Suchergebnisse

We propose a more explicit role for abductive reasoning, or the development of initial explanation, in hypothetico-deductive (H-D) inquiry. We begin by describing the roots of abduction in pragmatism and its role in exploration and discovery. Recognizing that pragmatism treats abductive reasoning as inevitable, we argue that it can also be a deliberate form of reasoning in scientific inquiry, articulating the unique place it can have in hypothetico-deductive theorizing. We explain the opportunities from surfacing abductive reasoning in H-D where it already exists; from explicitly acknowledging abductive reasoning as a complement in building logical chains in H-D; and from using abductive reasoning as a substitute for H-D logic when a body of knowledge exhibits inconsistent, contradictory, or discrepant results. We elaborate strategies for data search and selection, data production and compilation, and analytical corroboration. Our overall argument is that the deliberate use of abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive projects has distinct advantages stemming from an explicitly tight connection between data and theory. We end by explaining the benefits of actively recognizing the role of abductive reasoning in organizational and management theorizing.The article was written and prepared by the U.S. goverenment employee(s) on official time and is therefore in the public domain.

Research on self-serving bias in teams has focused on bias after teams receive feedback. Many teams, however, work for extended periods of time before receiving feedback. This article proposes that team members exhibit biases prior to receiving feedback, depending on the level of team satisfaction. The results of two studies, one scenario study and one field study, demonstrate that members of unsatisfied teams make more self-serving claims about their contribution toward the team's task. This bias, however, is eliminated in teams with strong psychological safety norms that make team members' contributions more salient to one another. A surprising result, in our sample of ongoing teams, was that the most highly satisfied teams also demonstrated an other-centric bias—assigning more credit to other team members than to themselves.

Through three studies of interacting small groups, we aimed to better understand the meaning and consequences of process conflict. Study 1 was an exploratory analysis of qualitative data that helped us to identify the unique dimensions of process conflict to more clearly distinguish it from task and relationship conflict. Study 2 used a broader sampling of participants to (a) demonstrate why process conflict has been difficult to discriminate from task conflict in many conflict scales, and (b) develop a two-factor Process Conflict Scale that effectively distinguishes process from task conflict. Study 3 used this new scale to examine the relationship between process conflict and group viability (group performance, satisfaction, and effective group process). The results showed that process conflict negatively affects group performance, member satisfaction, and group coordination.