Communication Creates Higher Cognitive Models for Team Building

Workplace communication and cross-culture interaction can help foster greater levels of collaborative effort. A paper by Huber & Lews (2011) highlights how heuristics and bias are a platform for first understanding others but additional information creates stronger cognitive models. It is these models within groups or across groups that adjust overtime to create mutual development. 

When individuals understand each other’s cognitive models they create cross-understanding (Huber & Lewis, 2010). Cross-understanding can also occur on a group level whereby a cognitive model for a group and their vantage point has been developed. Knowing how your communication partners think and understand can be beneficial for relating information in a way in which it is palatable and creating shared understandings.

Shared understandings range from low to high in terms of their accuracy and quantity of information. Some may know very little about other groups while some may have a great deal of experience. This is a level of shared social theory or shared social understanding. This is generally based in familiarity, cross-communication, and reflection. Even members within the same group may have different understandings of others even though they have shared similar traits. 

 People come to understand others through default templates that are full of assumptions. As they interact with others, communicate, share experiences, and see how others act in certain situations they come to update those templates. It is a process of offering new information based within real life experience. 

Conflict is often caused by misunderstandings or unreasonable behavior. The more groups interact and share relevant information the better the decisions of the group. This process can only work if members are free to talk, share ideas, and brainstorm the possibilities. Group think occurs when individuals are not free to communicate leading to one sided vantage points and strategies. 

Over compliance to group norms, assumptions and rules creates 1.) a lack of new information, and 2.) poorer overall decisions that limit cross understanding.  Group assumptions based on heuristics create faster reactions but also limit the potential to be accurate in decision-making. Quick assumptions are regularly faulty as they are confined by a lack of available information. 

The paper brings forward concepts that may be useful to businesses that are either in the process of developing stronger teams or would like to reduce encampment within their ranks. People often choose to work with others that are similar to themselves. Each brings forward their own cognitive model based with quick heuristic platforms. As they interact with each other it broadens their ability to understand the other. When these cognitive platforms are different than other members of the same group there is pressure overtime to solidify them into shared conscious understandings (i.e. the stream of conscious). 

Huber, G. & Lewis, K. (2011). Cross-understanding and shared social theories. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2). 

Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. 2010. Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35: 6–26.

Social Networks Percolate Products and Opinions

Word of mouth fosters social learning about issues, products, and opportunities.  Friends that act and think alike often create clusters and these clusters can influence the purchasing choices as well as the decisions members make. Economists often have difficulty formulating how social networks formulate and influence people’s impressions of products and services. Research by Arthur Campbell (2013) sheds light on how word of mouth in social networks influences perception of value. 

When individuals are interested in a concept or product they are naturally more willing to engage in word of mouth. Generally, as a product’s price is lower it raises the interest level and the potential discussion of the product leading to more word of mouth activity. It is this interaction that brings to the forefront ideas, concepts, and discussions on products that are settled within a group. 

One of the difficult aspects of understanding social networks and diffusion is the complexity of the system.  Despite this complexity, it is known that as activity increases information is spread out to a wider group of people thereby creating more advertisement. The complexity has made chasing down the pieces of information and how they spread difficult.  Yet through models it is possible to understand the process of information peculation in an imperfect manner.

One potential way to look at how information is transferred is in a formula:

Ξ ⊆ { ( i, j ) | i ≠ j ∈ N }

Everyone is connected to a social network = ( N, Ξ )

Nodes = n

Relationship between individuals i and j = ( i, j ) ∈ Ξ

The probability of a person i passing out information = ν ( θ i , P )

The model is undirected in the sense that information can percolate anywhere. All of the consumers are uninformed and the chance that people will buy a product is based on a percentage of the amount of people that become informed. The timing of the model can be seen as-

(i) Each person in the population becomes informed with independent probability

ε ≈ 0 (later they may also become informed through advertising).

(ii) Informed individuals tell all their friends about the product through WOM

with probability ν ( θ i , P ) and purchase the product if θ i ≥ P.

(iii) Step 2 is repeated for newly informed consumers until there are no more

consumers being informed.

The model is impacted by availability of competitive products, information, pricing, and a whole array of other factors that go into the process. When a competitive product or alternative explanation is not available it will naturally impact the options and choices within the social network. Likewise, if more information about a product is available it can impact the eventual agreement and promotion of such products with the group. 

When companies advertise they often seek to hit specific components within the social networks. Those persons that are more socially connected will likely spread their impressions of the products or services more widely. This is a simple function of connectivity to other members and the ability to be an influencer within the network. Most of us would recognize the superstar promoters of products and services.

The paper finds a number of interesting associations of price, information/advertisement, and the connections of the network. Generally, as information passes through the network in “buzz” and in tight clusters the prices remain higher. However, if the information passes more slowly or in dispersed networks the prices will remain lower. Word of mouth is a medium that could be positive or negative in its impact. 

Thinking about how information moves through networks it is important to remember that members will engage in social learning based upon how they evaluate the products against each other. If popular opinion is that the product is not desirable it will hamper others from buying that product. It means that we are social creatures that evaluate the work of products based upon how others view those products within our networks. If their feedback is negative we will come to the conclusion that a product is less worthy. 

Such a model does not necessarily need to work with products alone but could be used within an organizational setting to understand how information moves quickly among members. Each person who obtains the information, evaluates it based upon their social schemata, and then promotes that viewpoint to others. If the information is of significant worth it will move faster while if it is of little worth it will spread slower.  One must have an internal gauge to think independently from their clustered networks and this is unlikely for the majority of the population as they are connected to clusters who think alike.  Thus, our opinions are often a direct result of our social networks.

Campbell, A. (2013). Word-of-mouth communication and percolation in social networks. American Economic Review, 103 (6).

Four Factors of Unconscious Marketing

Subconscious goals = how we see the world.

As competition between products and services rises, marketers seek new methods of promoting products beyond the cultural borders that often limit sales potential. The paper by Woodside and Brasel (2011) provides an overview of unconscious branding as well as its four major methodological approaches.  Understanding what researchers have already found and where large gaps in the literature exists help in highlighting the need for additional research.

Unconscious marketing deals greatly with the concept of behavior, action and beliefs (BAB) toward products. At its core is the belief that behavior proceeds action, which in term fosters particular beliefs in products (Wilson, 2002). Thus, most thinking is on an unconscious level and behavior typically occurs before conscious thinking. If so, marketing can be effective at an unconscious level.

To understand the unconscious it is often beneficial to see an example in ancient history. When Socrates went to the oracle of Delphi it was relayed that his greatest task and that of mankind was to seek truth and know thyself (Pettinger, 2011). As the mind seeks to know itself, it has developed two mental processes that are called the conscious and the unconscious. The conscious is the limited, but available information, while the unconscious is the stronger processor but is difficult for people to reach (Wilson, 2009).

In terms of branding, the unconscious may be extremely important in influencing branding and purchasing behavior. The problem faced by researchers is that the unconscious is multi-dimensional and may have four factors that include lack of awareness, lack of intent, efficiency, and lack of control (Bargh, 1994). This makes the unconscious a wild horse with its own processes that represent the true nature of man.

Unconscious branding is a relatively new field built off Frued’s psychoanalysis. Despite his approaches, it has taken decades to move into new theories and approaches. Researchers have a number of opinions and limited research to back up their claims. Despite these successes, understanding the phenomenon means to look beyond traditional approaches to new ways of analysis.

There are generally four major research studies and ways of looking at unconscious branding:

-Non-conscious visual drivers: The visual processing mechanisms are unconscious and goals influence what we will see before becoming consciously aware.

-Priming Ads: Internet ads can make more forced ads (i.e. television) more effective through priming.

-Social motivations for conforming or escaping: Advertisements that focus on either helping people identify with particular groups of people or escape to form a self-identity can be effective. 

-Internal consumer autopilot: It is believed that non-conscious behavior, routine, schema and habit affect our choices.

Woodside and Brasel (2011) argue that new and more comprehensive models are needed to make findings practical. The report helps us think about how underdeveloped this field is as well as the potential possibilities for companies that want to use new models and methods to improve their brand awareness. By understanding how to sequence advertisements and use internal motivations, marketers can increase their response rates as well as their financial effectiveness.

The processing of most environmental cues is subconscious and most people cannot tap that source of information to pull it into their conscious. This means that it is these powerful processing tools, based in our need for survival, where brands can create the most effectiveness. This is why brands often offer either social acceptance (i.e. jewelry) or they offer solutions to problems (i.e. automobiles). Sometimes they come together (i.e. Mercedes). Attachment to any particular brand is based in its social advantages,  neuro-economic resource choices, and solutions to unconscious conflicts.

Bargh , J . A . ( 1994 ) The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition . In: R.S. Wyer and T.K. Srull (eds.) Handbook of Social Cognition , Vol. 1, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum , pp. 1 – 40 .

Pettinger , T . ( 2011 ) Radical thinking: What you can learn from the timeless philosophy of socrates, Retrieved October 20^th, 2013 from http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/radical-thinking-what-you-can-learn-from-the-timeless-philosophy-of-socrates/ 

Wilson , T . D . ( 2002 ) Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

Woodside, A. & Brasel, S. (2011). Unconscious thinking, feeling and behavior toward products and brands: introduction to a Journal of Brand Management special issue. Journal of Brand Management, 18, (7).

Strategic Development as a Social and Logical Rational Processes

What is rationality and strategy? According to a paper by Schaefer, et. al (2013) rationality is an interpersonal communication skill versus actual subject knowledge. There is a differentiation between emancipative communication and strategic thinking.  The researchers studied the prefrontal and parietal brain regions that are associated with strategic and communicative reasoning according to the theory of communicative action.  They found that there are two different processes at place when discussing strategic reasoning and social emotional cognitions. Each has their own neural connections that determine actual strategies and the possible effectiveness of those strategies. 

The theory of communicative reasoning by Jurgen Habermas focuses on either success oriented strategic action or social understanding oriented communicative action. Strategic action in this theory is the manipulation of others while communicative reasoning seeks to harmonize actions between the person and their social environment by using language and semantics. They use two different reasoning functions to create an appropriate strategy. 

Rationality has both a social and a logical side. Communicative reasoning is collaborative and strategic reasoning is goal oriented. Each is a means to an end but one takes into consideration the moral dilemmas created through decisions while the other seeks gains regardless of the human outcome. The way in which a person approaches the environment determines the type of logic they are using and where it is based within the neural connections of the brain. 

The research on social perceiving is important because it can help us determine how leaders make decisions strategically. As one uses pure logic without moral reasoning they activate a different set of brain functions to make those determinations. However, by using moral reasoning and an alternative set of brain functioning they can consider such things as the cost of human life or appropriate impact on individuals. Stronger leaders and clear strategy should consider in part both arenas to maximize gains for the greatest amount of people. 

Moral judgments and the ability to see these moral dilemmas is a precursor to appropriate judgment. Pure strategy without moral judgment is considered anti-social by nature and doesn’t take into account the needs of people that the strategy influences. One can think of the psychopath who is strategically accurate in short-term gains but fails to have empathy and consideration over those the decisions impacts. Leadership and strategy should not be inhumane, cold, calculating, or abusive to others but should instead seek a collaborative maximum gain. 

In their study, Schaefer, et. al (2013) studied the brains of individuals as they judged different real life scenarios from a communicative reasoning or strategic perspective. The far majority of participants were able to judge between the two types of approaches. They found that communicative reasoning activated a network of brain areas including the temporal poles, STS, and precuneus. Strategic reasoning showed less activation in these areas of the brain when compared to communicative reasoning.  

The argument furthers the concept that strategy has both an economic and a social aspect. Pure strategic thinking is about creating gain in the market regardless of its consequences on others while communicative reasoning takes into consideration moral concepts. Well balanced strategy should process from the two strategic methods in order to understand the pure logic of decisions but also the moral consequences of such decisions. As most of our world and environment is made of social interpretations and interaction it is this process of considering the possibilities of cooperation that further logical strategic action.

Schaefer, et. al. (2013). Communicative versus strategic rationality: Haberman’s theory of communicative action and the social brain. PloS One, 29 (5).