Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/55680
would be like had those moments not occurred, feel a greater sense of significance than those who don't—the researchers call this process "counterfactual thinking." Their study finds that people who look back and ask "What if…?" are did not see the same significance. "Getting people to think coun- terfactually helps them see relations better and construct meaning in their lives," says Kray. She points to subsequent research led by Hal Ersner-Hershfield, visiting assistant professor at Northwestern University, who found that those who see mean- ing in their experiences are more likely to feel a sense of commitment to their organizations. That suggests that analytical, counterfactual reflection could be a powerful tool in organizational settings. Rather than inspire regret, counterfactual thinking actually helps people "define who they are on a professional level," says Kray. "Counterfactual less likely to view life's events as arbitrary. As a result, they are often more moti vated and analytical in the workplace. The study was conducted by Laura Kray, Philip Tetlock, and Linda George of the Haas School of Busi- ness at the University of California, Berkeley; Adam Galinsky and Neal Roese of the Kellogg School of Man- agement at Northwestern Univer- sity in Evanston, Illinois; and Katie Liljenquist of the Marriott School of Management in Provo, Utah. The six researchers asked a group of student volunteers to relate a key life experience, in a way that prompted the subjects to use counterfactual thinking. They asked another group of students to tell their stories factually. The counterfactual thinkers viewed their experiences as "meant to be" and meaningful, while the factual group reflection about pivotal moments in the past helps people to weave a coherent life story." The study, "From What Might Have Been to What Must Have Been: Counterfactual Thinking Cre- ates Meaning," appeared in the Janu- ary 2010 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Achieving Diversity In the NFL Of 32 head coaches in the National Football League, only six are African Ameri- can, despite the fact that the NFL is working to increase diversity. But a study from the University of Iowa's Tippie School of Business in Iowa City finds that dis- crimination is probably not the reason that so few minorities hold top coaching spots. "Moving On Up: The Rooney Rule and Minority Hir- ing in the NFL" was authored by John Solow, professor of economics; his son Benjamin Solow, an Iowa graduate who now attends the University of Bologna in Italy; and Todd Walker, economics professor at Indiana University's Kelley School of Busi- ness in Bloomington. Their study examines the impact of the NFL's Rooney Rule, a league require- ment since 2002, which requires NFL teams with a head coaching vacancy to interview at least one minority candidate. The authors looked at every John Solow promotion of a top-level assistant coach to a head coaching vacancy from 1970 to 2008. In those years, only 80 team seasons were led by African American coaches, com- pared to 2,058 team seasons led by white coaches. The researchers found that offen- sive or defensive coordinators fill most of coaching vacancies in the NFL. And just as successful coordi- nators are often promoted to head coaching positions, successful lower- level position coaches are often pro- moted to coordinator positions. Unfortunately, at the start of the 2009 season, only 12 minorities held one of the league's 67 coor- dinator positions—that represents only 18 percent of the pool where most head coaches get their starts. The Rooney Rule is not an effective way for the NFL to achieve diversity, says John Solow. Instead, the league should encourage more minorities to consider BizEd MAY/JUNE 2010 65