Andreas Mojzisch

Research on leadership emergence has long sought to identify the individual characteristics that predict who comes to occupy leadership roles in groups. However, most studies treat leadership emergence as a single outcome, making it difficult to determine whether predictors influence the propensity to attempt leadership, the likelihood of attracting followers, or both. We conceptualize leadership emergence as a two-stage process consisting of leadership initiative (i.e., attempts to influence the group) and leadership success (i.e., the extent to which those attempts attract follower endorsement). This distinction provides a framework for integrating diverse theoretical perspectives on leadership emergence, as different predictors may influence different stages of this process. Across two laboratory studies (total N = 754), we assessed both components on a behavioral level and examined a range of predictors, including intelligence, personality traits, motivational dispositions, status-based cues, and testosterone. Results showed that only a small subset of attributes was associated with either component of leadership emergence. In the pooled sample, intelligence was the only predictor of both leadership initiative and leadership success, with no significant difference between the two studies. Extraversion and subjective competence predicted leadership initiative but not leadership success, which was additionally predicted by the frequency of leadership initiative. Taken together, our findings demonstrate how distinguishing leadership initiative from leadership success can clarify which individual attributes shape each stage of the leadership emergence process.

Organizational climate is widely acknowledged as a key construct for examining how organizations shape employee behavior. However, a comprehensive theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and boundary conditions of why and when organizational climate exerts its effects is still lacking. In our research, we conceptualize the organization as a social context and draw on theories of social influence to develop a theoretical framework of how organizational climate affects employee behavior. Specifically, we propose that the effects of organizational climate are driven by social norms and are amplified by organizational identification. We conducted three preregistered field studies (total N = 1,983) to test our theoretical model in the domains of safety behavior related to COVID-19 prevention and pro-environmental behavior. Across studies and levels of analysis (unit- and employee-level), we consistently found that the link between organizational climate and employee behavior was mediated by social norms. In exploratory analyses on the unit-level, we further found that this indirect effect is moderated (stage-2 moderation) by the average level of team identification, with stronger effects emerging in teams with stronger collective identification. Taken together, our findings suggest that organizational climate shapes employee behavior in part through social norms.

Do negotiators infer the interests of AI counterparts in the same way as those of human counterparts? We examine this question in the context of the fixed-pie bias, a common tendency to overestimate the degree of conflict in negotiation. A prominent explanation for this bias is the egocentrism account, according to which negotiators infer counterparts’ interests from their own perspective. To test whether these inferential processes generalize to interactions with AI counterparts, we conducted a preregistered online experiment that replicated and extended the paradigm by Chambers and De Dreu. Participants prepared for a negotiation under one of three focus conditions (control vs. self-focus vs. other-focus) and with either a human or a non-human AI counterpart. We measured estimates of the counterpart’s interests and participants’ prepared negotiation proposals. Contrary to our preregistered predictions, the expected focus-based pattern of egocentric misperception did not emerge, nor was it moderated by counterpart type, indicating that the original effect did not replicate in our online adaptation. Exploratory analyses, however, revealed a systematic difference between counterpart types: participants overestimated an AI counterpart’s interest more strongly than a human counterpart’s interest on the issue they themselves valued more. Thus, fixed-pie misperceptions appeared amplified rather than attenuated when negotiators faced an AI counterpart. These findings suggest that negotiators may rely on different inferential processes when reasoning about AI versus human counterparts, highlighting how interactions with AI may alter social inference in negotiation contexts.

Purpose: Women are underrepresented in high-level positions, which has often been attributed to women being less likely to actively pursue higher level positions. Previous studies have focused on the mechanisms underlying women's career ambitions, ignoring how framings of masculinity relate to the ambition gender gap. Building on precarious manhood theory, we propose that men's higher levels of career ambitions can be understood as a response to their concerns about living up to standards of masculinity and the pressure to prove themselves as “real men”. Accordingly, we hypothesized an interaction between gender identity threat and participant gender in predicting career ambition. Design/methodology/approach: In line with previous research, we manipulated gender identity threat versus affirmation by giving participants bogus feedback on a gender identity assessment. Thereafter, we measured participants' career ambitions. Additionally, we assessed masculinity contest culture – based on participants' perceptions of their real-world employer – as a moderator variable. Findings: As predicted, results revealed an interaction effect between gender identity threat and participant gender on career ambitions. In contrast to our predictions, however, this effect was not moderated by participants' perceptions of masculinity contest culture. Originality/value: By focusing on men and framings of masculinity, our results provide new insights into the mechanisms underlying gender differences in career ambitions. To our knowledge, the current work is the first to demonstrate that gender identity affirmation reduces the ambition gender gap.

Social norms are a pervasive aspect of human life. Previous research has shown that while norm adherence can persist for a long time, it ultimately declines. However, the mechanisms that drive the erosion of norm adherence are not yet understood. Building on a reinforcement learning perspective, the present study ( N = 429) examined how forgetting affects norm adherence. Using a diffusion model approach, we examined whether norm forgetting is due to a decline in judgmental bias, perceptual bias, or both. Results showed that norm adherence declined over time but remained reliable for up to 7 days post-acquisition. Diffusion model analyses revealed that norm forgetting was driven by the combination of a rapidly declining perceptual bias and a more gradually declining judgmental bias.

This review paper synthesizes findings from previous studies investigating the role of COVID-19 safety climate in shaping employee behavior and attitudes across diverse contexts. Drawing primarily on longitudinal research, we examine how employees’ perceptions of their organization’s commitment to pandemic-related safety predict their adherence to COVID-19 guidelines at work, their compliance with such measures in their private lives, and their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. In line with our conceptual framework, accumulating evidence indicates that a strong organizational safety climate enhances compliance with COVID-19 measures and fosters positive attitudes toward vaccination. Furthermore, findings highlight the mediating role of social norms, showing that employees are more influenced by the behaviors they observe among colleagues (i.e., descriptive norms) than by perceived social approval or disapproval (i.e., injunctive norms). Moreover, a U.S.-based study reveals that political ideology moderates the effect of COVID-19 safety climate, with Republicans being more strongly influenced by their organization than Democrats. These findings underscore the importance of cultivating a supportive organizational safety culture during a pandemic, while adapting communication strategies to accommodate diverse viewpoints.

Drawing on 50 years of research, this review explores the effects of acute stress on group decision-making, emphasizing key theoretical perspectives and methodological challenges. While the impact of stress on individual decision-making is well-documented, group-level processes remain insufficiently studied. We critically examine the empirical status of two major theoretical frameworks—the groupthink model and the threat-rigidity hypothesis . Additionally, we review experimental studies on stress and group decision-making, highlighting key limitations, including the absence of validated stress induction methods, the conflation of stress with time pressure, and the lack of objective measures for group decision quality. To advance research in this area, we call for more rigorous designs that (a) incorporate validated stress induction techniques, (b) clearly distinguish between stress and time pressure, and (c) employ decision tasks that require collective decision-making and allow for objective quality assessment. The hidden profile paradigm is proposed as a valuable tool for investigating stress effects on group decision-making.