MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONS; SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management
Professor Adam Galinsky is currently the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He received his Ph.D. from Princeton University in Social Psychology and his B.A from Harvard University.
Professor Galinsky has published more than 75 scientific articles, chapters, and teaching cases in the fields of management and social psychology. His teaching and research focus on leadership, negotiations, decision-making, and the development of organizational values and culture. Across these lines of research, Professor Galinsky explores how individuals make sense of and participate in their social and organizational worlds and the consequences of this participation for motivation, team performance, and conflict.
Professor Galinsky’s research has received national and international recognition from the scientific community. His dissertation received the award for the Most Outstanding Dissertation from the International Association for Conflict Management, and his work has also received best paper awards from the Academy of Management Meetings and the International Association for Conflict Management Meetings. His research has received grants from the National Science Foundation, the American Psychological Association, Carnegie Bosch Institute, and the Dispute Resolution Research Center at Northwestern University. In 2006, he was the sole expert witness in a defamation trial for a plaintiff who was awarded $37 million in damages.
His research and insights have also received numerous media mentions including The Economist, The New Yorker, The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and National Public Radio. His work on auctions was selected as one of the Ideas of the Year in 2006 by the New York Times Magazine.
Professor Galinsky has twice won the Chair’s Core Course teaching award at Kellogg for teaching excellence on the topic of leadership. He teaches courses on Leadership in Organizations, Values Based Leadership, Negotiations, Leading High-Performing Teams, and Research Methodology to MBA, executive, and doctoral audiences. He has consulted with and conducted executive workshops for the BP, Unilever, Abbott, the FBI, CNA, Hearst Publishing Company, Land O’ Lakes, Manpower, the Young President’s Organization, The Ministry of Finance of Thailand, Ronald McDonald House, Hilco Resources Merchant, Alliant Credit Union, Oil Dri, the City of Chapel Hill, NC, and the London Symphony Orchestra.
Diversity
Ethics
Intergroup Behavior
Leadership
Negotiations
Organizational Change
Psychology
- Recent Media Coverage
Human Resource Executive: The Sweet Smell of ... Fairness? - 11/19/2009
Newsweek (Nurture Shock blog): Why Teens Care So Much About Clothes - 11/11/2009
ScienceNOW Daily News (also appeared in the Los Angeles Times and Discover Magazine): Bad Decisions May Be Contagious - 11/10/2009
Chicago Public Radio: Clean Smell Encourages Good Behavior - 11/3/2009
See all Kellogg in the Media
- Recent Kellogg News
Cleanliness is next to godliness - 10/26/2009
Don’t stand by me - 9/10/2009
Living outside the box - 4/23/2009
Change leadership - 1/19/2009
See all Kellogg News
A wealth of research has found that power leads to behavioral approach and action. Four experiments demonstrate that this link between power and approach is broken when the power relationship is illegitimate. When power was primed to be legitimate or when power positions were assigned legitimately, the powerful demonstrated more approach than the powerless. However, when power was experienced as illegitimate, the powerless displayed as much approach as, or even more approach than, the powerful. This moderating effect of legitimacy occurred regardless of whether power and legitimacy were manipulated through experiential primes, semantic primes, or role manipulations. It held true for behavioral approach (Experiment 1) and two effects associated with it: the propensity to negotiate (Experiment 2) and risk preferences (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that how power is conceptualized, acquired, and wielded determines its psychological consequences and add insight into not only when but also why power leads to approach.
Four experiments explored whether lacking power impairs executive functioning, testing the hypothesis that the cognitive presses of powerlessness increase vulnerability to performance decrements during complex executive tasks. In the first three experiments, low power impaired performance on executive-function tasks: The powerless were less effective than the powerful at updating (Experiment 1), inhibiting (Experiment 2), and planning (Experiment 3). Existing research suggests that the powerless have difficulty distinguishing between what is goal relevant and what is goal irrelevant in the environment. A fourth experiment established that the executive-function impairment associated with low power is driven by goal neglect. The current research implies that the cognitive alterations arising from powerlessness may help foster stable social hierarchies and that empowering employees may reduce costly organizational errors.
Many practices aimed at cultivating multicultural competence in educational and organizational settings (e.g., exchange programs, diversity education in college, diversity management at work) assume that multicultural experience fosters creativity. In line with this assumption, the research reported in this article is the first to empirically demonstrate that exposure to multiple cultures in and of itself can enhance creativity. Overall, the authors found that extensiveness of multicultural experiences was positively related to both creative performance (insight learning, remote association, and idea generation) and creativity-supporting cognitive processes (retrieval of unconventional knowledge, recruitment of ideas from unfamiliar cultures for creative idea expansion). Furthermore, their studies showed that the serendipitous creative benefits resulting from multicultural experiences may depend on the extent to which individuals open themselves to foreign cultures, and that creativity is facilitated in contexts that deemphasize the need for firm answers or existential concerns. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for promoting creativity in increasingly global learning and work environments
Individuals define themselves, at times, as who they are (e.g., a psychologist) and, at other times, as who they are not (e.g., not an economist). Drawing on social identity, optimal distinctiveness, and balance theories, four studies examined the nature of negational identity relative to affirmational identity. One study explored the conditions that increase negational identification and found that activating the need for distinctiveness increased the accessibility of negational identities. Three additional studies revealed that negational categorization increased outgroup derogation relative to affirmational categorization and the authors argue that this effect is at least partially due to a focus on contrasting the self from the outgroup under negational categorization. Consistent with this argument, outgroup derogation following negational categorization was mitigated when connections to similar others were highlighted. By distinguishing negational identity from affirmational identity, a more complete picture of collective identity and intergroup behavior can start to emerge.
Three experiments examine the relationship between past performance and strategies and risk attitudes in integrative negotiations. We hypothesized that past performance would affect negotiators' willingness to embrace two types of risk: strategic (i.e., information sharing in the present) versus contractual (i.e., uncertainty about the future). Consistent with the hypothesis that past success promotes strategic risk taking, dyads with a history of success were more integrative than dyads with a history of failure in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that past performance impacts intentions regarding these two types of risk. Specifically, due to lower expected control over the negotiation process, past failure led negotiators to prefer a contractual risk strategy over a strategic risk strategy. In Experiment 3, we explored one implication of this tendency by showing a greater willingness of past failure negotiators to enter into a contingent agreement, which delays the outcome of the deal until a future point in time. Together these findings indicate that past performance influences not only the amount of risk negotiators assume but also the type of risk they are willing to embrace.
Drawing on the motivated cognition literature, we examine how self-affirmation processes influence self-justification needs and escalation decisions. Study 1 found that individuals with a larger pool of affirmational resources (high self-esteem) reduced their escalation compared to those with fewer affirmational resources (low self-esteem). Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that individuals also de-escalated their commitments when they were provided an opportunity to affirm on an important value. Finally, Study 3 found that affirming on traits that were of low relevance (e.g., creativity) to an initial decision reduced escalation, but affirming on decision-relevant traits (e.g., decision-making ability) ironically increased escalation. Across three studies, using three instantiations of self-affirmations and two measures of escalation, the results highlight the potential benefits and costs of using self-affirmation as a vehicle to de-escalate commitment.
The current research explored whether two related yet distinct social competencies—perspective taking (the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual's viewpoint) and empathy (the ability to connect emotionally with another individual)—have differential effects in negotiations. Across three studies, using both individual difference measures and experimental manipulations, we found that perspective taking increased individuals' ability to discover hidden agreements and to both create and claim resources at the bargaining table. However, empathy did not prove nearly as advantageous and at times was detrimental to discovering a possible deal and achieving individual profit. These results held regardless of whether the interaction was a negotiation in which a prima facie solution was not possible or a multiple-issue negotiation that required discovering mutually beneficial trade-offs. Although empathy is an essential tool in many aspects of social life, perspective taking appears to be a particularly critical ability in negotiations.
In the present research, the authors hypothesized that additive counterfactual thinking mind-sets, activated by adding new antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote an expansive processing style that broadens conceptual attention and facilitates performance on creative generation tasks, whereas subtractive counter-factual thinking mind-sets, activated by removing antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote a relational processing style that enhances tendencies to consider relationships and associations and facilitates performance on analytical problem-solving tasks. A reanalysis of a published data set suggested that the counterfactual mind-set primes previously used in the literature tend to evoke subtractive counterfactuals. Studies 1 and 2 then demonstrated that subtractive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on analytical problem-solving tasks relative to additive counterfactual mind-sets, whereas Studies 3 and 4 found that additive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on creative generation tasks relative to subtractive counterfactual mind-sets.
Five experiments investigated how the possession and experience of power affects the initiation of competitive interaction. In Experiments 1a and 1b, high-power individuals displayed a greater propensity to initiate a negotiation than did low-power individuals. Three additional experiments showed that power increased the likelihood of making the first move in a variety of competitive interactions. In Experiment 2, participants who were semantically primed with power were nearly 4 times as likely as participants in a control condition to choose to make the opening arguments in a debate competition scenario. In Experiment 3, negotiators with strong alternatives to a negotiation were more than 3 times as likely to spontaneously express an intention to make the first offer compared to participants who lacked any alternatives. Experiment 4 showed that high-power negotiators were more likely than low-power negotiators to actually make the first offer and that making the first offer produced a bargaining advantage.
The article explores the history of the U.S. Institutional Review Board (IRB) system and its penetration into local institutions. The author found that the Code of Federal Regulations Governing the Protection of Human Subjects in Research develops categories of risk for which various types of medical research are required. In this regard, research or reviews identified with the highest level of assessed risk can only be considered by a convened panel of IRB members. To allow scope for locally specific techniques for implementing the Code and to prevent creating a centralized bureaucracy, legislators placed the primary review function at the local institution level.
The article suggests four effective strategies for dealing with burdens in particular and contentious negotiations in general. Research in this field points out that burdens weigh more heavily on one's decision processes than do benefits. Everyone likes to avoid a burden than to gain a financially equal benefit, and demands greater compensation to handle a burden. The first step for a negotiator is to build trust and rapport. To make negotiations less quarrelsome, consider the opponent's perspective and make an effort to learn more about the opponent. Procrastination leads one to desperate situations. A last minute agreement denies the advantages of careful consideration though one can take advantage of the assuaging effects of time. Incase one likes to keep away directly from negotiations a carefully picked up agent can enter to negotiations on your behalf.
The article discusses the key points required for successful bargaining in business negotiations. According to research, inaccurate self-predictions about one's own feelings and behavior lead to poor performance in negotiations. Thorough preparation and identifying one's interests and alternatives may prove helpful in performing best while bargaining. The accuracy of negotiation forecasts and negotiated outcomes can be improved by training. The author has suggested few guidelines using which one can minimize the impact of errors due to inaccurate prediction on one's negotiations. These guidelines reflect that negotiators inaccurately predict their behavior due to overly optimism.
Four experiments and a correlational study explored the relationship between power and perspective taking. In Experiment 1, participants primed with high power were more likely than those primed with low power to draw an E on their forehead in a self-oriented direction, demonstrating less of an inclination to spontaneously adopt another person's visual perspective. In Experiments 2a and 2b, high-power participants were less likely than low-power participants to take into account that other people did not possess their privileged knowledge, a result suggesting that power leads individuals to anchor too heavily on their own vantage point, insufficiently adjusting to others' perspectives. In Experiment 3, high-power participants were less accurate than control participants in determining other people's emotion expressions; these results suggest a power-induced impediment to experiencing empathy. An additional study found a negative relationship between individual difference measures of power and perspective taking. Across these studies, power was associated with a reduced tendency to comprehend how other people see, think, and feel.
The article presents information on the role of power in negotiation. Power could generate competition or conflict in negotiations, however, effective channelization of power helps in bringing the win-win situation to both the parties. Social psychologists have described power as lack of dependence on others. Individuals possessing power tend to have the approach related to the behavior that includes positive mood or searching for rewards in their environment. On the other hand, powerless individuals show a great deal of self-inhibition and fear towards potential threats
The article reports on multiple equivalent simultaneous offers, or MESOs. Presenting more than one offer at a time increases the alliance's satisfaction as well as the odds that an agreement will be implemented. The term meso means combining form and middle in Greek, suggesting a balance between states; true to this connotation, MESOs allow both a profitable agreement and a positive interpersonal climate. Making MESOs requires that we create a scoring system that allows us to compare qualitatively different issues. For a job candidate preparing to present MESOs to a prospective employer, these might include compensation, location, and vacation days. MESOs allow you to secure an understanding of the other side's interests that we would be unlikely to ascertain through direct questioning. Through MESOs, we can detect whether one might be misrepresenting his perspective or inadvertently overstating his position. MESOs are an effective strategy at the beginning, middle, and end of the negotiation, allowing us to constantly anchor, learn, detect, persist, and reframe.
The authors demonstrate that in dyadic negotiations, negotiators with a promotion regulatory focus achieve superior outcomes than negotiators with prevention regulatory focus in two ways. First, a promotion focus leads negotiators to claim more resources at the bargaining table. In the first two studies, promotion-focused negotiators paid more attention to their target prices(i.e., their ideal outcomes) and achieved more advantageous distributive outcomes than did prevention-focused negotiators. The second study also reveals an important mediating process: Negotiators with a promotion focus made more extreme opening offers in their favor. Second, a promotion focus leads negotiators to create more resources at the bargaining table that benefit both parties. A third study demonstrated that in a multi-issue negotiation, a promotion focus increased the likelihood that a dyad achieved a jointly optimal or Pareto efficient outcome compared to prevention-focused dyads. The discussion focuses on the role of regulatory focus in social interaction and introduces the notion of interaction fit.
Negotiation scholars and practitioners have long noted the impact of face, or social image, concerns on negotiation outcomes. When face is threatened, negotiators are less likely to reach agreement and to create joint gain. In this paper, we explore individual differences in face threat sensitivity (FTS), and how a negotiator's role moderates the relationship of his or her FTS to negotiation outcomes. Study 1 describes a measure of FTS. Study 2 finds that buyers and sellers are less likely to reach an agreement that is in both parties' interests when the seller has high FTS. Study 3 finds that job candidates and recruiters negotiate an employment contract with less joint gain when the candidate has high FTS, and that this relationship is mediated by increased competitiveness on the part of the high FTS candidates. The results support Deutsch's (1961) application of face theory ( Goffman, 1967) to negotiation.
We hypothesized that the activation of a counterfactual mind-set minimizes group decision errors caused by the failure of groups to discuss unshared, uniquely held information. In two experiments, we manipulated the salience of counterfactual thoughts in a pre-task scenario and then had groups of three individuals discuss a murder mystery case. In both experiments, counterfactual mind-sets increased the discussion of unshared information and helped groups to identify the correct murder suspect. These results emerged regardless of whether the direction of the counterfactual thoughts was upward (Experiment 1) or downward (Experiment 2), suggesting that it is the process of thinking counterfactually, and not the content of the counterfactuals, that improves group decision making.
This article focuses on the role of threats in negotiations. Broadly speaking, a threat is a proposition that issues demands and warns of the costs of noncompliance. Even if neither party resorts to them, potential threats shadow most negotiations. Researchers have found that people actually evaluate their counterparts more favorably when they combine promises with threats rather than extend promises alone. Whereas promises encourage exploitation, the threat of punishment motivates cooperation. Professor Jeanne Brett of Northwestern University and her colleagues have identified three situations in which threats can be a necessary and effective tactic. First, as negotiators attempt to push past a heated deadlock, threats might be required to get the other party to come to the bargaining table. Threatening aggression is one way to get representatives of an obstinate country, for example, to attend peace talks. Second, threats can be a weapon against recalcitrance, steering a negotiation from impasse toward settlement. Finally, well-crafted threats may ensure that an agreement will survive the negotiation and secure implementation as well as follow-through.
Two experiments explored the hypothesis that the impact of activating gender stereotypes on negotiated agreements in mixed-gender negotiations depends on the manner in which the stereo-type is activated (explicitly vs. implicitly) and the content of the stereotype (linking negotiation performance to stereotypically male vs. stereotypically female traits). Specifically, two experiments investigated the generality and limits of stereotype reactance. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that negotiated outcomes become more one-sided in favor of the high power negotiator when masculine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In contrast, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that negotiated outcomes are more integrative (win-win) when feminine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In total, performance in mixed-gender negotiations is strongly affected by the cognitions and motivations that negotiators bring to the bargaining table.
Three experiments investigated the hypothesis that power increases an action orientation in the power holder, even in contexts where power is not directly experienced. In Experiment 1, participants who possessed structural power in a group task were more likely to take a card in a simulated game of blackjack than those who lacked power. In Experiment 2, participants primed with high power were more likely to act against an annoying stimulus (a fan) in the environment, suggesting that the experience of power leads to the performance of goal-directed behavior. In Experiment 3, priming high power led to action in a social dilemma regardless of whether that action had prosocial or antisocial consequences. The effects of priming power are discussed in relation to the broader literature on conceptual and mind-set priming.
Four studies explored behavioral forecasting and the effect of competitive expectations in the context of negotiations. Study 1 examined negotiators' forecasts of how they would behave when faced with a very competitive versus a less competitive opponent and found that negotiators believed they would become more competitive. Studies 2 and 3 examined actual behaviors during a negotiation and found that negotiators who expected a very competitive opponent actually became less competitive, as evidenced by setting lower, less aggressive reservation prices, making less demanding counteroffers, and ultimately agreeing to lower negotiated outcomes. Finally, Study 4 provided a direct test of the disconnection between negotiators' forecasts for their behavior and their actual behaviors within the same sample and found systematic errors in behavioral forecasting as well as evidence for the self-fulfilling effects of possessing a competitive expectation
Three experiments explored the effect of outcome delays—longer time horizons for the realization of outcomes—on the efficiency of negotiated agreements. We hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between a longer temporal distance to the consequences of negotiated agreements and the efficiency of those agreements. Outcome delays did increase the efficiency of the negotiated agreements. In addition, type of resource, burden or benefit, moderated this relationship. Because negotiating for burdens is more difficult than negotiating for benefits in the present, the salutary discounting effects of outcome delays were greater for burdens. The multifaceted effects of time on negotiations are discussed.
We examine how gender stereotypes affect performance in mixed-gender negotiations. We extend recent work demonstrating that stereotype activation leads to a male advantage and a complementary female disadvantage at the bargaining table (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, in press). In the present investigation, we regenerate the stereotype of effective negotiators by associating stereotypically feminine skills with negotiation success. In Experiment 1, women performed better in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to successful negotiating, but not when gender-neutral traits were linked to negotiation success. Gender differences were mediated by the performance expectations and goals set by negotiators. In Experiment 2, we regenerated the stereotype of effective negotiators by linking stereotypically masculine or feminine traits with negotiation ineffectiveness. Women outperformed men in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically masculine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance, but men outperformed women when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance. Implications for stereotype threat theory and negotiations are discussed.
Verhandlungen spielen eine entscheidende Rolle in all jenen Lebensbereichen, die durch Interessenskonflikte gegenzeichnet sind. In Verhandlungssituationen sind relevante Informationen typischer Weise in unzureichendem Maße vorhanden, so dass Verhandlungen meist unter Unsicherheit geführt werden. Folglich sollten Prozesse der Verhandlungsführung von denjenigen psychologischen Mechanismen bestimmt sein, die gemeinhin menschliches Urteilen und Entscheiden unter Unsicherheit charakterisieren. Ein wesentlicher Mechanismus ist hierbei die Beeinflussung menschlicher Urteile durch die Vorgabe von Ankerwerten -- numerischen Vergleichsstandards, die als Urteilsgrundlage verwendet werden. Ein Überblick über neuere experimentelle Befunde belegt, dass Verhandlungsergebnisse in wesentlicher Weise durch Ankervorgaben beeinflusst werden. So bestimmt die Höhe des ersten Gebotes entscheidend das Verhandlungsergebnis.
We examine how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt wome s performance relative to men. We hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. Experiment 4 examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).
We present a model of how culture affects both the conceptualizations and behavioral consequences of power, focusing in particular on how culture moderates the previously demonstrated positive relationship between power and assertive action. Western cultures tend to be characterized by independence, whereas individuals in East Asian cultures tend to think of themselves as interdependent. As a result, power is conceptualized around influence and entitlement in the West, and Westerners behave assertively to satisfy oneself. In contrast, East Asians conceptualize power around responsibility and tend to consider how their behavior affects others. As a result the experience of power activates a tendency toward restraint. Therefore, power is associated with an increase in assertive action in independent cultures, whereas it leads to restraint of action in interdependent cultures. We discuss a number of moderators of this effect including the type of actions and the groups who are affected by those actions.
We present a model of reappropriation, the phenomenon whereby a stigmatized group revalues an externally imposed negative label by self-consciously referring to itself in terms of that label. The model specifies the causes and consequences of reappropriation as well as the essential conditions necessary for reappropriation to be effective. To place the concept of reappropriation in proper context, we begin by discussing the roots of stigma and the mediating role played by social categorization and social identity in the realization of stigma’s deleterious effects. We also discuss the strategies available to both individuals and groups by which stigmatized individuals can enhance their devalued social identities. We provide a discussion of two historical cases of reappropriation and some preliminary empirical evidence concerning the consequences of self-labeling and attempting to reappropriate a stigmatizing label. Finally we discuss the implications of the model for groups and teams, both within and outside of organizations.
When will individuals accept or reject systems that subordinate them, when will they take actions that will challenge these status hierarchies, and when will such challenges be more intense, overt, and non-normative? Research suggests that individuals often justify and maintain systems that subordinate them, yet we suggest that there are certain boundary conditions that predict when individuals will no longer accept their place in such systems. We propose a model that examines how multiple factors: A sense of power, emotions associated with power, and perceptions of the system's legitimacy and stability – predict when those in low power will act against authority or when they will act to justify and maintain such systems. We also suggest that the level and type of action taken against a hierarchy changes as more of the elements (i.e., sense of power, emotions, perceptions of the status hierarchy) of our model are present. We predict that the actions taken against hierarchies become more overt and non-normative as more of these factors are present.
A full understanding of organizational and group effectiveness must take into the account the causes and contexts that exacerbate and reduce tension between groups, and the individual psychological mechanisms involved. This chapter attempts to analyze intergroup behavior through a phenomenological lens: examining how people perceive groups, their own and others, and how these perceptions shape subsequent behavior. Two individually based processes, categorization and egocentrism, and two group-based processes, competition over scarce recourses and strivings for positive social identities, allow intergroup hostilities and biases to flourish. Two strategies for reducing intergroup tension, both of which involve transforming representations of the out-group, are discussed. One is a group-based strategy, which involves structurally altering the relationship between groups by increasing their interdependence. The other strategy, perspective-taking, is individually based. Perspective-taking increases out-group evaluations, decreases stereotyping, and decreases the selection of expectancy-consistent information, all through activation and application of the self-concept. Because many intergroup biases are rooted in individual psychological processes, such as categorization and egocentrism, it is suggested that strategies designed to reduce intergroup tensions that build off these biases might be particularly effective. Implications of intergroup conflict and perspective-taking for organizations are discussed.
Dove and Axe were two highly successful brands owned by Unilever, a portfolio company. Dove was a female-oriented beauty product brand that exhorted “real beauty” and not the unachievable standards that the media portrayed. In contrast, Axe was a brand that purportedly “gives men the edge in the mating game.” Their risqué commercials always portrayed the supermodel-type beauty ideal that Dove was trying to change. Unilever had always been a company of brands where the consumer knew the brands but not the company; but recently there had been the idea to unify the company with an umbrella mission for all of its brands. This would turn Unilever into a company with brands, potentially increasing consumer awareness and encourage cross-purchases between the different brands. However, this raised the question about conflicting messages between the brands’ marketing campaigns, most notably between Unilever’s two powerhouse brands, Dove and Axe.
The case starts with COO Alan Jope thinking about an upcoming press meeting in New York City to discuss Unilever’s current (2005) performance and announce Unilever’s decision to create an umbrella mission statement for the company. The case is focused on the central question of whether or not consistency between brand messages is necessary or inherently problematic.
The Unilever’s Mission for Vitality case was created to help students and managers develop an appreciation for how the values underlying a marketing campaign can affect and alter an organization’s culture. The case focuses on how two products/marketing campaigns that express conflicting underlying values (as reflected in the Dove Real Beauty and the Axe Effect campaigns) within the same corporation can give rise to a number of unintended organizational and marketing complications.The learning objective of the case is to develop, first, an appreciation of how the expressed values underlying a marketing campaign can affect internal corporate culture and, therefore, how two products with conflicting underlying values (in this case, those reflected in the Dove and Axe campaigns) within a given corporation (in this case, Unilever) can give rise to organizational and marketing complications. And second, to explore how managers might best anticipate and respond to the conflicts inherent in such complications.
This course counts toward the following majors: Management & Organizations.
This course provides students with the social science tools needed to solve organizational problems and influence the actions of individuals, groups and organizations. It prepares managers to understand how to best organize and motivate the human capital of the firm, manage social networks and alliances, and execute strategic change. This is accomplished through knowledge of competitive decision making, reward system design, team building, strategic negotiation, political dynamics, corporate culture and strategic organizational design.
Ethics and Leadership examines the anatomy of leadership in modern organizations, highlighting the ethical challenges facing corporate leaders in the rapidly changing business environment.
PHONE: 847-491-8286
FAX: 847-491-8896
Jacobs Center Room 386