Kristin Bain’s research while affiliated with Rochester Institute of Technology and other places

This research examines outcomes associated with the misalignment of power and expertise. Using interactive groups, we found that it was specifically the combination of providing performance feedback and then assigning power to the worst member that led to negative outcomes, not merely that the worst performer held decision power. A follow-up study verified that veridical feedback improved people’s ability to identify expertise. Across two additional studies, we found that known misalignment of decision power and performance decreased perceived fairness and expectations of success. We posit that when members know that power and expertise are misaligned, decision making and performance suffer.

Some theories suggest that women anticipate negative consequences (i.e., backlash) for counter-stereotypical actions and take steps to avoid those consequences. We propose that women may expect gender-based backlash for voicing, or contributing ideas that challenge the status quo, and thus engage in more silence (withholding those contributions) than men. However, we also propose that women anticipate gender backlash, and hence engage in more silence, only when other group members’ behavior signals that deviating from prescribed gender norms is risky. In two studies with over 3000 participants, we found that incivility increased women’s expectation that voicing would lead to gender backlash. In turn, women engaged in more silence than men in uncivil groups, but we found no gender difference in silence in civil groups. Our findings reveal that certain situations differentially alert people to interpersonal risks, thus influencing their decision to withhold contributions.

This research examines the effects of the alignment/misalignment of decision power with member expertise. In Study 1, 324 participants worked in face-to-face groups. We manipulated whether group members were provided with veridical performance feedback and whether decision power was assigned to the best/worst performing member. We found it was the combination of providing performance feedback and assigning power to the worst member that led to negative outcomes, not merely that the worst performer had decision power or that feedback was provided. In Study 2 and Study 3, participants reacted to vignettes that differed with respect to whether performance feedback was provided to team members and to which member decision power was assigned. We found that only assessments of fairness and expectations of success varied as a consequence of the assignment of decision power based on member expertise.

The current paper revisits and builds upon task demonstrability, which defines the criteria necessary for groups to choose a correct response if any member prefers that response. We identify boundary conditions of the current conceptualization of task demonstrability with respect to its use in understanding modern organizational teams. Specifically, we argue that, in its current form, task demonstrability is not optimally suited to studying ongoing teams in which member expertise varies and teams work to complete complex multifaceted tasks. To address this issue, we provide a revisited perspective on demonstrability. We specify the nomological network of revisited demonstrability and recast each of its criteria in a form that preserves the original intent of the construct, but has broader applicability, particularly to organizational contexts. We then discuss theoretical implications and managerial applications of the construct. Finally, noting that there is no standard assessment tool for demonstrability (original or revisited), we develop and validate a measure to facilitate future research.

We extend the field’s understanding of voice recognition by examining peer responses to voice. We investigate how employees can help peers get a status boost from voicing, while also raising their own status, by introducing the concept of amplification—public endorsement of another person’s contribution, with attribution to that person. In two experiments and one field study, we find that amplification enhances status both for voicers and for those who amplify voice. Being amplified was equally beneficial for voicers who framed their ideas promotively (improvement-focused) and prohibitively (problem-focused; Study 1), and for men and women (Study 2). Furthermore, amplified ideas were rated as higher quality than nonamplified ideas. Amplification also helped amplifiers: participants reading experimentally manipulated meeting transcripts rated amplifiers as higher status than those who self-promoted, stayed quiet, or contributed additional ideas (Studies 1 and 2). Finally, in an intervention in a nonprofit organization, select employees trained to use amplification attained higher status in their work groups (Study 3). In all, these results increase our understanding of how social actors can capitalize on instances of voice to give a status boost to voicers who might otherwise be overlooked, and help organizations realize the potential of employees’ diverse perspectives.