When brokers don’t broker: Mitigating referral aversion in third-party help exchange

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
YeJin Park , Kelly Nault , Ko Kuwabara
{"title":"When brokers don’t broker: Mitigating referral aversion in third-party help exchange","authors":"YeJin Park ,&nbsp;Kelly Nault ,&nbsp;Ko Kuwabara","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Help exchange—whether for technical solutions, career advice, socioemotional support, or scarce resources—constitutes the very fabric of productive organizational life. Yet, a growing body of research has documented various ways in which help requesters and requestees misperceive each other, undermining their chances of giving and receiving help. So far, this line of research has focused on dyadic exchange and paid limited attention to triadic exchange involving third parties. To close this gap, the present research examines misperceptions that hinder requestees from offering referrals to potentially more willing or capable third parties. Six preregistered experiments (<em>n</em> = 2863) demonstrate what we term <em>referral aversion</em>, stemming from concerns about what offering unsolicited referrals instead of direct help might signal to requesters. Because of referral aversion, requestees overestimate how negatively requesters will react to unsolicited referrals versus (solicited or unsolicited) direct help. We also propose a simple intervention to mitigate referral aversion: making a generalized rather than personalized help request (i.e., asking for help from “you or someone you know” rather than “you”). In a field experiment (<em>n</em> = 541), participants who made generalized help requests to peers on a problem-solving task received higher quality help from both requestees and third parties, suggesting that seeking third-party help can promote help exchange in multiple ways. Altogether, these studies draw critical attention to the growing recognition that the process of reaching and connecting third parties is hardly automatic or frictionless and open new lines of inquiry on how to promote third party help exchange.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000705","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Help exchange—whether for technical solutions, career advice, socioemotional support, or scarce resources—constitutes the very fabric of productive organizational life. Yet, a growing body of research has documented various ways in which help requesters and requestees misperceive each other, undermining their chances of giving and receiving help. So far, this line of research has focused on dyadic exchange and paid limited attention to triadic exchange involving third parties. To close this gap, the present research examines misperceptions that hinder requestees from offering referrals to potentially more willing or capable third parties. Six preregistered experiments (n = 2863) demonstrate what we term referral aversion, stemming from concerns about what offering unsolicited referrals instead of direct help might signal to requesters. Because of referral aversion, requestees overestimate how negatively requesters will react to unsolicited referrals versus (solicited or unsolicited) direct help. We also propose a simple intervention to mitigate referral aversion: making a generalized rather than personalized help request (i.e., asking for help from “you or someone you know” rather than “you”). In a field experiment (n = 541), participants who made generalized help requests to peers on a problem-solving task received higher quality help from both requestees and third parties, suggesting that seeking third-party help can promote help exchange in multiple ways. Altogether, these studies draw critical attention to the growing recognition that the process of reaching and connecting third parties is hardly automatic or frictionless and open new lines of inquiry on how to promote third party help exchange.

当代理不代理时:减轻第三方帮助交换中的推荐厌恶
帮助交流——无论是技术解决方案、职业建议、社会情感支持还是稀缺资源——都构成了富有成效的组织生活的结构。然而,越来越多的研究记录了帮助请求者和被请求者误解对方的各种方式,破坏了他们提供和接受帮助的机会。到目前为止,这一研究方向主要集中在二元交换上,而对涉及第三方的三元交换关注有限。为了缩小这一差距,本研究考察了阻碍被请求者向可能更愿意或更有能力的第三方提供推荐的误解。六个预先注册的实验(n=2863)证明了我们所说的转介厌恶,源于对提供主动转介而不是直接帮助可能向请求者发出的信号的担忧。由于转介厌恶,被请求者高估了请求者对未经请求的转介与(请求或未经请求)直接帮助的负面反应。我们还提出了一种简单的干预措施来缓解转介厌恶:提出一般而非个性化的帮助请求(即向“你或你认识的人”而不是“你”寻求帮助)。在一项实地实验中(n=541),在解决问题的任务中向同伴提出一般帮助请求的参与者从被请求者和第三方获得了更高质量的帮助,这表明寻求第三方帮助可以通过多种方式促进帮助交流。总之,这些研究引起了人们的高度关注,人们越来越认识到,接触和连接第三方的过程很难是自动的或无摩擦的,并为如何促进第三方帮助交流开辟了新的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信