answer 9

• assume that members of the out-group are all alike, whereas members of on’s own group are unique, varied, and differentiated individuals
  Sherif’s robbers’s cave experiment 1954 rattlers vs eagles

Question 10

Other intergroup processes (continued)

Answer 10

• stereotyping
  
  • social categorization there - people categorize others on the basis of similarity and difference to themselves
• Self fulfilling prophecy
• stereotype threat
• built intergroup competition can lead to process gains’

Question 11

Sterotypes:

Answer 11

a set of overly simplified, often inaccurate beliefs about the typical characteristics of members of a particular group

• allow people to save time and effort when processing information bout others
• too often inappropriately applied
• selective perception leads us to see confirming information and dismiss disconfirming information

Stereotypes affect everyone
“there is nothing more painful to me at this state in my life than to walk down the street an hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved” - rev. jesse jackson

Question 12

Power of distinctions

Answer 12

• even trivial distinctions can lead to derogation
  
  • a class divided (blue eyes and brown eyes video)
    Language reinforces stereotypes
• picture of black man in water - looting
• picture of white couple - finding

Question 13

Why do stereotypes endure

Answer 13

• illusory correlation
  
  • overestimate % of masculine men and feminine women
• Stereotype configuring attributions
• dismiss individuals who don’t match stereotype as an exception
• confirmatory bias
• self-fulfilling stereotypes

fashion pictures from forever21, jcpenney, the children place

Question 14

What does not work (about stereotypes)

Answer 14

• stereotype inhibition (try to suppress stereotypes)
• Merely increasing contact (gerard 1993)
• Multicultural appreciation

Question 15

what works

Answer 15

• superordinate goal
• increasing interdependence - jigsaw classroom
• increasing personal information
• perspective taking
• increasing motivation to form accurate impressions
• enhancing cognitive ability
• recognition and knowledge of biases
• stereotype reactance and regeneration -

Question 16

Class 4 conclusions

Answer 16

• human being are prone to large number of intergroup biases
• if unchecked these may lead to
  
  • armful divines

Question 17

Want a better team? Foster a climate of fairness. (Class 4)

Answer 17

Treating your employees fairly really matters. - Those who are treated fairly are more satisfied with their jobs. And are more loyal to the organization and perform better. Smaller teams = team members feeling fairly treated. Diversity can create communication problems. Diversity can be good and bad. Embrace a collective view of team operations - team interests are paramount- more likely to feel they are being treated fairly. When a team feels they are being treated fairly they performed better.

For instance, including all members in the decisions that affect their team and offering team members opportunities to speak out against decisions they disagree with are procedures that should strengthen the climate of fairness on the team.

a high level of team-member diversity (e.g., based on gender, ethnicity, or other demographic factors) may create a variety of communication problems. As a result, it may be more difficult for the team to make decisions based on a shared set of accurate information, another key element of team fairness.
On the other hand, the values of the team mem- bers themselves may play a key role in creating a sense of fairness on the team. Specifically, when team members embrace a collective orientation (i.e., they believe that team interests outweigh in- dividual desires)

Question 18

How diversity makes us smarter (Class 4)

Answer 18

Diversity can be difficult. Social diversity in a group can cause discomfort, lack of trust, lower communication. But it also enhances creativity. It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives, leading to better decision making and problem solving. Diversity brings unique perspectives. Groups with racial diversity significantly outperformed the groups with no racial diversity.

Simply adding social diversity to a group makes people believe that differences of perspective might exist among them and that belief makes people change their behavior. Expectations are changed. Better at considering case facts.

Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.

It seems obvious that a group of people with diverse individual expertise would be better than a homogeneous group at solving complex, nonroutine problems. It is less obvious that social diversity should work in the same way—yet the science shows that it does.

This is not only because people with different backgrounds bring new information. Simply interacting with individuals who are different forces group members to prepare better, to anticipate alternative viewpoints and to expect that reaching consensus will take effort.

Question 19

The fall of Lehman Brothers. Part I: Power, greed and glory on Wall Street (Class 4)

Answer 19

The adjective “venerable” is not hyperbolic when applied to Lehman Brothers. The firm began trading commodities in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1850. After the Civil War, the three brothers, immigrants from Bavaria, moved the firm to New York City. Younger relatives joined them, the company grew, and by the end of World War I investment banking had supplanted commodity trading as Lehman’s chief focus.
Though non-family members were accepted as partners after 1924, several generations of Lehmans guided the firm until 1969. After that, the company went into a period of decline until a change of management occurred in 1973 when Pete Peterson, a former secretary of commerce in the Nixon Administration, became chief executive officer.
Peterson concentrated on making the firm efficient and created modern, full-service corporate and marketing plans. Lew Glucksman, a partner who specialized in commercial paper, worked to rebuild the company’s finances through trading, which brought in three times the income of banking.
By 1983, Peterson recognized Glucksman’s contribution by elevating him to the post of co-ceo. Within a short time, the “trader” Glucksman turned on the “banker” Peterson and forced him to leave the firm. Within a year, the House of Lehman fell apart.
This, however, is not a simple tale of good guys and bad guys. It is instead a story that tells of recent changes in the financial community. Private investment banking firms can no longer compete with the better-financed, more versatile, efficient, publicly traded giants like Shearson any more than the corner grocery could fend off supermarkets.
The partnerships either have to make stock offerings to raise capital or consent to be acquired. The irrational feuding and greed within the firm did not cause its end, nor should the reader feel sorry for the forty-four partners, each of whom received a windfall settlement in the millions after the buy-out.