Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis

Staw, Sandelands & Dutton · Team Learning, Safety & Error, Power & Equity · Administrative Science Quarterly · 1981 · Paywalled

Open this neighbourhood on the live map →

The mechanism paper for why groups stop learning at the moment learning matters most. Staw, Sandelands and Dutton propose one effect operating at three levels: a threat to the vital interests of an individual, a group or an organisation produces a restriction in information processing, a narrowed field of attention with fewer channels in use, and a constriction of control, influence concentrated in fewer hands and moved up the hierarchy. Together these push the entity toward its well-learned, dominant response. The argument is assembled by review rather than from new data, spanning mid-century experimental work on stress at the individual level, cohesion and conformity research at the group level, and studies of crisis and retrenchment at the organisational level.

For this map the group-level reading is the uncomfortable one. Where a threat is attributed to an external source and the group believes it can prevail, the paper predicts increased cohesiveness, support for existing leadership and pressure for uniformity: divergent solutions ignored, deviant positions downplayed, influence centralised. The conditions that suppress speaking up are not a failure of a team under threat, they are the ordinary response of a team under threat, and they arrive attached to things that feel like virtues at the time. There is also a still-underused move on groupthink: every case Janis built the theory on featured an external threat, so threat rather than cohesion may be the initiating variable, and the authors cite an experiment in which raising cohesiveness did not degrade decision making as Janis predicted.

The second half of the model is the part usually forgotten. Where the threat is attributed to internal deficiencies, or the group does not expect to win, the prediction reverses: cohesion falls, leadership destabilises, dissent appears, control loosens. Threat does not simply close a group down; what it does depends on where the threat is thought to come from and whether the group thinks it can prevail.

The paper is also more careful about its thesis than later citation has been. Rigidity is not presented as maladaptive in general: under incremental change, falling back on a previously successful response may be exactly right, and it is under radical change, where prior learning no longer applies, that rigidity intensifies the threat. The authors describe the effect as two-edged, amplifying both the survival and the extinction potential of an organisation, so anyone citing this as evidence that tightening up under pressure is simply wrong is using it against its own argument. Limits, two theirs and one added: the literatures spanned use overlapping rather than equivalent notions of threat and control, which the authors say makes their conclusions more speculative than they would like; the individual-level evidence is largely from the 1940s and 1950s; and the cross-level parallel is best treated as a well-argued proposition rather than a demonstrated fact. Neither psychological safety nor Edmondson appears anywhere, which is chronology rather than oversight. The bridge is that this supplies the mechanism the construct needs and rarely states: psychological safety is not a stable property of a team but a casualty of the very conditions that make it most valuable, and any intervention assuming a team under threat will behave like a team at rest has assumed away the effect.

Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1981) 'Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis', Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 501-524.

Neighbours (14)

View the source paper →