How does the mode of search- independently or jointly- affect collective search, a central component of organizational adaptation and innovation? Using naturally occurring data from a strongly incentivized online competition platform, we find that compared to their counterfactuals that search apart, groups searching together exhibit less exploration in their search outcomes as noted in prior experimental and computational modelling studies. However, groups searching together stimulate a greater number of search attempts from their members than groups searching apart, an effect that has so far remained unnoticed. Further, both search attempts and exploration contribute positively to search performance. This suggests that the choice of search mode should depend on the demands of strategic contexts that make either the variety or volume of solutions relatively more important for collective search.

Team negotiation research presents a paradox: teams sometimes achieve more integrative outcomes than solo negotiators, yet in other cases they escalate competitiveness and harm relational outcomes. Existing theory has not resolved this inconsistency, in part because it treats negotiating teams as if they could change positions as easily as individual negotiators. We argue this assumption overlooks a central constraint of team-on-team negotiation: before any adaptive external exchange can occur, teams must internally authorize revisions to their positions as new information emerges. Drawing on evidence from research on team negotiation, multiparty negotiation, and team design, we identify this internal capacity as a recurring but under-specified theme in prior work. We refer to it as mandate revisability: the ease with which a team can reopen, revise, and reauthorize its internal position during ongoing negotiation. We then show how five structural features – decision rules, authority concentration, communication patterns, agenda design, and role differentiation – shape this capacity and, in turn, link intra-team structure to inter-team behavior. This perspective helps explain why behaviors often interpreted as competitive rigidity may instead reflect internal authorization constraints. It also shows how seemingly inconsistent team negotiation outcomes can become more systematically predictable. We discuss implications for future research and practice.

We examine how groups differ from individuals in how they tackle two fundamental trade-offs in learning from experience—namely, between exploration and exploitation and between over- and undergeneralization from noisy data (which is also known as the “bias-variance” trade-off in the machine learning literature). Using data from an online contest platform (Kaggle) featuring groups and individuals competing on the same learning task, we found that groups, as expected, not only generate a larger aggregate of alternatives but also explore a more diverse range of these alternatives compared with individuals, even when accounting for the greater number of alternatives. However, we also discovered that this abundance of alternatives may make groups struggle more than individuals at generalizing the feedback they receive into a valid understanding of their task environment. Building on these findings, we theorize about the conditions under which groups may achieve better learning outcomes than individuals. Specifically, we propose a self-limiting nature to the group advantage in learning from experience; the group advantage in generating alternatives may result in potential disadvantages in the evaluation and selection of these alternatives.

Extant literature largely focuses on how skill configurations generate new technology, leaving unanswered how radical technological change impacts the demand for skill configurations. Using archival data on over 40 million online job postings, we find that radical technological change is associated with increased demand for specialists. Two conditions closely linked to such change—industry competition and uncertainty—moderate this relationship in opposing ways: competition amplifies the demand for specialists, whereas uncertainty mitigates it. To bolster causal inference, we conduct pre-registered survey experiments, which corroborate the archival findings by revealing how perceived competition and uncertainty shape hiring preferences. By demonstrating how firms reconfigure skills in response to radical technological change, this research extends dynamic capability theory and offers practical insights for recruitment and talent development strategies in rapidly evolving markets.

Access to artificial intelligence (AI) has been found to raise task performance most for the less skilled, compressing skill gaps among humans. We examine what this compression does to competition between two sides, in which the gap in competence determines which side is expected to win and the gap in performance variability (i.e., within interaction variability around baseline competence), determines how often outcomes align with that expectation. Using 90,252 professional Go games played between 2001 and 2024, with all 19.3 million moves re-evaluated by a superhuman engine, we study how AI-enabled preparation changes the extent to which competitive outcomes align with the difference in competence between competitors. After a freely available AI engine (Leela 0.9, February 2017) entered professional Go, upsets, games in which the lower-rated player defeats the higher-rated player, became less frequent, that is, favorites won more reliably. The change depends on competitive position, as the same player wins more often in games entered as the favorite and less often in games entered as the underdog after AI preparation was available. The decline in upsets is largest among closely matched competitors, attenuates as the competence gap widens, and surprisingly, reverses at extreme gaps, where upsets become more frequent after AI preparation. Move-level evidence identifies performance variability as the mechanism. Move quality improves in both positions, but within the same player, variability falls more in games entered as the favorite than in games entered as the underdog. In sum, AI does not uniformly equalize competitive outcomes through its effect on individual competence alone; it interacts with the competitive positions and the competence gap within an encounter to decide its outcome.

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to produce knowledge work, a widespread worry is that human competence at evaluating the results could decline. For instance, if students never write code, the concern is that they will be unable to judge the code an AI writes for them. Yet evaluation without production is also routine: film critics judge cinematography without operating cameras, researchers evaluate and use the outputs of statistical packages they neither wrote nor whose details they understand, and wine critics rate vintages they could not make. We resolve this tension with a framework for analysing the Decoupling of Expertise in Evaluation and Production (DEEP), which specifies when production experience is necessary for competent evaluation and when it is not. We first separate two regimes of evaluation: in Regime 1, quality is fully determined by observable artefact features; in Regime 2, quality also depends on production process attributes the finished artefact does not reveal. Next, we ask whether the information evaluators require in either regime can be acquired vicariously or only by producing. This framework predicts that the decline in human evaluative capabilities arising from cessation of production will be predictably concentrated in certain situations rather than universal. We also specify possible remedies by regime: training through simulation in Regime 1, process documentation in Regime 2, and modest quantities of production-for-calibration when both these measures are infeasible.

Agentic behaviors are a critical pathway to power in contemporary organizations. Paradoxically, employees who lack power are the least likely to think and act agentically—creating a self-perpetuating cycle of disadvantage. Existing research on facilitating employee agentic behaviors relies on structural solutions that are often out of reach for individual employees. Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that this view may be incomplete, as some individuals seem to be able to overcome the challenges powerlessness poses without relying on external resources, control, or organizational change. Integrating research on powerlessness and cognitive reappraisal, the present research proposes that cognitively reappraising powerless situations as opportunities can help individuals cope with the negative effects low power has on agency. A negotiation simulation (Study 1) and two experience-sampling field experiments (Studies 2-3) support our predictions: cognitive reappraisal attenuates the negative effects of low-power experiences on approach-related orientation (i.e., the Behavioral Approach System), which subsequently facilitates several indicators of agentic behavior, including employees’ propensity to negotiate (Study 1) and their tendency to engage in voice and task proactivity at work (Studies 2-3). This research proposes a way to break the power-inaction link, suggesting that individuals may regulate their reactions to powerless experiences and offering an empowering and accessible strategy for sustaining agency.

Perceivers denigrate not only individuals with a stigmatizing characteristic, but also those with whom the stigmatized person associates – relatives, co-workers, or even those who are merely nearby. Here, building on evidence of cultural differences in self-construal, we propose that stigma-by-association effects, implicitly viewed in the West as illogical, will be strengthened in cultural contexts in which people in general are seen as fundamentally interdependent. These hypotheses are tested in three studies. Results show that Chinese (vs. Americans, Studies 1 and 3) and Asian (vs. European) Americans (Study 2) more strongly denigrate relatives (Studies 1 and 2) and roommates (Study 3) of a stigmatized individual, net of any differences in their perception of the stigma, or in tendencies to hold associates responsible. This work integrates previously disparate literatures on culture and stigma, and adds to our understanding of the sources of exclusion and disgrace around the world.

Integrative value generation through negotiated business deals is a fundamental way in which organizations and economic systems attain economic benefits. It is also an important way in which individuals can improve their financial situation. We propose that individuals most in need of improving their financial standing, those in a financially vulnerable situation, are least likely to reap the benefits of integrative value generation. We theorize that financial vulnerability induces a more zero-sum construal of success, or a view that success for one person must come at another person’s success. A more zero-sum construal of success, in turn, hampers negotiators’ ability to realize integrative potential in negotiations. In a large archival dataset (N = 191,648), we found evidence that various proxies of financial vulnerability are associated with a more zero-sum construal of success. In two subsequent face-to-face negotiation studies, we found that financial vulnerability, whether measured or induced experimentally, undermined integrative value generation. The final two-part study found evidence of the hypothesized psychological process. Taken together, our studies uncover a fundamental pathway through which the disadvantage of financially vulnerable people is reproduced through economic exchanges.

Research on the meaning of work suggests that individuals hold different work orientations: some see work mainly as a way to attain personal fulfilment and make societal contributions (i.e., calling orientation), while others view work primarily as a way to earn financial rewards that support themselves and family (i.e., job orientation). In this paper, we move beyond the predominant focus on the individual-level outcomes of these work orientations to examine how employees’ job versus calling orientation relates to team performance. Building on two key behavioral tendencies of calling-oriented individuals—high proactivity and low receptivity, we propose that followers’ calling orientation relates positively to team performance when the leader holds a job orientation. We further propose that this relationship is attributed to a callingoriented leader’s tendency to treat job-oriented followers with lower receptivity and calling-oriented followers’ tendency to persist with high proactivity regardless of their leader’s receptivity. Data from a field study comprising 181 branches within a chain restaurant (Study 1) and two vignette experiments (Study 2 and Study 3) largely support our hypotheses. This research sheds light upon the team-level implications of the individual-level meaning of work and suggests that having calling-oriented employees may not always benefit teams or organizations.