Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis
An analysis of six scientific papers
im Rahmen der Lehrveranstaltung
Ausgewählte Aspekte des Innovationsmanagements eine
Literaturübersicht (SE)
am Institut für Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement
der Universität Graz
Eingereicht von
Manfred Hammerl
Graz, im Jänner 2007
I
Inhaltsverzeichnis
1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________________1
2 Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis _______________________________________________________2
2.1 Individual-level effects _____________________________________________________________2
2.2 Group-level effects ________________________________________________________________4
2.3 Organizational-level effects _________________________________________________________5
3 A multilevel point of view ________________________________________________________8
3.1 Applying systems-theory ___________________________________________________________8
3.2 Cross-level effects _________________________________________________________________9
4 Conclusion and suggestions for future research _____________________________________10
4.1 Two issues open to research emerged from my personal perception of this topic:____________11
References_____________________________________________________________________12
1
1 Introduction
For economists (and also sociologists or psychologists) no matter if they are students,
practitioners or researchers the behavior of individuals, groups or entire organizations (e. g.
companies) under special circumstances like threat, adversity or radical environmental change
is an important issue. For researchers to find underlying principles of behavior under threat
and for practitioners to learn some basic rules for behaving in changing environments.
Imagine a winter in our alps without any snow. There have always been times with less snow.
In such case snow making machines did their job and sprinkled the slope with artificial snow.
The lesser snow the more snow making machines was the easy calculus in past years. So will
there be an even larger number of snow making machines on the slopes if there is absolutely
no snow due to global warming and the upcoming climate crisis? Or will there some
alternatives be developed? According to an recent article in DerStandard (16. december 2006,
p. 2), wintertourism has to change its face, additional offers have to be presented, away form
ski and snowboard toward wellness, mountain biking or hiking. So what will entrepreneurs in
skiing resorts do? Will the rely on well-learned behavior and put another snow making
machine beside the slope, or will they consider alternatives?
There are numerous studies treating behavior under threat or radical change of environmental
conditions. Six papers among them the basic paper for this work, Staw et al's
1
analysis of
threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior will subsequently be examined with regard
to consistencies or contradictions. As already mentioned, Staw et al's paper will be regarded
as the basis for this seminar paper, as it points out most clearly threat-rigidity effects at
different levels of analysis. Moreover it is 1.) the oldest reviewed article and seems to have
some influence on threat-rigidity research in recent decades and 2.) represents a
comprehensive literature review in contrast to the other mainly empirical papers and
therefore presents a fine overview for our topic. Therefore chapter two will start with brief
discussions of the Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis and Threat-Rigidity Effects on the individual-
level, group-level and organizational-level as described in Staw et. al's paper. After that it is
time to talk about cross-level effects in chapter three and pay some attention to the advice,
that every entity should be regarded as a system. Threat, according to Staw et al, is seen as
1
Staw, Barry M.; Sandelands, Lance E.; Dutton, Jane E.: Threat-Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A
Multilevel Analysis, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, 1981, p. 501-524
2
vague environmental change. What is missing in that basic paper is the consideration of
radical institutional change, as described in the other five articles. Consideration of
institutional effects will be far to much for the purpose of this seminar paper. So subsequent
to the initial depiction of Threat-Rigidity Effects and a comparison of that effects among the
six analysed papers where emphasize is put on organizational level-effects but also cross-
level effects a conclusion emerged form the analysis of the six papers will be presented in
chapter four and issues open to research will be posed.
2 Threat-Rigidity Hypothesis
Since the paper of Staw et al is the only out of six explicitly dealing with threat-rigidity
hypothesis, the fundamentals of this chapter are based on their work. As mentioned above, the
main interest in doing research in this field is to learn more about how entities adapt to
adversity or radical environmental change. To be a threat, such a change has to lead to
negative or harmful consequences. This is of some importance because many collapses of
companies can be lead back to maladaptive behavior as a reaction to a changing environment.
That is, because entities tend to rely on well learned behavior, which is often but not always
the appropriate response to new challenges. Threat-Rigidity Theory may have its origins in
biology. Visualize a mouse in front of a snake. Due to this threat the mouse will grow stiff.
This is learned in the course of a long evolution because snakes are not able to perceive rigid
but only moving things. Now imagine a new and different threat, a snake which is able to
perceive rigid mice too. The well learned behavior of the mouse is unprofitable in this new
context. Flexibility of reactions resp. some alternative possibilities of response can be
considered as vital for an entity. This simple mechanism can be applied to individuals, groups
and entire organizations. Under threat conditions two things may happen within an entity.
First, there is an restriction of information processing or a reduction of used information
channels, second, there is a constriction in control. That means, power is concentrated at
higher levels of hierarchy. To sum up, rigid responses to threat can be appropriate after slight
changes but may be ineffectual under radical change.
2.1 Individual-level effects
The effects of stress, anxiety and arousal are main points in investigating individual-level
effects. Under stress, an individual may behave rigidly, with all the above mentioned effects
(i. e. restriction in information processing and constriction in control). There is evidence, that
3
trained individuals perform better than untrained individuals under stress conditions. So
training is a means of narrowing threat-rigidity effects. The same with anxiety. Anxious
individuals perform worse and show rigidity effects. Whereas arousal may be responsible for
the effects of stress and anxiety. Arousal reduces flexibility and induces rigidity effects (e. g.
relying on well-learned behavior). Generally it can be captured that individuals tend to
restrictions in information (because of emphasizing internal hypothesis about their
environment) and constrictions in control (i. e. relying on well-learned or habituated
responses) under threat. It is assumed, that threatened individuals may disregard external
warnings, freeze up in their behavior and therefore show poor task performance under
changing conditions. If threat however results from familiar problems, the individual is able
to deal with it, even fixating in its well-learned behavior. Unfamiliar threats can lead to
maladaptive reactions in case no training has taken place before to enhance one individuals
flexibility.
Since the other five papers describe studies conducted on higher levels of analysis (i. e. on the
organizational or even economic level) there is less evidence in those articles for pure
individual-level effects. Holm
2
points out in his study about the transformation processes in
Norwegian fisheries, that typical fishermen rely on well-learned behavior under pressure
rather than searching for alternatives or organizing with others to meet the threat. Fox-
Wolfgramm et al
3
noted in their comparative study of two banks facing a change in
legislature, that a new law, which was affecting the banks business activities, was interpreted
differentially by each employee. That may be because of each individuals different prior
experience, expectations and goals. They also mention the concept of self-monitors. High
self-monitors are able to adapt in a better way to a changing environment, low self-monitors
are relying on well-learned standard behavior. Newman
4
noticed in her article about
organizational transformation, that a high level of stress reduces individual performance,
while a moderate level of stress activates power and increases performance. So all these
2
Holm, Peter: The Dynamics of Institutionalization: Transformation Processes in Norwegian Fisheries, in:
Administrative Sciences Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1995, p. 398-422
3
Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan J.; Boal, Kimberly B.; Hunt, James G.: Organizational Adaption to Institutional
Change: A Comparative Study of First-order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks, in: Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, 1998, p. 87-126
4
Newman, Karen L.: Organizational Transformation during Institutional Upheaval, in: Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25, 2000, p. 602-619
0 Kommentare