My adviser, who is well-published, tells me that one of the keys to publishing is to have a 2x2 matrix. Management academics love 2x2 matrices, where we show the interaction of two orthogonal (i.e., independent; the level of one doesn't tell you anything about the level of the other) constructs. At the moment, behavior v. attitude matrices are all the rage.
Having gone out for coffee and a danish this morning, my wife and I were discussing the interaction of "friendly" and "competent," illustrated by this 2x2 matrix.
Obviously, we prefer our counter-help to be competent and friendly, and least prefer incompetent and unfriendly. But how would you rank second and third? It does depend on context -- this is what we would call a contingent model. My car mechanic can be unfriendly if competent. What we couldn't decide is, at the coffee shop, is it better to be friendly but incompetent or competent and unfriendly.
For those wondering, what we got this morning was an order-taker who as unfriendly and incompetent and a barista (used generically, as we weren't at Starbucks) who was friendly but incompetent.
After competent/friendly, my next choice is for competent/unfriendly. Though for a server, isn't friendliness part of the definition of competence?
ReplyDeleteBret:
ReplyDeleteThanks to work by Sutton and Rafaeli, we know the answer to this. People like friendly servers, but they like getting served expeditiously better. Sutton and Rafaeli designed a study they thought would prove the low-hanging fruit that displays of positive emotion (what you and I call friendliness) leads to higher sales. What they found instead is that friendliness is negatively correlated with higher sales, not because unfriendliness causes people to buy more, but because in high traffic environments, people want to just pay and go, reducing wait times for everyone. As a result, in high traffic stores, the servers tend to be more "businesslike," which, come to think of it, is a telling description.
PS. Once again reviewer three challenges the orthoganality of our constructs and suggests that our analysis is plagued by endogeneity.
ReplyDeleteHate to complicate your matrix, but it really depends on how incompetent we're talking. If it's just slightly incompetent that can be endearing; but if it's grossly incompetent I'd prefer the rude bugger who knows what he's doing.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm at the back of the line, I want competence before friendliness, but I'll value friendliness more the closer to the front of the line I am. But Brit is right. Are you talking about incompetence in the sense of being a little confused by the cash machine, or incompetence in the sense of getting back in the car with the take-out and finding the order completely screwed up?
ReplyDelete