This document summarizes key points from a presentation on threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior. It discusses how environmental threats can lead to rigidity in response at the individual, group, and organizational levels. At the individual level, threats increase stress, anxiety, and physiological arousal. At the group level, threats increase pressure toward uniformity and self-censorship. At the organizational level, threats lead to restricting information flow and a shift toward centralized control. The presentation provides models showing how threats can amplify rigid responses across multiple levels from the individual to the group to the organization.

1. Decision Making Presentation2010Here you can enteryour own personal message. Just select all of this existing text and start typing your own message.

2. Threat-Rigidity Effects inOrganizational BehaviorA Multilevel AnalysisLuke Chiu

3. Frame of Article

4. 2010/5/124Intensification of Threat (Radical Change) ***↑Maladaptive Cycles↑Environmental ChangeInformation Restriction Threats(Lost / Cost)Rigidity in Response (well-learned / dominant response)Constriction in Control ↓Functional Adaption↓Reducing of Threat (Incremental Change)***Conclusion mentioned that when adversity results from radical change, organizational control and press efficiency may be dysfunction due to [Resource Scarcity]. (page 519)

5. Single-Level & Multilevel Analysis PressureUniformity

6. INDIVIDUALGROUP(3)(1)(2)ORGANIZATION

7. 2010/5/127Individual Level Effects(1). Three Manipulated Variables-- SAA(2). Two Key-point for research on SAA (3). Three Aspects for Summary Model

8. 2010/5/128Stress, Anxiety, Physiological ArousalPsychological Stress is manipulated by experimental context to test “Performance-Failure” feedback.3 Variables-❶Perception Arena: Visual vs. Stimuli.❷Problem Solving & Learning❸Motor Performance : Stress vs. Training☑support “Hull-Spence Theory of Motivation”.☑Dominant response are irrelevant.STRESS

9. 2010/5/129TrainedTSSTRESS≽NON-STRESS≽uTSuTnSMotor PerformanceUntrained

10. 2010/5/1210Stress, Anxiety, Physiological Arousal2 Sub stream Studies-❶Correlation [Anxiety] vs. [Performance Indicator]Anxiety↑; Visual Stimulation ↓❷ [ Experimental Manipulations ] ≋[ Stress Study]ANXIETY

11. 2010/5/1211Stress, Anxiety, Physiological Arousal❶Effect of Arousal on Perception❷ Learning❸Motor Performance[ Psychological ] [ Physical]ComplementaryStress & AnxietyAROUSALAROUSAL

12. Model of Individual Threat-Response STRESS ANXIETYAROUSALNatural Cognitive Indicates SAAThreat SituationLink Properties of Individual Behaviors[Psychological] STRESS & ANXIETY[Physical]

13. GROUP Level Effects

14. Outside Threats IntergroupTies ⤵Inside ThreatsSociometric ChoicesSociometric ChoicesIntergroup HostilityGroup1Group 2Manipulated Intragroup BasesIntragroupRelations ⤴Outside Threats

15. Receive Failure Information (Cont’ next in ORG )Failure➞ Leader’s Influence ⤵⤵⤵ Leadership Replacement Decentralized Power Centralized Authority Collective AchievementsExternal Threats Preexisting

16. Collective GoalsIndividualsPressure on opinions / BeliefIndividuals perceive uniformity as necessary to reach collective goalsGroup Syndrome:Pressure toward uniformity, self-censorship of deviant beliefs by other members (individuals)Dependent on Group ⤴⤴

17. Outside Threats Internal AttributionInformation Restriction & ControlCohesiveness⤴Leadership ⤴➵UniformityLikelihood of Success⤴External AttributionOutside Threats

18. 2010/5/1218Organizational Level Effects 1. The Effects of Threat on Information Process.2. The Effects of Threat in Control (Mechanistic Shift)

19. 2010/5/1219Information ProcessDetect Threats informationFound Reality-ThreatReceived Failure information Decision MadeCoz Overload Communication Channels INF Search DecreasedINF SearchReintensify ONLY to confirmdecision OutcomesSubordinates solicited Advices

20. 2010/5/1220Mechanistic Shift 1. Organizational Hierarchy2. Formation; Standardized; CentralizedException:Natural Disasters

21. 2010/5/1221Model of Organization Response Threats

22. 2010/5/1222LEVELANALYSISORGANIZATION(Mechanistic Shift)1.Restricting INF2. Move control to higher level GROUPExpectation of successfully Resisting Threats INDIVIDUALInformation ProcessingBehavior ResponseMultilevel TRE Theory

23. 2010/5/1223Individual-Level Effect in Group Settings IndividualOrganizationGroupMay be explained by [ Cognitive Changes] in the individuals who compose the group.

24. 2010/5/1224 IndividualsORGGroupGroup Effects in Org Any rigidity generated by [ Groupthink] process under threats may be manifested or regarded as [Organizational Actions].

25. 2010/5/1225 Individual ORGIndividual Effects in ORG Decision originates with administrator acting alone, so regarded as “Individual”Organizational challenges usually cover [ interests of individual actors].Individual may exacerbate the power differential between subunits and administrators.

26. Individual in OrganizationsCenterTOP-LevelAdministrators*Individuals in organization may be central or peripheral interests. Middle-LevelAdministrator*Middle-level administrators express loyalty to subunits or groups.Peripheral

27. ConclusionExtinction-Survival 2-Edged Mechanism Amplified.

28. Supplementary Case The Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull is a vivid and latest evidence to challenge the conclusion of TRT. The initial position of Europe’s regulators was that the safe level of volcanic ash was zero, thus grounding all flights in the broad swathes of sky which computer models said could be tainted. The fact that this regulatory stance changed in the face of an affluent cadre of displaced people, airlines feeling pinch, a looming threat to some supply chains and an election (constituency in Britain), makes it all the more suspicious.

29. TRT in Organization BehaviorIn the field of organization behavior, there are two conflict theories in explaining the risk-taking-driven behaviors. Threat-rigidity theory asserts that organizations will behave conservatively under threat conditions; meanwhile, “Prospect theory”argues that organizations will behave in a risk-taking manner when they is below a specific self-perceived reference point.

30. Thank you!