IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v169y2022ics0749597822000139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rank extrapolation: Asymmetric forecasts of future rank after rank change

Author

Listed:
  • Pettit, Nathan C.
  • Doyle, Sarah P.
  • Kim, Hee Young
  • Hurwitz, Anat

Abstract

How do people forecast an actor’s future rank after observing a rank change and what are the factors that shape these forecasts? In this research, we shed new light on the attributions that people make when they observe an actor change rank and on how these attributions explain where people expect the actor to rank in the future. Specifically, in Studies 1a and 1b we document an asymmetric extrapolation bias, whereby people extrapolate upward rank trajectories more steeply into the future than downward trajectories – a pattern of results that differ in both magnitude and direction from actual rank change patterns over time. In Studies 2 and 3 we provide evidence of the different attributions that explain people’s asymmetric extrapolation through measurement and manipulation. Finally, in Study 4 we demonstrate a practical downstream consequence of this asymmetric extrapolation bias (i.e., promotion recommendation) (Study 4). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Pettit, Nathan C. & Doyle, Sarah P. & Kim, Hee Young & Hurwitz, Anat, 2022. "Rank extrapolation: Asymmetric forecasts of future rank after rank change," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:169:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000139
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:7-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    3. Boris Groysberg & Linda-Eling Lee & Ashish Nanda, 2008. "Can They Take It With Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers' Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1213-1230, July.
    4. Kevyn Yong & Nathan C. Pettit & Sandra E. Spataro, 2010. "Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses," Post-Print hal-00528416, HAL.
    5. Heath, Chip, 1999. "On the Social Psychology of Agency Relationships: Lay Theories of Motivation Overemphasize Extrinsic Incentives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 25-62, April.
    6. Pettit, Nathan C. & Doyle, Sarah P. & Lount, Robert B. & To, Christopher, 2016. "Cheating to get ahead or to avoid falling behind? The effect of potential negative versus positive status change on unethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 172-183.
    7. Rodolphe Durand, 2003. "Predicting a firm's forecasting ability: the roles of organizational illusion of control and organizational attention," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(9), pages 821-838, September.
    8. Garcia, Stephen M. & Tor, Avishalom, 2007. "Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 95-108, January.
    9. Blount, Sally, 1995. "When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 131-144, August.
    10. Ryan W. Buell & Taly Reich & Michael I. Norton, 2014. ""Last-Place Aversion": Evidence and Redistributive Implications," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(1), pages 105-149.
    11. Brion, Sebastien & Anderson, Cameron, 2013. "The loss of power: How illusions of alliance contribute to powerholders’ downfall," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 129-139.
    12. Sivanathan, Niro & Pillutla, Madan M. & Keith Murnighan, J., 2008. "Power gained, power lost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 135-146, March.
    13. Tsedal B. Neeley, 2013. "Language Matters: Status Loss and Achieved Status Distinctions in Global Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 476-497, April.
    14. Vriend, Tim & Jordan, Jennifer & Janssen, Onne, 2016. "Reaching the top and avoiding the bottom: How ranking motivates unethical intentions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 142-155.
    15. Corinne Bendersky & Nicholas A. Hays, 2012. "Status Conflict in Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 323-340, April.
    16. Morris, Michael W. & Sheldon, Oliver J. & Ames, Daniel R. & Young, Maia J, 2007. "Metaphors and the market: Consequences and preconditions of agent and object metaphors in stock market commentary," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 174-192, March.
    17. Rodolphe Durand, 2003. "Predicting a firm's forecasting ability: The roles of organizational illusion of control and organizational attention," Post-Print hal-00480860, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pettit, Nathan C. & Doyle, Sarah P. & Lount, Robert B. & To, Christopher, 2016. "Cheating to get ahead or to avoid falling behind? The effect of potential negative versus positive status change on unethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 172-183.
    2. Matteo Prato & Fabrizio Ferraro, 2018. "Starstruck: How Hiring High-Status Employees Affects Incumbents’ Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 755-774, October.
    3. Jennifer Carson Marr & Nathan Pettit & Stefan Thau, 2019. "After the Fall: How Perceived Self-Control Protects the Legitimacy of Higher-Ranking Employees After Status Loss," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1165-1188, November.
    4. Simon Piest & Philipp Schreck, 2021. "Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: a review and synthesis of the empirical literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 679-721, October.
    5. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    6. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    7. Oyer, Paul & Schaefer, Scott, 2011. "Personnel Economics: Hiring and Incentives," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 20, pages 1769-1823, Elsevier.
    8. Eric M. Anicich & Nathanael J. Fast & Nir Halevy & Adam D. Galinsky, 2016. "When the Bases of Social Hierarchy Collide: Power Without Status Drives Interpersonal Conflict," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 123-140, February.
    9. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2018. "Forecasting from time series subject to sporadic perturbations: Effectiveness of different types of forecasting support," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 163-180.
    10. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    11. Lee, Hun Whee & Choi, Jin Nam & Kim, Seongsu, 2018. "Does gender diversity help teams constructively manage status conflict? An evolutionary perspective of status conflict, team psychological safety, and team creativity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 187-199.
    12. Shinkle, George A. & Hodgkinson, Gerard P. & Gary, Michael Shayne, 2021. "Government policy changes and organizational goal setting: Extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 406-417.
    13. Robert B. Lount, Jr. & Sarah P. Doyle & Sebastien Brion & Nathan C. Pettit, 2019. "Only When Others Are Watching: The Contingent Efforts of High Status Group Members," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3382-3397, July.
    14. Essuman, Dominic & Bruce, Patience Aku & Ataburo, Henry & Asiedu-Appiah, Felicity & Boso, Nathaniel, 2022. "Linking resource slack to operational resilience: Integration of resource-based and attention-based perspectives," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 254(C).
    15. Alan Benson & Ben A. Rissing, 2020. "Strength from Within: Internal Mobility and the Retention of High Performers," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1475-1496, November.
    16. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    17. Gavin J. Kilduff & Robb Willer & Cameron Anderson, 2016. "Hierarchy and Its Discontents: Status Disagreement Leads to Withdrawal of Contribution and Lower Group Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 373-390, April.
    18. Loberg, Linda & Nüesch, Stephan & Foege, Johann Nils, 2021. "Forced distribution rating systems and team collaboration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 18-35.
    19. Sophie Hennekam & Subramaniam Ananthram, 2020. "Involuntary and voluntary demotion: employee reactions and outcomes," Post-Print hal-03232764, HAL.
    20. Cassandra R. Chambers & Wayne E. Baker, 2020. "Robust Systems of Cooperation in the Presence of Rankings: How Displaying Prosocial Contributions Can Offset the Disruptive Effects of Performance Rankings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 287-307, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:169:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.