U-M expert on negotiations emphasizes importance of words when actions constrained, and ponders why we overlook the power of emotions

Far from pointless prattling, a new study demonstrates communication can mitigate negative effects of power asymmetry on cooperation.

“Interestingly, our research leads us to question assumptions behind sayings, such as ‘actions speak louder than words,’” said Shirli Kopelman, co-author of the study and ​​a leading researcher, expert and educator in the field of negotiations at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.

Kopelman’s co-authors in the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, are Jennifer Dannals of Dartmouth College, Eliran Halali of Bar-Ilan University, Israel, and Nir Halevy of Stanford University. The study focused on how low-power group members responded to moves of the person in high power.

Kopelman discusses this research, particularly what it reveals about actions and words of people in positions of power, and which speaks louder.

Your research turns some conventional wisdom on its head, namely that actions speak louder than words. What surprised or jumped out the most from the study?

According to conventional wisdom, when a person says one thing but does another, more weight should be given to the action. This is based on an assumption that the behavior more accurately reflects the person’s motivations and goals. In such situations, we discount words as “lip service.” We are all too familiar with empty promises, and assume we can count only on people who deliver through behavioral action. However, this interpretation of inconsistency, between what one says and what one does, is based on a belief that there is freedom of choice with respect to one’s words and one’s actions.

Our research focuses on situations where people’s behavior is constrained through no fault of their own, and compares when they can or cannot speak. When the system prevents the high power player from contributing behaviorally, yet enables communication, we find that words mitigate the impact of selfish behavior: Despite the selfish behavior of those with power, low power members contribute to the group. In these situations, given the situational constraint on behavior, words speak louder than actions.

How might this play out outside the research setting?

There are many situations where those who have power are not able to immediately help those in need of resources. But just because the power holder is not helping at the moment, does not mean they will not help in the future. They may be constrained at the moment, for one reason or another. Power may be reflected by financial or nonfinancial resources.

Imagine spending a few hours in the waiting room of a hospital’s emergency room. You only need a few minutes of medical attention. The medical team has the knowledge, tools and medications to treat your cut and send you home on a path of healing. And yet, you are waiting. And waiting. And they are not helping you. Do they not care? Are they disorganized? Do they have enough staff? Or perhaps the system is working perfectly well and they are simply helping urgent life-threatening conditions first.

How you interpret the situation matters. And what they say can guide your attributions and shape how you feel and act. If nobody speaks to you while you continue to wait for hours, negative judgments may surface; you might even begin writing a letter of complaint in your head to help pass the time, and your frustration may be contagious to others sitting around you.

However, while not being able to help you at the moment (constrained by urgent cases), a person from the team might stop by for a few seconds and explain why it is turning out to be such a long wait today. In a classic tit-for-tat move, à la Anatol Rapoport, these words signal cooperation. Hearing this message assures you that you will be attended to professionally, eventually.

Rather than festering in frustration, you might be motivated to contribute to the group of people in the waiting room by empathically listening and talking to others or compassionately helping another family. Thus, during this waiting period, words of those with resources speak louder than their actions or inactions; and they have the power to generate reciprocal cooperation that benefits everyone.

Is there anything else you’d like to add on the topic of power?

Consider the power of emotions. Saying “actions speak louder than words” is missing this important factor in human interactions. Our emotions, and the emotions we generate in others, have power. Specifically, positive and negative emotions can serve as a resource to bring people together and be resourceful.

More information:

• Study: Power, constraint, and cooperation in groups: The role of communication

This article was originally published as a Michigan News news story. 

Cooperation is essential for group survival and success. Inequality among group members can undermine voluntary cooperation in groups, and this problem is exacerbated when those with less power observe those with more power behave selfishly. We propose, and empiricaly demonstrate, that even when powerholders behave selfishly and messages are nonbinding and unverifiable, communication with group members fosters cooperation in hierarchical groups. We introduce a novel experimental task to study how communication influences cooperation in groups. In the ABC game, three individuals take turns choosing whether to Add resources to a collective pool (A), Claim resources from that pool (C), or do Both simultaneously (B), thereby gaining less but without depleting the pool. In our study, powerholders made the first choice in each block of decisions and had unlimited power to allocate resources after the task. They were both first movers and final decision makers. We constrained powerholders’ behavior to be selfish or cooperative by restricting their choice set: some powerholders had only choices A and B available to them, whereas other powerholders had only choices C and B available to them. In addition, half the groups could communicate, whereas the other half could not. Our findings (N = 3690 incentivized decisions) demonstrate that nonbinding communication significantly increases cooperation in hierarchical groups even when powerful group members are constrained to behave selfishly, challenging the notion that actions always speak louder than words.

Photo: Tim Gouw on Pexels

Shirli Kopelman

Hearing about someone else’s exceptional success can motivate workers to learn, a new study concludes.

Stories of more ordinary successes do not have the same effect, according to the researchers, who include Michigan Ross Professor Shirli Kopelman [and Center for Positive Organizations Research Advisory Board Member Christopher Myers]. The stories need to be of extraordinary success — a case when someone “knocked it out of the park” — in order to generate the greatest added motivation.

The study findings align with past research indicating that stories of failure can also increase motivation to learn. However, few people want such stories to be told. This study suggests a more positive way to motivate people to learn.

This research is important because a person’s level of motivation to learn influences their ability to acquire and use new information, the researchers said, which impacts performance.

“You don’t knock it out of the park every day. When you do, tell others about it,” Kopelman said.

Christopher Myers

The research, published in Academy of Management Discoveries, involved gathering stories of past performance from medical professionals. The stories were classified as either success, exceptional success, or failure. The researchers shared the stories with a separate pool of medical professionals, then measured these professionals’ motivation to learn from the stories.

A follow-up study reinforced the initial results and also examined the idea of surprise. This study found that stories with highly surprising outcomes also increased motivation to learn, regardless of whether the story was a regular success, exceptional success, or failure.

“Colleagues at work are interested in one another’s exceptional success. People who are modest may naturally get this right without necessarily knowing it; they might be less likely to share everyday success (worrying that it would be perceived as self-promotion), yet selectively share instances where they attained a remarkable outcome,” according to Kopelman.

It can also be helpful to share stories of others’ exceptional success. For example, a manager can share employees’ stories with the rest of the team. Kopelman highlighted that “leaders can even tell teams they will be doing this, and why they are doing this, so that the employees know it is not to breed competition or to embarrass people, but rather to promote learning.”

“When you tell stories of exceptional success, remember that the focus is not necessarily about you, but the collective benefit,” Kopelman concluded.

This story was originally published by Michigan Ross

Leaving a job during a pandemic is difficult enough, but imagine being laid off just as you were planning to quit. That’s the situation faced by an executive looking for guidance from the Dear HBR: podcast, and guest negotiations expert and Michigan Ross Professor Shirli Kopelman.

In a new episode of the podcast, Kopelman and the podcast’s regular co-hosts, Alison Beard and Dan McGinn, discuss various aspects of the executive’s situation, including when, how, and whether to tell the company her plans. “A smooth transition is something that I think people will be wishing for and not necessarily experiencing at the moment,” Kopelman notes. On the flip side, given the flux of these unprecedented times, conventional assumptions that one may have worried about can be tabled for the moment, opening the door to creative ideas and opportunities.

Produced by Harvard Business Review, the Dear HBR: podcast answers listeners’ workplace dilemmas with the help of guest experts. Kopelman has appeared on the podcast previously to offer her advice for navigating another tricky workplace scenario.

This original article was published as a Ross Thought in Action article.

Center for Positive Organizations Research Spotlights

Unlocking resources with a positive lens

Shirli Kopelman

“Applying a positive lens has enriched my research, fueled my teaching, and distinguished my impact on practice.”

Shirli Kopelman has contributed significantly to the work of the Center for Positive Organizations (CPO), most recently as a co-author of a pivotal new conceptual article. “The Conceptual and Empirical Value of a Positive Lens: An Invitation to Organizational Scholars to Develop Novel Research Questions” demonstrates how research through a positive lens can be used to unlock resources in any type of organization. It assumes that people have the potential for good and want to behave in ways that lead to improved well-being.

“The significance of the article is that it demonstrates how a positive lens can be applied to any discipline to help researchers see phenomenon from a different perspective and explore their research domain in an entirely new way,” Shirli said. It offers guidance for prospective researchers that advances the field of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) and engages a whole new group of scholars.

A lot of research is about fixing things that are broken. Research with a positive approach focuses not only on how it works right, but how it can be extraordinary. It can help foster improved well-being of people, organizations, and their work environment. “Resources are abundant in organizations, yet there’s a constant challenge in recognizing them, engaging in collaborative strategies to put them into practice, and mobilizing them in a way that benefits everyone,” Shirli noted.

Contributing to the leadership of CPO has inspired her over the years. As the Center’s former research director, Shirli said leading the biennial POS Research Conference was a high point. The conference brings together people from around the world to present and discuss their research and energizes them as they continue to pursue it. “Our Community of Scholars helps researchers articulate, design, develop, and empirically test new ideas,” she said, “and it provides a great resource to receive feedback on ideas and engage in new collaborations.”

Shirli is best known for her groundbreaking work on negotiations. Her research has uncovered insights into the way emotions—even those perceived to be negative—can be a beneficial resource, and how a cultural lens is beneficial for promoting cooperation in competitive settings. After distilling years of research, teaching, and coaching into an integrated framework, Shirli authored the book, Negotiating Genuinely: Being Yourself in Business, which applies a positive lens to the field of negotiations.

“Applying a positive lens has enriched my research, fueled my teaching, and distinguished my impact on practice. I believe the Center for Positive Organizations helps people have the courage to look at things they care about and to conduct meaningful work,” Shirli remarked.

Shirli Kopelman is a clinical professor of management and organizations at Michigan Ross and a core faculty member of the Center for Positive Organizations.

This story and others appear in the Center for Positive Organizations 2020 Impact Report.

In this paper, we explore how perceptions of other people’s exceptional success influence individuals’ motivation to learn, a relationship that is surprisingly unexplored within the broad literature on learning in organizations. Our research reveals, across two distinct samples and methodologies, that individuals’ motivation to learn is higher when they encounter performance by another person that the individual perceives to be more exceptionally successful than when they perceive the other’s performance as a more “normal” success. We also observe, in line with prior research, some marginal support for the notion that this motivation to learn is also higher when individuals perceive other’s performance as more of a failure. Our second study further reveals that the relationship between others’ performance and the motivation to learn is mediated by interest and moderated by surprise. We discuss the implications of these results for provoking new theorizing, measurement, and practical implementation of learning in organizations.

Fifty years ago this March, the nation’s first “Environmental Teach-In” was held at the University of Michigan and served as a model for Earth Day celebrations nationwide. This year, capturing the spirit of the groundbreaking events from 1970, the university is organizing teach-ins across campus, including the Ross School of Business, aimed at tackling the biggest challenges of our time.

The teach-ins are meant to be practical, participatory and oriented toward action, and are one of the featured Earth Day at 50 events taking place March 9-14.

As part of the Teach-Ins for the Environment 2020 agenda, Shirli Kopelman, professor of management and organizations at Michigan Ross, is leading an event titled “The Psychology of Eliciting Cooperation: Honoring the Legacy of Anatol Rapoport with a Conversation on Semantics, Culture, and a Logic of Appropriateness.” It will be held on March 11 from 9-10 a.m. in Robertson Auditorium.

This event will include an interactive discussion centered on the work of Anatol Rapoport, a mathematical psychologist, who participated in the first teach-ins at the University of Michigan. The conversation at Kopelman’s teach-in will draw on a recently published article celebrating his scientific contributions, Tit for Tat and Beyond: The Legendary Work of Anatol Rapoport, to discuss powerful ideas that shape our environment in 2020.
According to Kopelman’s research, culture impacts how people interpret power and the degree to which they align behavior with collective goals.

“Adopting a cultural lens to understand the logics around resource management, illuminates ways to promote cooperation in situations where immediate self-interested economic outcomes conflict with sustainable solutions that foster wellbeing for individuals, society, and the environment,” said Kopelman.

In addition, Ravi Anupindi, Colonel William G. and Ann C. Svetlich Professor of Operations Research and faculty director of the Center for Value Chain Innovation at Michigan Ross, will be participating in a teach-in called “Financing the Sustainable Enterprise” with Peter Adriaens, professor of engineering and entrepreneurship at the School of Sustainability and the Environment, and Jon Allen, senior academic and research program officer at SEAS. It will be held March 9 from 4-6 p.m. in the Michigan Union, 2210BC.

This panel will focus on how sustainable capital conditioning and investment mandates across organizations and their supply chains have gone mainstream and are scaling across industries.

Another featured Earth Day at 50 event taking place during the week is the Peter M. Wege Lecture and Earth Day 2020: Rise Up For the Environment on March 12 at 5:30 p.m. in Hill Auditorium. This special double event kicks off with the Wege Lecture by Philippe Cousteau Jr., a multi-Emmy-nominated TV host, environmentalist, author, social entrepreneur, and the grandson of Jacques Cousteau.

For the second half of the program, units across U-M are partnering with community organizations to co-host a collaborative event featuring musical performances and dynamic sustainability and environmental justice leaders, including Naomi Klein, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, Heather McTeer Toney, Mustafa Santiago Ali, Abdul El-Sayed, Rep. Andy Levin, Bryan Newland, Mari “Little Miss Flint” Copeny, and others.

All Earth Day at 50 events are free and open to the public. Reservations are recommended for the Wege Lecture and Earth Day 2020 event.

The article was originally on the Michigan Ross News Blog.

The Psychology of Eliciting Cooperation:
Honoring the Legacy of Anatol Rapoport with a Conversation on Semantics, Culture, and a Logic of Appropriateness

Shirli Kopelman
Professor at Department of Management & Organizations
Ross School of Business

Free and open to the public. Join us for an interactive discussion of powerful ideas that shape our social and natural environment. Read more about Anatol Rapoport.

See all Earth Day events.

Study shows cultural diversity, along with the anger level of customers, impacts final outcomes of service complaints.

A familiar saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” implies the most noticeable problem will get the attention needed to resolve it. But how true is this in customer-service settings? Do the angriest complaints receive the best service?

Shirli Kopelman

Research by Michigan Ross Professor Shirli Kopelman and colleagues shows that, in some instances, yes — a higher level of anger from a customer can positively impact the resolution of their complaint. In other cases, the reverse is true.

In an article recently published in the Journal for Service Research, Kopelman, along with co-authors Ella Glikson, Laura Rees, Jochen Wirtz, and Anat Rafaeli, show there are complex social dynamics at play in customer service relationships that are significantly impacted by emotions and cultural values.

Anger in particular is an important concern in customer service, as a healthy business wants to keep both its customers and its employees reasonably happy. Understanding how employees react to customer anger can therefore help companies improve.

The authors conducted four studies that, taken together, show how the intensity of the anger expressed by customers, combined with the social position of service employees, influence customer-service outcomes.

The concept of power distance (PD)—the degree to which societies or individuals accept inequalities between people as unavoidable, legitimate, or functional—is key to this research. High-PD cultures or individuals perceive power inequalities as acceptable and stable; low-PD cultures or individuals perceive power inequalities as dynamic and avoidable.

Among the researchers’ findings:

• Customer-service workers experience a wide range of anger intensity from customers seeking compensation for complaints.
• Compensation decisions vary depending on how the employee perceives the intensity of the customer’s anger.
• In a high-PD culture (for example, Singapore), lower-intensity anger received more compensation for complaints than high-intensity anger.
• In a low-PD culture (for example, Israel), higher-intensity anger received more compensation.
• These findings hold true for individual differences, as well as differences across societies. Within the U.S., low-PD individuals offered more compensation to angrier customers; high-PD individuals offered more compensation to less angry customers.
• These differences can be explained by employees’ perceptions: High-PD employees perceive higher-intensity anger as being inappropriate, and therefore compensate it less; low-PD employees perceive higher-intensity anger as threatening, and therefore compensate it more.
• When perceived threat is mitigated, low-PD employees respond similarly to high-PD employees, offering more compensation for lower-intensity anger.

This research highlights that as a customer, when you experience bad service, you have a choice on how to address the service employee.

The findings show that high-PD employees might overlook or undercompensate customers who express higher-intensity anger. In contrast, low-PD employees might overcompensate highly angry customers, yet potentially overlook the needs of customers who express relatively lower levels of anger.

This research yields important practical insights for both employers and customers: Absent the threat of higher-intensity anger expressions, lower-intensity anger might be perceived as a more legitimate indicator of damage that deserves compensation.

The authors suggest ways that companies can use the findings to improve:

• Emotion management training can foster a climate of support and reduce perception of threats among employees.
• Training should address perceptions of anger; in high-PD cultures, it could focus on the importance of customers and understanding why they would behave in ways employees might see as inappropriate.
• Communicating to customers about the negative impact of inappropriate behavior, and having clear service recovery policies, can help employees manage customer anger.

Given the cultural diversity of employees in service-providing organizations and the ever-increasing globalization of work environments, there is a growing need to understand how the culturally-informed tendencies of service employees influence customer service in general, and responses to service failures in particular.

Kopelman emphasizes, “Our research findings highlight how mindfully leading with emotions — for example, when professional expectations are not met, expressing lower- instead of higher-intensity anger in social environments where people do not feel threatened by emotions — can yield financial results and foster well-being.”

Shirli Kopelman is a clinical professor of management and organizations at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.

The was originally published as a Ross Thought in Action article.

Would you rather be the big frog in a small pond or the small frog in a big pond? In three studies, we demonstrate that the entry preference depends on culture. Study 1 found a higher big pond preference for East Asian, versus European American, students. Studies 2A and 2B replicated this big pond preference in behavioral intent across educational and organizational settings for Chinese, as compared to United States, working adults. Study 3 demonstrated cultural variation in frog–pond decisions was not explained by comparison processes that characterize postentry self-regard but rather by concerns for prestige. Together, findings highlight how a cultural lens informs psychological processes that shape entry decision-making.

This study examined whether the cultures of low- and high-power negotiators interact to influence cooperative behavior of low-power negotiators. Managers from 4 different cultural groups (Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, and the United States) negotiated face-to-face in a simulated power-asymmetric commons dilemma. Results supported an interaction effect in which cooperation of people with lower power was influenced by both their culture and the culture of the person with higher power. In particular, in a multicultural setting, low-power managers from Hong Kong, a vertical-collectivist culture emphasizing power differences and group alignment, adjusted their cooperation depending on the culture of the high-power manager with whom they interacted. This study contributes to understanding how culture shapes behavior of people with relatively low power, illustrates how a logic of appropriateness informs cooperation, and highlights the importance of studying multicultural social interactions in the context of negotiations, work teams, and global leadership. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Negotiations expert Shirli Kopelman offers advice on addressing perceived pay unfairness.

Talking about compensation is seldom easy, especially if you feel you are being paid unfairly. Michigan Ross Professor Shirli Kopelman, in a new episode of Harvard Business Review’s advice podcast, Dear HBR:, delves into questions from listeners about the challenges and opportunities around perceived pay injustice.

Kopelman, the author of Negotiating Genuinely: Being Yourself in Business, along with Dear HBR: hosts Alison Beard and Dan McGinn, discusses compensation challenges in the workplace — for example, an employee who believes a poor performer is overpaid and a manager who struggles with a misguided salary structure.

Kopelman highlights how positive and negative emotions are an important resource, in response to a question about an unfulfilled promotion promise.

“Waiting is frustrating. Counterintuitively, your frustration, refocused, could motivate you to proactively pursue the topic,” says Kopelman, who advised initiating a conversation.

Kopelman is a professor of management and organizations and former faculty director of research and business practice at the Center for Positive Organizations.

This story was originally published as a Ross Thought in Action article.