Log in to your account
 
Industry Careers
  • Posted by Michael Pinchera at
    12:00AM 05/23/2011 • 0 Comments

    The U.S. Vacation Debate Continues

    American's work like robots.

    At least, that's the impression of some Europeans...especially when the discussion comes down to paid vacation time.

    Most U.S. workers are lucky to get two weeks of paid vacation time (as opposed to four-to-six weeks in many other "advanced" countries) as there's no federal mandate that workers be given *any* such time.

    Yet, even with only two weeks of annual vacation time, U.S. workers still can't seem to manage to use it. CNN reports, "Only 57% of U.S. workers use up all of the days they're entitled to, compared with 89% of workers in France, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

    But one source claims handling (or mishandling) of vacation time by U.S. workers is a result of the population's attempt to find happiness. According to  Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, and author of a recent report in the Journal of Happiness Studies, working more makes Americans happier than Europeans. CNN explains this, "may be because Americans believe more than Europeans do that hard work is associated with success."

    Americans and Europeans, alike: Does more work incite more/greater happiness for you? If not, what does?

    More importantly, are robots happy?



  • Posted by Jason Hensel at
    12:00AM 01/07/2011 • 1 Comments

    Physical Distance & Virtual Meetings

    Virtual and hybrid events are increasingly becoming the hottest topic in the meeting industry, primarily due to the convergence of technology and a weak economy. Even with the economy recovering, the idea of holding a meeting online is sometimes what is best for a company's pocketbook. But what other criteria should determine if a meeting is held face-to-face or virtually? 

    According to recent research at the University of Texas in Austin, one major determining factor in the success of a virtual meeting is distance, primarily the perception of how far participates are from one another. 

    "We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements," wrote psychologist Marlone D. Henderson in the study's abstract. "Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away) rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of construal."

    Henderson writes that it may not always be possible for negotiators to create a large amount of distance between each other. 

    "However, individuals may have more control over when they can initiate a negotiation, and our findings imply that negotiators might benefit from waiting until circumstances create a large amount of distance between them before they start negotiating," Henderson wrote. 

    Cultures are incorporating increased physical distance, Henderson goes on to write, into fundamental aspects of human interaction, including distant learning and education, distant therapy and treatment and distant political participation.

    "Critically, social conflict can arise in any of these areas," Henderson wrote. "The current research helps to understand whether increased geographical distance offers the potential to facilitate social harmony or magnify the social ills of our society, and represents the beginning of a systematic investigation of such issues."

    We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed.
    We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed.
    We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed.
    We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed

    We examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed.
    examined the effects of negotiating non-face-to-face with someone that is physically nearby versus
    faraway on integrative (mutually beneficial) agreements. Across Studies 1 and 2, we found that individuals
    who negotiated with another person that they believed was physically faraway (several thousand feet away)
    rather than nearby (a few feet away) attained more integrative agreements (higher joint outcome, more
    Pareto efficient agreements). In Study 3, we found that the effect of different magnitudes of physical distance
    between negotiators on integrative agreements depended on negotiators' construal level: individuals who
    negotiated with another person who was purportedly farther away achieved more integrative agreements
    when their level of construal was not constrained, but had no effect when they adopted a high-level of
    construal. The implications for non-face-to-face communication are discussed