Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 57 of 76

55 BizEd September/October 2014 FUSE /TH I N KSTOCK "The riddle of heterarchy: power transitions in cross-functional teams" appeared in the April/May 2014 issue of the Academy of Management Journal. ■ Another recent study looks at how standing up during meetings affects creativity. New research from two organizational behavior professors at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, finds that standing during meetings doesn't just boost creativity. It also can make people less ter- ritorial over their own ideas. In an experiment, Andrew Knight and Markus Baer asked participants to work in teams for 30 minutes to develop a university recruitment video. Some teams worked in a room equipped with chairs around a table; oth- ers, in a room with no chairs at all. Research assistants rated the team- work dynamic and the quality of the videos. Participants rated how protective their team members were of their own ideas. Participants also wore sensors around their wrists to measure their sweat responses, which indicated their levels of excitement during the process. The researchers found that teams that stood exhibited greater physi- ological arousal, were less territorial, and were more likely to share ideas than those who were seated. These teams also produced higher quality vid- eos than those who worked while seated. While organizations can completely redesign their spaces to encourage more activity during meetings, Knight says that even small tweaks can make a big dif- ference in how well people work. He suggests changes such as adding whiteboards to or removing chairs from a conference space; installing adjustable height desks that allow standing while working; and holding meet- ings while walking. "Get up, stand up: the effects of a non-sedentary workspace on information elaboration and group per- formance" was published in the June issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science. Alternatives to Affirmative Action IN A RECENT high-profile court ruling involving affirmative action in the United States, a judge found that the policy at the University of Texas to consider race in its admissions process was, in fact, constitutional. However, several researchers have explored what would happen if U.S. col- leges and universities used socioeconomic factors instead of race in their admissions processes. If that were to happen, African American and Hispanic enrollments at the 193 most selec- tive U.S. colleges in the U.S. would more than double, according to The Future of Affirmative Action: New Paths to Higher Education Diver- sity after Fisher v. University of Texas, a book from the Century and Lumina foundations. The finding is based on research by Anthony P. Car- nevale, Stephen J. Rose, and Jeff Strohl, all from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The team compared the effects of three race- neutral admissions plans to those of race-based and merit-based admissions models. They found that if schools simply admitted the top 10 percent of students from each high school class, they would increase African American enrollments from 4 percent to 6 percent and Hispanic enrollments from 7 percent to 11 per- cent. The mean SAT score would increase from the current 1230 to 1254. If schools went one step further to also take into account factors such as family finances and education, African American and Hispanic enrollments would double to 9 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Mean SAT scores would lower slightly to 1160. To access the full report, visit future-of-affirmative-action. Andrew Knight Markus Baer

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of BizEd - SeptOct2014